Speaker 0: So item six B Madam Clerk.
Speaker 1: Provide direction on letter to the presiding judge of the Allegheny County Superior Court in response to the 2018 19 Alameda County Grand Jury. Final Report.
Speaker 0: Thank you, OC Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. In an abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself on this entire item, perhaps after the city attorney can, you know, remind people of recusal and who makes that decision and so on. But I'm not going to be here for that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Oti and Councilmember Vela.
Speaker 11: Yes. And in an abundance of caution, I'm also going to be recusing myself from the entire item.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Vela. Okay. With that, it is 829. We're coming back in 10 minutes and I do mean 10 minutes. I'll see you all at eight. Well, 840. 11 minutes. Is that okay? Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. And then gentlemen here, just.
Speaker 1: 77.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes, I am.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: If I could ask everyone to take their seats. The city council meeting is back in session on the people. The city council meeting is back in session. Please sit down and stop talking so much as I love you. All set.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone. We really. We have lots to cover. And we do our best work when it's not the middle of the night, at least as far as I'm concerned. So, Madam Clerk, could I have you please introduce this next item, and then I'm going to ask the city attorney for a brief explanation.
Speaker 1: This is provide direction on letter to the presiding judge of the Alameda County Superior Court in response to the 2018 19 Alameda County grand jury final report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mr. Chan, if I could ask you, just before we took our break, two of our colleagues recused themselves. Could you give the audience a brief explanation of what that means?
Speaker 12: I'm happy to do so under state and common law. Recusals happen here. I'll get closer to the microphone. This is.
Speaker 0: Better. That's better.
Speaker 12: Understand, in common law, elected officials may choose to recuse him or herself when they believe that there is a conflict of interest. That decision belongs to each individual elected official. Our office provides advice on that topic. So does the PC. Ultimately, each elected official will have to make their own decision on whether or not there is a conflict that's presented that would counsel for recusal. And when an elected official makes that decision, they announce that from the dais and they leave the room. And that is what you saw tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shinn. So at this point, I was actually going to dispense with the staff report because it's very brief and I think probably quite understandable. And I imagine we have quite a few public.
Speaker 1: Speakers, 18.
Speaker 0: 18 So when we have more than six public speakers, you each get 2 minutes. And as you have previously observed, we, we are strict about observing that because otherwise things just will be here way too long. So it really helps if when you hear your name in the city clerk, we'll call a series of names, if you will, just scoot out to the aisle so you can get up to the the podium and you will have our undivided attention. And I would just request the audience and you've been a great audience, and I just continue to be respectful as you are. Everyone has a right to speak, regardless of their opinion, regardless of whether you agree with it or disagree with it. We we don't applaud Heckle Boo do the way. We just listen respectfully so that no one is intimidated into not wanting to speak. So with that, let's get started with public comment. Of course. Councilmember Vice Mayor, I.
Speaker 6: Have one question. Of course. We've received a number of social media has been rife with comments. We've received a number of letters from people asking us tonight to take action to remove our colleagues. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how it is an elected official sitting on a city council in Alameda can be elected or removed from office.
Speaker 12: Be happy to you generally. And in this case, there are essentially three methods that an elected official, for example, a council member, may be removed from office. One of them is through the district attorney's grand jury process, which is what we're here to discuss today, though, it's important to know that the grand jury did not return an accusation. And so that process is not before the council and it's not before the public. The second possibility and these are all just theoretical possibilities of if there is a elected official convicted of a felony under the state law and an elected official once convicted of such a crime will be automatically removed. And thirdly, it's through the electoral process, either through a recall petition or at the ballot box at the regular election cycle. The Alameda City Charter does not provide for, nor does the general law provide for the opportunity for a city council to remove one of its members. And that particular action is not available to the council and certainly not before the council tonight.
Speaker 6: Can I ask just a clarifying you use the term accusation that the general that the grand jury did not return an accusation. Can you just talk about the.
Speaker 12: Of that? Absolutely. So that is a legal term under state law. If a grand jury believes that a a crime that was committed and committed and it was serious enough and there were sufficient votes. The grand jury could forward what's essentially a legal document, which is called an accusation to the district attorney, requesting that the district attorney charged a public official with removal. And that did not occur in this case.
Speaker 0: And I'll follow up with to that. But the grand jury did comment on that, I believe, on the electoral process in talking about its decision not to make the accusation.
Speaker 12: Certainly the grand I mean, the report provides that the electoral the grand jury essentially deferred to the electoral process to make that decision, which is either at the ballot box or through a recall process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor.
Speaker 6: So it's just just the one last thing. So in this case, no crime where violating violating the charter is not a crime. So there's no felony charge or anything that the district attorney could prosecute. So the only way the district attorney would get involved in removing would be to prosecute a grand jury accusation. And so the process would be that the grand jury would be asked to look at that. They would make a finding. And then if they determined during that. Is that.
Speaker 0: A question?
Speaker 6: I just want to. Yeah. That they would return an accusation that it would be prosecuted. And at that point in time, the removal would happen. Right. That so I want to just make sure I understand the process.
