Speaker 1: 76g introduction of ordinance, amending the Animal Missile Code by revising Section two, Dash 59.3 limitation and power to make contracts of Article four, contracts of Chapter two Administration authorizing the city manager and the city attorney to settle liability claims up to 75,000 unless otherwise limited by law, and to set of liability claims involving payments by excess liability coverage.
Speaker 0: Council, you've read this report. Are there any questions and emotions?
Speaker 6: So. Councilmember Desai So the one point that I transmitted to both the city attorney and the city manager is thoughts on some kind of cumulative annual annual cumulative cap. Because the way that I'm reading it now is that if there is an item that is less than $75,000, then that could potentially be, you know, of Fast-Track. But suppose there are five or ten of those things in a given year that could be a lot of money. So my thought was that there ought to be a cumulative cap. So I'm fine with the 75,000.
Speaker 0: But is that a motion? Mr. Desai.
Speaker 6: Adds? A motion capping it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Is there a second?
Speaker 4: What's the cap?
Speaker 6: Well, I know what the cap is.
Speaker 0: Yeah, okay. What's the cap?
Speaker 6: If if our executive staff has some suggestions as to.
Speaker 0: What you made the motion. What's your idea?
Speaker 6: My idea is no more than five. So five times 75,000. In other words, it would be.
Speaker 11: Well, it would get more complex than that, because.
Speaker 0: Cancer women cancer women still have it to a normal level. Could you wait so we get a second for the motion because then we can have a discussion second. Okay. So we've had a motion by accounts of her day, so it's been seconded by Councilmember O.D. So now let's have discussion, Mr. Leavitt.
Speaker 11: I guess I would recommend that you just put a flat number as your cap. I don't know that I have a suggestion because it get more complex, because if you have like five, 25,000 and then four 75,050 thousand, it's hard to say 655 because you're thinking five 75,000. So you could do okay, but that would be 375,000. You could do that. I mean, if you want.
Speaker 6: To do so, I would make that cumulative cap at three 300,000.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we've had a revised motion to have a cumulative cap on the number of settlements to 30 or selling liability claims up to $75,000. Do we have a second to that amended motion? Mm hmm. Yes. Okay. That's been seconded. Now, Mr. that Mr. Shand.
Speaker 7: I'll just share a couple of thoughts on this. One of them is that the counsel may, at a minimum, want to exempt workers compensation cases because those cases, as you probably have heard, generally involve very limited discretion and can have significant amounts, but very limited discretion and significant insurance coverage that may not make sense to be included in the CAP. The council may want to also consider, for example, if you were to establish a cap to exempt personnel matters because for instance, the city manager more likely and myself with respect to folks in the city attorney's office in implementing our obligations to to manage the administrative service, may have a situation, for example, where there is a separation. And in that separation there may be a continuation of pay for a certain amount of time. And those are probably not what Councilmember de SAC is envisioning by acclamation.
Speaker 6: So personnel matters and what was the first one?
Speaker 7: And worker's compensation matters. And so those would be my suggestion. One of the other inclusions in the staff report is that a third category you may want to exempt is any matter where excess insurance carriers already, where the claim pierces the excess insurance layer and excess insurance carriers have already indicated a settlement because if we reject the excess insurance settlement amount where excess layer is at risk, we risk loss of coverage completely, which would be somewhat devastating to the city's overall risk management process.
Speaker 0: I actually the okay, I just want to say, I don't quite understand what it is we would be accomplishing either. We trust the city manager and I guess the it is the city managers authority I believe to and the city attorney to settle liability claims up to 75,000 without having to come back to us. And so we're trusting them with six of those, but not seven. I just it's confusing to me what we would be achieving. Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 9: Um, matter to me. I share your concern. I think I'm less concerned with a cap than some sort of council. F Why I where there's and I would be more, I would be more open to a council if y I if there's going to be a number of settlements under that cap going into effect. For instance, if for some instance you had a number of personnel issues and all of a sudden had, you know, a number that you were going to be passing through. So I would be I would be okay with that. I think we have we but if we had a council, if y then there could be a, you know, potential call for a review process or something like that. If there was some sort of concern that it could be raised and I would be more open to that than a, um, and again, I wouldn't want the details , for instance, I wouldn't want the names of individuals or things like that. But, but just letting us know, just generally that settlements have gone through. That would be I'd be okay with that. I feel like it would be very difficult to have a cap because that seems to defeat the purpose of allowing the settlement authority. But I hear your concern, Councilmember De Sang about wanting to know about multiple expenditures. There's. And that's where I think an FBI would be helpful, perhaps.