Speaker 12: So I don't want to comment on whether or not a crime is or isn't present because that that's it's difficult for me to comment on what the district attorney may or may not determine whether or not a crime is present. That's certainly not before the council tonight and not before this and not what this action is. The the report itself speaks for itself.
Speaker 6: Right. And is the end of that process the end the end of the civil grand jury process.
Speaker 12: Essentially, with this council having to take an action tonight to provide responses?
Speaker 6: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And that is an important distinction. This was a report by the civil grand jury.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Any further clarification questions? Okay. So with that, we're going to get started on public comment.
Speaker 1: Russ Chia, Teeny, Laura Thomas and Tony Graham.
Speaker 2: Mayor Ashcraft, members of the city council. Tonight should be a night of celebration.
Speaker 0: It is. Mike.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sorry. Tonight should be a night of celebration. I say that because finally, an independent body, a cross-section of the community in Alameda County, had a chance to review the misconduct charges against Councilperson Vela A.D. in their investigation, unlike the city investigation. They got to hear all the evidence. They got to hear the tape recording, which is the best evidence in this case. Not surprisingly, the grand jury examined all the evidence, and they found that Councilman Vela and O.D. improperly tried to influence the selection of the new fire chief in Alameda. Maybe more shockingly, they concluded that the accused council persons were allowed to participate in the editing of the City Run Investigation Report. I got to tell you, I was a prosecutor for 40 years. We never invited the accused in to alter the police reports. It's that's the most primitive notion of conflict of interest, how they could participate in something that is examining their own conduct. But nevertheless, they did. So sadly, tonight, we're not celebrating. The handling of this matter by Syd. The city has been shameful at best. It erodes any confidence the taxpayer should have and elected to city officials. We've already paid out $1,000,000 for the mist, mis deeds of these two council persons. And now you're going to be making decisions on whether or not we pay $200,000 for their attorney fees. All the while, the public's been kept in the dark. Public media has made requests for a copy of the tape, and the city has stonewalled too many major media outlets. So I would implore you to release the tape and not to vote to pay the attorneys.
Speaker 0: Give estrogen tenure. Your next speaker is Thomas Graham. No, it's not Q&A. No. Later, you can ask of the city attorney if you had a question. But no, it was not Q&A. Good evening.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. And council members present. I'm Laura Thomas with the Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. And tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Alameda, renters, seniors, labor and all who support our strong progressive council. I want to thank the grand jury for its work and the city for taking steps to resolve an issue that's become a distraction . While many of us don't agree with all aspects of the findings or how the fire chief selection process was characterized, we should all be able to agree on the following. First, the Chief Rodriguez has been doing a great job leading the department and building trust with his firefighters and the public. We thank the chief and the firefighters for responding so quickly to the Woodstock fire this weekend. Second, we can agree that with the new city leadership, new city manager, mayor and council members who have championed our 9911 our emergency medical or affordable housing and homeless services, that our city is positioned to address the challenges that remain. Our island is characterized now by a strong quality of life diversity and a welcoming spirit. Yet our immigrants are under attack like never before, and future generations of Alabamians may never be able to afford to live here. Traffic congestion threatens our quality of life, and we need real transit solutions. And finally, sea level rise will affect our unique island environment. We ask that you answer our call to move forward as a team to address these issues. We need the strong leadership that each one of you provides. And we have a coalition here tonight that is calling for this. All these everybody here. It is in that spirit, that vocal unable.
Speaker 0: Ask you to sit down so you don't block the view of people behind you. But thank you. Your attendance is noted.
Speaker 3: It's in that spirit that the vocal, unabashed commitment to our safety and quality of life from two council members. That brings us here today. As you know, public service and gratifying.
Speaker 0: And next speaker.
Speaker 1: Is Tony Grimm and Sunny Duncan and Elizabeth Green.
Speaker 0: Okay. Queue up, if you would. Hello.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I want to express my appreciation to council members Jim Audy, Amelia Vella for their service to the Alamogordo community. During all of the council meetings I have attended or listened to over the course of several years. They have always been well-prepared to discuss the issues at hand. They consider input from their constituency. They have thoughtful questions and they give the reasons for their decisions. I believe that they have always acted in good faith. I do not intend to imply that other council members did not do this also. But I want to single out members Odion Vella tonight because I believe they are under attack by political opponents. I want them to know that there are a lot of people in Alameda who support them. We are the people who elected them. I hope that the Council will make changes to the city charter and enact new procedures that will make it very clear to council members now and in the future what they can and cannot do to represent their constituents. Please decide when a letter of recommendation is in various interference and when it is, a council member is right to advocate for a constituent so that the door is not left open for politicizing council members actions and city procedures at great expense to the city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Duncan and Elizabeth Green, then Bernie Mathews. Okay. Mr.. Hello. You all know me. I'm Barney Duncan, and I came here for Jim and Leah. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a tenant. I know nothing about the law. But I did read in the paper what the court said. The way I took it, the court has said everybody.
Speaker 0: Needs to go to.
Speaker 1: Classes. They have to learn how to run.
Speaker 3: The council.
Speaker 1: And the staff members have to learn how to run the staff. That's what I got out of the whole thing. Okay. Maria Melia and Jim have helped the tenants out more than anyone else.
Speaker 3: They fought for.
Speaker 2: Us.
Speaker 3: They backed us up. And as far as I'm concerned, if you get rid of them, you're.
Speaker 1: Getting rid of the two people that are really good on this council.
Speaker 2: We finally got a.
Speaker 3: Council that cares about the tenants. You also now own and care about the tenants.
Speaker 1: And you, John Whyte, care about the tenants. I, you know, I don't know the new city attorney or the city manager and the city clerk all I don't know. But I do know these people. I have spoke with them. I have got.
Speaker 3: My point across to them. I'm only a tenant. I don't have all this big.
Speaker 0: Language.
Speaker 1: That you expect to come out of my mouth. It doesn't come out of my mouth.
Speaker 2: I'm just a street.
Speaker 1: Person that wants to keep people in.
Speaker 3: That back doors up. That's it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Green.
Speaker 3: Hello again. I've reviewed the grand jury's report and the city's draft response to the grand jury. I strongly encourage the city to revise its response letter to completely accept the grand jury's findings and recommendations without qualifications. I find many of the city's draft responses to be filled with wiggle words such as staff and council worked together to consider options for additional training or consider strengthening the charter. That's not good enough. All the option to responses have to go. The Grand Juries report makes it clear that both council members one and two, behaved unethically in their coercion of this former city manager. The city must take concrete actions now, including revising the city charter to prevent conflicts of interest and council interference with the city manager. The city must implement a code of conduct and mandate regular ethics training for council members and senior staff. Now, let's take a step back and look back. Look at this event in a maybe simpler, less legalistic way. I think what we really have here is a case of two council members who attempted to bully the former city manager, have not admitted their errors and now seek to be rewarded for their bad behavior by requesting reimbursement for their legal expenses. Perhaps they may even pursue legal action against the city in order to be reimbursed. How can this possibly be okay? How can we explain to our children that our city government is so corrupt that it allows bullies to call the shots? Madam Mayor and Council members, I urge you to seriously implement every measure recommended by the Grand Jury in order to attempt to restore a measure of public trust in city government.
Speaker 0: And our next speaker is.
Speaker 1: Mr. Mathews Bowling and Pam Low.
Speaker 0: Yet. Come on up.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Bernie Mathews. I was in the law and municipal law enforcement for 40 years. I had the honor and privilege last 12 of those 40 to be your police chief. I've stated in the past I am extremely concerned about the demonstrated lack of leadership, ethical behavior, failures to following the rules and regulations, the law, and owning up to mistakes by the City Council. Specifically, two of its members whose lack of ethical behavior, which has been documented in the recent Alameda County Grand Jury Report regarding the debacle of the hiring process of the fire chief. As I speak to you tonight, absolutely no action has been initiated by by this council to reprimand and or censure Mr. O.D. or Ms.. Vale of unethical conduct on their part regarding this issue. The proposition that the offending members did not know that this was a violation of the law but also was a violation of common sense and honor, is truly unbelievable to believe that Mrs. Vella, an attorney as well as an adjunct professor at Mills College, teaching ethics and Mr. O.D., a state director for California Assembly member, did not know that this was a violation is simply laughable. Also, sadly, when all totals are going to cost the taxpayers over $1,000,000, of course, mingled in all this intrigue is a five ton elephant in the room, the Alameda Firefighters Union, which has a strong hold and influence on this council in this case, certainly Mr. O.D. and as well . In closing, I strongly urging the city council to impose consequences and discipline and or censure both Della Vella and O.D. based on proven grand jury documentations of violations of law and intent to and also release the tape recordings obtained by the former city manager in the public. Let us not do a Trump esq move and ignore the facts and allow the behavior to have no consequences. Instead, you must and do the right and moral thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. MATTHEWS. Our next speaker is.
Speaker 1: Zac BOLLING, then Panelo, then Steve Slackman.
Speaker 4: Hey, counsel. So the grand jury made some mistakes in its investigation. They never interview the council members that were actually directly involved in any of this. And they made false claims like militia voting for the package that she didn't. The grand jury process doesn't give the council members really any point to clarify any of their actions. It's not that process. All they do is they provide oversight. They make recommendations. They can start formal accusations, but they're not that kind of body to claim and give them an opportunity to make their case. People like to use it as a statement of fact of what actually occurred. And I don't believe that they acted unethically myself. I think that my actions and are watching them. They are honorable people. And so given all that specifically on this this thing, I would ask you on finding 19 four, you respond with option two in the draft letter that two claimed that both of them committed charter violations is incorrect. It also set a very terrible precedent that if you you guys you guys don't make a lot. You make gas money to get here. And it sets a terrible precedent that the only people that could ever sit up on council are people that are well-off enough to personally take the burden.