Speaker 0: Well, and along those lines, I mean, I would actually like to be advised, whenever you settle a case and maybe there could be the line at the end that says this, now, you know, we've now settled, you know, however many dollars, thousands of dollars in settlement this this year. But and actually you do tend to give us those. Yeah.
Speaker 7: And so we provide the council with an annual report on all settlements, which is an open session public staff report. And we are happy to continue to obviously provide that. And if the council wishes for a more up to date f why i I'm. Certainly happy to commit to that. It sounds like the city manager is as well for anything that he would settle, I guess.
Speaker 4: Go on.
Speaker 6: I guess where I'm.
Speaker 0: At some every day.
Speaker 6: So where I'm coming from is a you know, obviously it's always good to know, you know, at what point, you know, what where is the cumulative amount going. I mean, as a matter of information, it's always good to know. But B, without going into closed door sessions, I mean, it's altogether possible that this council or previous councils had dealt with on a closed door or matter things of this magnitude.
Speaker 0: Mr. Desai, please excuse my interruption, but it's 1059 and we have to make a motion. We have one more item to consider, which is 9 a.m., which is actually my council referral.
Speaker 9: I move that we we we waive time and hear that item.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Do have a second. Okay. All in favor, I. Okay. All right. Yes. Continue. Thank you.
Speaker 6: You know, it's altogether possible that previous city councils in closed door sessions had dealt with matter the the cost resolution of which was similar to what's being discussed right now as part of this item. Previous city council members, I mean, I don't know what the city council member like wouldn't say it out loud. So it seems to me my point be is it just seems odd that, you know, those things require closed door sessions and now it's completely possible that that well, if we adopt this this wouldn't it's it's like so it just seems odd.
Speaker 5: Because we didn't have.
Speaker 0: Um. Okay, I think. I think I understand what you're saying. Do you want to? And I'll go to you in just a minute, Mr. Vice Mayor. But do either of you want to address what I think Mr. De was saying.
Speaker 2: That I think I think.
Speaker 7: Councilmember de socks point is that by doing this, there will be less closed sessions. And I think that is right.
Speaker 0: And, um. Okay. The Vice Mayor and then Councilmember Vella, did you get.
Speaker 7: To the point I appreciate that there's an annual report, but I think there's a threshold. Maybe it's 20 or 25,000 at which I would want more more of an immediate we've settled for this amount. Just it becomes public. It would be good to know in that way if it became something that we were seeing a lot of, we would know quickly and be able to take action. The Council. My recommendation would be that Council give us direction tonight if that's what the Council's going to say, for example, that any settlement over 25,000, we provide you with an update within, let's say, five days of the settlement with that.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, I think I will. Let me let's hear from Councilor Brody because he's. We haven't heard much from you. I'm calling on you.
Speaker 4: Okay. Sorry. I mean, I'd be happy with moving that annual report to a quarterly report, if that's something you could do, that would give us a little more information, I guess. I mean, I do trust that you wouldn't settle something that you thought was frivolous. But I think there's also a certain subset of claims that many of us have expressed concern over. So I hope you would take that into consideration without, you know, ones that would cause our employee to be, like held liable or something. I mean, I think, you know what I'm saying. So, I mean, maybe you would not settle those. You would bring them even if it was for a smaller amount than 75,000.
Speaker 2: So so is your.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm actually calling on the speakers and you're not the next one, Councilmember Vella, but I'll get back to you.