Speaker 5: On of any.
Speaker 4: Kind of action that they could take. Like me and my job, I wouldn't I'm not personally liable if I make a mistake at work like I might get fired, but I don't have to burden that expense. And to say that our council members have to they're not indemnify. They don't get paid back. That's I know it's not the issue today, but they deserve it. They deserve to have their legal expenses paid because it's a terrible precedent to set. To say that the only people that can sit up on this council are the people that are well-off enough, that are in the top echelons that have 100 grand.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Your next speaker is Pam Lowe. And I'll remind the audience, we don't applaud and we don't comment. We just listen to our speakers and we have one speaker at a time. We don't see.
Speaker 1: Ten.
Speaker 0: Perfect. We do allow moral support.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 3: From the information provided in the grand jury report, it is clear to council members intentionally and inappropriately interfered in the fair chief hiring process. The city of Alameda is not partially responsible due to inadequately training new council members on finding 19 dash to a support opinion to partially disagree. I'm not a lawyer, but as a citizen I would expect most report subjects to be honest to tender their resignation as part of the city's response to the grand jury report. I understand there's no enforcement mechanism, but when it says in the city charter section seven, dash three, an attempt by a council member to influence the city manager in the making of an appointment or the purchase of any materials or supplies shall subject such council member to removal from office for malfeasance. It's pretty clear to me I don't know what malfeasance is, but removal from office is really clear. I'm finding 19 dash four I so I support option one agree and I urge the editor the comment to read to council members did attempt to influence the city manager. Therefore the other council members. Personally, I would call for their resignation. I understand it's up to them, or at least an extremely strong censorship. I also am concerned of the precedent being set by the actions in this entire affair. On recommendation 319, Dash three. I support, frankly, a new option three, which is that this recommendation has been adopted and implemented effective immediately, that no legal representation cost related to this matter shall be reimbursed. If I took a truck and ran into the library, can I submit for reimbursement from the city? Because nobody sent me a notice that that was specifically illegal, right? I received no training to that effect. You can't make.
Speaker 1: A listening to you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Our next speaker is. Our series of speakers are.
Speaker 1: Steve Larson, David GREENE and Jerry Johanson.
Speaker 0: There's Mr. Slauson and Mr. Green. Okay.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft and council members. The grand jury report is very clear. Council members Villa and Odie violated the city charter and interfered with the city manager's duties. These two have damaged the city and the people of Alameda to the tune of $1,000,000. These two have damaged the integrity of this city government, and now they have insulted the people of Alameda by asking us to pay for their attorney's fees to cover the cost of their unlawful conduct. They say there should be some more training for these two malarkey. These two knew what to do. Ignorance of the law in their case is no defense. It is specifically requested that the proper response to the grand jury report is a submission of the resignation of Council member Odie and Council member Vella, and also as item number two, a firm rejection for their request for their attorney's fees. It is suggested you three have a heart to heart. Chat with those two and tell them it is the only honorable thing for them to do and clear up this mess so we can all move forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Green. And just for clarification. The request for payment of legal fees is not before us tonight.
Speaker 10: It's not, but it.
Speaker 2: Will be.
Speaker 0: Okay. Your time is starting.
Speaker 10: 17, 17. A 17 year old girl stood up here and was crying today. She was crying because she's looking for protection. She was talking to the leader. She was looking for help. And yet she's talking to two people up here who a grand jury found were fighting to hire somebody who's less than the best to give her protection. A less than qualified chief of the fire department than what was otherwise available. That's what they were fighting for. And that's what these are. It's just frustrating. So the bottom line is this. The council has already approved a million bucks to help to try to clean up the problem. There's an implication of people screwed up in that to go ahead and say you screwed up and you're also going to get reimbursed the 200 bucks, the $200,000. That's just talk about setting a bad precedent. You three need to have a deep talk with each of yourselves because their behavior is reflecting on you right now. What your reactions are to this and coming out and talking about whether or not you endorse the behavior that took place or not. That's going to be what I'm really going to be waiting for and listening to, not as a complete counsel. I'll be listening to that, but as the individuals on the council as well. Removal for malfeasance. Just create the process for doing that and get rid of them. You have the powers.
Speaker 0: To bring in. Our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Is Johansen and have Todd then Trish Spencer.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I first want to applaud Councilman Desai and Councilman White for already starting this process by holding public hearings on how to.
Speaker 1: Revise and update the charter.
Speaker 3: I was fortunate to attend one of those meetings and I think that's a great step in the right direction. Basically, what this is an issue along with some of the other issues that has divided our community.
Speaker 1: It it's preventing us from moving forward.
Speaker 3: Our two council members have worked Derrick.
Speaker 1: Have been dedicated to Alameda and to the people of Alameda.
Speaker 3: And this issue has just kind of been holding us back.
Speaker 1: So I'm hoping that we can get beyond it.
Speaker 3: That we can make recommendations, that we can move forward.
Speaker 1: And that we can have training and that we can revise.
Speaker 3: The charter so that it's more specific how to regulate this and that we continue with the team that we have.
Speaker 1: Because I think we're moving forward in Alameda and we need to concentrate on much more the climate action and a lot of trafficking and rent and families and.
Speaker 3: A lot of other issues. So I'm hoping that we all can move forward.
Speaker 1: In a positive way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. TEICH.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everybody. This is very distressing. The poor are holding.
Speaker 0: Closer to the microphone, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Better?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Just briefly. Before coming here, I reread the Declaration of Independence, the full marvel that enumerated all the aggressions or. Or failings of the despot in England. I'm reading it, and all along it is. It's detailing what's happening today. Not only here in Alameda, but across the country. There's an organization called Equal Justice. They take on all cases to just resolution. I sat on a grand jury a couple of years ago in Lake County. Now, I can't go back there unless I'm armed and involved. Crystal meth. This disturbing grand jury report is scathing. There's no there's just no glossing over it. Something must be done. Somebody needs to become contrite instead of demanding a payment for attorney services that they created. Nobody's going to pay for my defender, my public defender. They stand up there and don't do a thing. I still get guilty. Equal justice. Whether it's for an officer, city councilman, a street person. A. Victim of mortgage and securities violations. These are all real. They take place every day in our society and nobody cares who holds the deed on this property. Which bank is it sitting? It would deed. What bank is holding the deed on?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ernie Martin here is thank you.
Speaker 1: Trish Spencer, Barbara Cohn and Rosalind Fortuna.
Speaker 0: All right, Ms.. Spencer.
Speaker 1: Evening. Thank you. The charter language is very clear. Article two, section two, dash to a council. Appoint city manager. Article seven, Section seven, dash two. City manager shall have the power and it shall be his or her duty. See to appoint employees of the city under his or her jurisdiction. That includes the fire chief. Section seven, Dash three. Neither council nor any member shall interfere with the execution by the city manager of their duties and an attempt by a City Council member to influence the City Manager in the making of any appointment shall subject such City and City Council member to removal from office for malfeasance. So I think that's actually very clear. I think the grand jury did get it wrong. I know in regards to the vote for the multimillion dollar settlement, it was 3 to 2 with member Vela and myself voting no. I think that has to be corrected. I think that's significant because Member Ody did vote as part of the three to support it. For clarification, I was not interviewed by the grand jury finding 19 dash one failure to provide council members with adequate training. There's sufficient training, and I don't think there's any problem with the training. And as was stated before, you have to the both councilmembers are attorneys. So I would say option two on that partially disagree. Friday night 19 Dash two Charter.
Speaker 3: Fails to provide enforcement mechanisms. Again, I think the charter is very clear.
Speaker 1: Subject to removal. So for that, I would say option to 19 Dash three participation and editing. I again would say option two. I we asked the city attorney at the time they were told they could participate. But at the end of the day, I think the report was independent. 19 Dash four Was there interference? I would partially disagree because the question is an attempt to influence. That's what our charter provides.
Speaker 0: And thank you for being here. Next speaker is Ms.. Cohen. I believe Ms.. Cohen.
Speaker 3: I don't really need a mike because.
Speaker 0: Actually you do. But I do. People I'm listening to television won't hear you unless you're in talking to Mike.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to be short and sweet. My name is Barbara Cohn. I'm a resident of Alameda, been living here for the last 40 years. I second most of what the people have said before me in terms of the behavior of these two council people, I would think presumed on how intelligent and well prepared they are. They would have known better than to violate the city charter. So my question to you is, when is this going to be resolved? Is it going to be behind closed door? And we're going to read about it in the Sun or the journal, and we'll find out that the city council has paid for their legal fees, which I find very questionable. And is there going to be a future meeting on this so that we know what's going on? Is this going to be done behind a closed door? And my other recommendation is, I think the three minute rule for all speakers is good. I think it should also be applied to the members of the city council.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. And just for clarification, because that was addressed. We actually do have a time limit. We have 9 minutes per item and we have our clocks in front of us as well. But since we're making the policy and not just commenting on an item, that was something that was determined. And I do find that our speakers are quite able to enunciate their views in two or 3 minutes. And our next speaker.
Speaker 1: Is Rosa, Linda Fortuna. Then Doug Briggs, then Doyle Saylor. All right.
Speaker 0: You heard the clerk. So be ready and we'll keep this moving.
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Rosa, Linda Fortuna. I want to thank council members Vella and Odie for their decision to recuse themselves because of their conflict of interest. The public needs to be allowed to review the unredacted independent investigation report, which is originally 70 pages along with the city council. The City Council Members Redacted report, which the Council edited and reduced this outsiders report from 70 pages to 13 pages. The grand jury concluded that the council's editing of the report from 70 pages to only 13 pages, damaged the independence of the analysis. The grand jury also concluded that the council members should not have participated in the acceptance and editing of this report. They should not have been allowed to participate, period, because of their personal interest that conflicted with their official capacities. Mayor Ashcroft's recommendation, heard in her letter to Judge Carvill for city council workshops, does not resolve the problem that we have. Both council members, Belen OED are licensed California attorneys. They both had to pass the ethics tests for the state bar. Any lawyer can read City Charter Section seven, Dash three, and know that any attempt by a council member to influence the city manager in the making of any important man shall subject such council member to removal. Any lawyer should be competent to read and understand the law. Councilman Bruce Belen already knew exactly what they were doing. I would like Alameda who are watching this council meeting on TV to remember when elections come next year in 2020 when voting for two open seat city council members between.