Speaker 9: I think part of the reason that we've heard some of these items in closed session is because this authority wasn't there previously. Um, but I, I think 25,000 is low and here's, here's in, in terms of getting enough why I, and here's why. If there's a personnel matter where let's say you're negotiating, you know, basically a cash out of certain things or medical coverage or something like that, then you can you can hit 25,000 pretty quickly. And I, I just I am wary of it becoming a political thing where there's a temptation for council members to intervene politically somehow, and then it becomes a charter violation. So I, I do think there's certain personnel matters that that fall within in the scope of our designees. And I really don't want to have any. Even, you know, for anyone to even think that they could come to us on it, especially where there's a settlement involved. So I do have some concerns over over having it be to especially over like a smaller amount. But I would be fine with it if I to me were, were if we're going to give you the authority, then I'd like to just give you the authority and then just, hey, give us enough y so that we know that there's been a settlement. I think giving a dollar amount makes it kind of weird, whereas if you just let us know, hey, we've settled it this matter. If you hear about it, I think that's more helpful, at least from my perspective, so that if it is in the press or something happens, we know there was a settlement that that was agreed to. So does that make sense? It's not really the dollar amount so much as just knowing that we've reached a settlement in some cases concluded.
Speaker 0: So maybe in the same week that it occurred, I mean, the city manager tends to give us weekly reports and the city attorney does before any closed session. So does does that count somebody and then decide, well.
Speaker 4: I second it so we can have a discussion, but I think I'm convinced that we don't need to put a cap.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Daza. Okay.
Speaker 6: And the point is, after the reporting, if there's something things really wrong, then we put the case right.
Speaker 2: Okay. What are we.
Speaker 9: Seeing? Where we're saying that it's coming up all the time.
Speaker 6: That's fine.
Speaker 0: How about you, Vice Mayor?
Speaker 2: It's fine.
Speaker 0: It's fine. Okay. Do I ever revise to have revised motion now? So I think I was hearing. But some have can stop me that we will approve this $75,000 limit to settle claims with the exceptions that the city.
Speaker 4: We don't need exceptions.
Speaker 5: I don't think we.
Speaker 0: Need the exemptions.
Speaker 4: For exemptions to.
Speaker 9: Reporting. Do you want to draw your motion?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 9: I'd like to make a new motion.
Speaker 0: Make any motion.
Speaker 9: I would like to move that. We pass the ordinance as drafted with direction to staff that that there be at Council F y when there's a settlement made.
Speaker 6: I'll second that.
Speaker 4: I'd still like to see a.
Speaker 2: Quarterly or a quarterly.
Speaker 9: Work within within a council of why within a week of the settlement. And do you want a quarterly report in addition to that.
Speaker 0: Well, what's the litigation report? Yeah.
Speaker 7: It's annual.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: So it's annual.
Speaker 9: And could could we get in at perhaps get an update in the mid-year.
Speaker 0: Six months.
Speaker 2: Perhaps or. All right.
Speaker 0: We don't want to because I don't think we wanted too much extra work.
Speaker 9: So so then it would be part of the midyear and then. And then the budget?
Speaker 0: Yes. So do we. Are we clear on that motion? Are you, madam?
Speaker 2: Cleared the next year.
Speaker 0: Let's hear what the code says.
Speaker 5: That you're introducing. The ordinance is drafted with direction.
Speaker 1: That there be a council fire within a week of the settlement. And then you've just decided that what you want is just an update as part of the mid-year budget.
Speaker 9: Mid-Year and annual.
Speaker 1: Mid-Year and annual budget. So Semiannually.
Speaker 2: So yeah. So I think that that works. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay, move. Councilmember Vela, seconded by Councilmember de SAC. All in favor. I oppose your abstained. The motion passes unanimously. Thanks, everyone. Good discussion. Okay. Item seven City Manager, Communications.
Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising Section 2-59.3 (Limitation and Power to Make Contracts) of Article IV (Contracts) of Chapter II (Administration), Authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to Settle Liability Claims up to $75,000 Unless Otherwise Limited by Law and to Settle Liability Claims Involving Payments by Excess Liability Coverage. (City Attorney 2310)