Speaker 0: And I believe Mr. Biggs is there next. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Biggs. And Mr. Biggs is followed by Mr. Saylor. Do I hear? Okay.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm a resident of Alameda. I want to appreciate the comments that Vice Mayor John actually began at this meeting. Your job is not tonight.
Speaker 0: Is that just 1/2 and hold this time, please? I'm gonna ask that anyone who wants to make conversation in the audience do so in the hall so we can concentrate on the speaker. So can I get anyone who wants to make conversation to take that outside to the hall? Okay. This is the speaker's time. Please present Mr. Biggs, clerk.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate the comment that was made in the clarification that your job tonight isn't to seek removal and you have no grounds to seek removal of any council member. And also, you're not here to talk about legal fees, although I do want to comment about that in a minute. I think what the fact that most of the people up here calling for the heads of the council members have not really read the grand jury report. They're using it for their own purpose of stifling. First Amendment rights in the hope that these people will not speak out for the poorest, for the most needy in the future . And that is a dangerous path to take. When you read the grand jury report carefully and there are flaws and those need do need to be acknowledged and called out to them at the bottom of it. What they're saying really is that the charter has to be updated. There's ambiguity in the charter, and there's there's there's lack of of accountability in the charter. That's what needs to be dealt with. And we also need to work on the charter to make sure that council members that need to express their First Amendment rights are allowed to do that in an appropriate way. Just one thing regarding the legal fees, as others have said, that requiring council members to pay their own legal fees is going to chill the opportunity for people who can't afford to be volunteer council members to sign up for that. And so I think you need to be very careful going down that route. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Saylor.
Speaker 1: Then Robin TARULLO.
Speaker 2: My name is Doyle Saylor. Thank you for a moment to talk to mayor and city council members. I just want to say that I fully support Jim Odie and Melissa Bella. I will fight for them. And I think this is a politically motivated attack coming tonight and therefore I will be one to stand behind them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Aiello.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. I'm here to support both Councilmember Jim Cody and Malia Vella. I believe, just as Mr. BOLLING mentioned, that the grand jury report is very flawed, as most of the grand jury reports are. But that's another story. And I just wanted to mention that they should be supported as they are a dedicated hard work, hard working council members that well represent their constituents as they were well voted into office. And we should remember all that as well. And if anything should be attended to them, it should be done at the ballot box and not any other way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And our next speaker is.
Speaker 1: Catherine Behar with our tour, Rodriguez and Rock Herman.
Speaker 0: Okay, you're up. Hi.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name's Catherine. Mr. Santini and Mr. Matthew statements are absolutely correct. However, we asked for it before, but I find it curious that Ms.. Jill Climatique agrees to release the tape. Why won't Mr. Jim Oti and Ms.. Melia Vella is it to telling the independent counsel never even heard the tape, but for $1 million? I believe we're entitled to hear it. I, for one, would love to have a listen.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The next speaker is Arturo Rodriguez.
Speaker 2: Hello. Amateur RODRIGUEZ And I've had the opportunity to travel throughout the state and live in many different cities. And let me tell you that Alameda has one of, if not the best fire departments I've ever seen. I've seen them involved in the community like you wouldn't believe. And the professionalism that they take upon when they respond to their calls is amazing. So I feel disappointed in that they would be used as a pawn for a political attack on our council members that have been serving the city so well. And let me make note that for the record, when when they were asked to stand up to see in the crowd how many supported Jim and Malia, over 90% of the crowd stood up. And just for that, it is clear to me that this is a political attack. And and it's unfortunate that our public servants, the people that we call to rely on when something happens, is being used as a political attack. And it's kind of shameful. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Herman.
Speaker 2: I had a mayor. Council members. Well, here we are again talking about the tape and the firing and everything that ensued since then. And the public still hasn't heard that tape. And I think Cathy said you heard it. I'm not even sure that's true. So here we are after all this time and a million bucks down the drain. And the tape is still a secret, and it's a secret from more people than you want to acknowledge at this point. So we were previously led to believe it was illegal. In fact, that investigative report that I still hope you haven't paid for said verbatim. I don't want to listen to that tape because I don't want to abet a felony. Now we know now because the D.A. and the grand jury looked at that, that that was false. It was misleading. It was erroneous. So, Mr. City Attorney Russ hit on you for that, and I'm going to do the same. We need to see that tape out there. If there's nothing to hide, if the truth is the truth and the truth is on the tape, then the public needs to know. You've been selective in what's been released. This has already cost $1,000,000. A lot of things could be done with that. All of you stood in solidarity. Think of what that could have done for your programs and their all good programs. That's $1,000,000 you're not.
Speaker 0: Going to get, Mr. Herman, if you don't speak to the speaker, all the people watching on TV won't hear you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the future involves the claim for legal fees. As I understand from a newspaper story, I didn't get to see the draft report. You seem to be enamored with relying on the investigative report for the conflict between whether one or both committed misconduct. And let's not forget that the investigative report thought that they did that a felony by listening to the tape. That can't be what happens in this case. You cannot rely on it. There would be further laughing stock for this council to produce something like that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next is Catherine Pelling and Andrew Huntoon. And then that's our last Larry.
Speaker 0: Miss Poling, where are you? There. You're. And Mr. Huntoon. There you are. Okay. You're on deck.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank. Hello, Mayor and council. I want to go back to the statements that I made over a year ago when all of this was breaking. A city manager whose job is handling human resources. If somebody is acting in an inappropriate way, you call them on it and you stop it. I mean, this thing of turning this into sort of a witch hunt to overturn our more progressive council who is finally listening to working people and seniors and those of us who need it. And it's being turned into something else. Beyond, I feel like we're just going on and on in circles. It's not about the tape. It's about a really difficult thing that happened. The city manager thought it had to do with her employment, her her review, which turned out to be a delay because of staff workload. That was she was acting out of fear. She felt bullied. All of this, the city settled. That was it. We had an election after this event happened and we spoke very clearly. I'm very proud to have been part of a coalition of labor, of faith, of renters, of homeowners, of small business owners. We worked very hard in that election to elect people that would represent our views. And it would be wrong for that one unfortunate incident to suddenly remove the representatives that we elected. We ask that you've been working very strong and very well together and just six months you've accomplished a tremendous amount. I urge you to continue to stay strong, to work together. The jury, I'm very pleased. The grand jury determined no further accusatory action is needed. I think.
Speaker 0: That. Thank you. Mr. Huntoon, you're. Annette was our last speaker. If anyone still has something to say. I hesitate to say this between the speaker slip, Mr. Hinton.
Speaker 2: Council members, but fellow citizens. My name's Danny here. And to them, a lifelong Alameda resident. I wanted to point out that the loss of the city goes beyond the monetary $4 million that we seem to be so focused on and that we've lost confidence in our leaders. We've lost a legitimate role model that we should be looking to for our council members. You should all be in positions where we can say, I want my children to grow up to act like these people, and this is totally out of line. In addition to the monetary loss, we lost a city administrator that had the integrity and the backbone to stand up. And not only that, but to record this incident so that we could all hear what's been kept from us. These council members, many had their techniques, and we wonder how many times these tactics were not brought in, made public in additionally, this report that this whole meeting is about, that the response to the report appears to have been written by the lawyers that have been paid up to $200,000 to defend these people that don't need defending . That's my statement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hinton. And was it our last speaker?
Speaker 1: There's one more now. There's one.
Speaker 0: More speaker. Okay. His Marilyn.
Speaker 1: Bow.
Speaker 0: Is bow.
Speaker 1: Oh, hello. Thank you. I'm Marilyn.
Speaker 3: Bow. And this afternoon, I printed the grand jury executive summary. I want to read a part of it. Well, it's only two pages, so you can go to 2000 1819 Alameda County Grand Jury Final report. And this is Alameda City Council interference. In the middle, it says in the case of Alameda, two members of the city council violated the city charter. They took steps in the behest of a labor organization to push for its candidate by privately meeting with the city manager and pressing the issue. They also appeared to use the city manager performance review as leverage in the matter. Remember, this is the grand jury executive report. One councilmember went further by making an indirect threat to the city manager manager's job to a member of the city manager's leadership team. The same council member also wrote a letter using city letterhead, openly advocating for the labor backed candidate. These actions put the city manager in a very awkward position, creating a reasonable belief that her job was on the line if the Labor backed candidate was not selected. As a result, she took steps to publicly protest the inappropriate interference in the process. The city manager also sought to peacefully recorded the conversation. She helped the two council members out of fear of additional threats. So 39 seconds. I want to say after listening to everyone, it's clear they violate the city charter. I hope the city manager's listening. And it says if you do that, you have to be removed. So anyway, I just want to say that I read the grand jury report. We're not making it up. It's not a political witch hunt. I don't know why people are saying that. You can read it in black and white from a grand jury. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Poe. And that is our final speaker. Okay. Public comment is now closed. And and I want to thank all of you who came and spoke. As you can see, on the very same set of facts, there is a wide range of of opinion and views. And in just a minute, this counsel, the three of us are going to have a discussion out in public. We are presumably going to have some findings. I want to just give my brief introduction. This regrettable chapter in our city's history came to the attention of the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury, whose legal authority allows it to inquire into charges that a public official engaged in willful misconduct while in office. The grand jury undertook an extensive investigation that included testimony from current and former city staff, elected officials and statewide governance experts. The grand jury's report found that the interference of two city council members in the city manager's hiring of a new fire chief violated the city charter and ultimately cost the city of Alameda more than $1,000,000. But the cost to the city was not just financial. Public trust in government was diminished, and our city's reputation has been tarnished. The executive summary of the Grand Jury report noted that the Alameda City County Charter is filled with rules and principles to ensure the effective and honest administration of government and plainly prohibits the City Council from interfering in the hiring process or trying to influence the city manager, and that this prohibition is common in municipal charters throughout our nation. It is intended to combat cronyism and corrupt government decisions. We cannot pretend that this series of events didn't happen or wish it away. The only way to bring closure to our city is to address the issue head on. It is imperative that we do so now because this Council has so many important issues to resolve, many of which are on tonight's agenda, including climate change, our aging infrastructure, homelessness, renter protections, improving transit, making our streets safer that require the full attention of this body. And I do mean this body of five, but the three of us now, before you have the opportunity and the responsibility with our responses to the grand jury's findings and recommendations to put this episode behind us, I am confident that our responses will support transparency and good governance and help restore the public's trust in our local government. And I just want to say quickly, my couple of side notes that I took while I was taking notes while all of you spoke, but a couple stood out for me. One of the things to remember is that people are complex and one person is many things. We are talking about a particular episode, a particular point in time. I will second what others have said. This Council. Since we were elected, I became mayor. It has been a pleasure to work with all of my colleagues. We have gotten a lot of things done. But again, as I said before, we cannot look away. We cannot pretend that the past didn't happen. We are being watched for our response and I think we can come through on the other side a better council and to set examples for this body and future bodies. And one of the points that the grand jury made in its report was that in some councils, a strong, capable mayor would have put a stop to to what was going on, but that that was not the case here. We have a different council now, and I believe that we are going to take this matter into hand and do the right thing. So we are not here to, as we previously said, remove our colleagues. That is not an option before us. We are not here to. Undo or demean any of the good work they have done. We have all done together to address some very important causes. But we have a grand jury report, findings and recommendations, and we're going to address that now on other council comments before we dig into the meat of the item before us. Do. I'm sorry. City council member did you want to comment?
Speaker 5: Well, my comment is whether it's. I'm just going to comment. So thank.
Speaker 0: You. Yeah. And then we'll get into I'm going to just so for the housekeeping details, what I propose to do as we go through the findings one by one and the recommendations one by one and the other little housekeeping detail. I talked to the city attorney earlier today. As I previously noted, we do impose a nine minute time limit on ourselves. I would like a motion out of necessity to just dispense with the time limit. We may not talk. Well, I mean, I've already done half mine, but I just feel that this is an important enough matter for the public to hear our deliberation, that we should be able to go over it. Our nine minute limit. Is that agreeable to my colleagues?
Speaker 6: So moved.
Speaker 0: A second. Was that a second? Okay. All in favor. I and so and because normally under our ordinance you would require four votes to approve this. But the city attorney explained to me, do you want to just put your legal explanation on there.
Speaker 12: Ma'am? Yes, Madam Mayor. So the council has imposed a rule upon itself. It's not an ordinance that each council councilmembers speak for 9 minutes. And given that the recusals at hand, I believe that the rule of necessity would apply. And and additionally, generally on procedural votes, even a majority of the minority of the Council present might be able to alter rules for process, not substance. All right. This is substance. And I do recommend unanimity in all these matters, given the council rules.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shinn. Okay. So with that, do you want to make some comments, Councilmember per se.
Speaker 5: Let me begin by stating what I think are the principles at stake that the residents need to hear. These are the principles as I see them. The first principle is that no person is above the law and all are equal before the law. And the law of the land is the Alameda City Charter. To me, that's the first principle. Related to the first principle is a second principle that in our democracy here in Alameda takes the form of a professionally run city manager type of government and us having that form. Um. Was not an accident. That there was in 1936, 1937 here in Alameda, a similar, somewhat similar major crises that ultimately resulted in the district attorney and the superior court getting involved to ultimately remove the city manager at that time in 1936, as well as remove the mayor and two other council members. I believe the situation that's facing us is of a similar magnitude and that as council members for the residents here and also for the generations of residents, much in the way some look back at 1936, 1937, that we need to indicate to here and to the future that our local government will still be a professionally run city manager form of government. It wasn't by accident that that that we we have that and it wasn't by accident that our city charter was reformed in 1937. So our predecessors fought hard for the type of government that we have. Above all. We are reminded all about our history books, about Tammany Hall cronyism. And that's what that's the principle at stake is whether we're going to have a professionally run city manager form of government. But I also think the biggest principle at stake is that no person is above the law and that we're all equal before the law and that the law of the land is the city charter. There are specific details that we are going to respond to after our kind of opening statements. And my hope is that as we move forward on the particular findings and the recommendations that that that we not read more into the grand jury report beyond what is already there in plain, simple English. So. That we not quibble over about over facts or the way in which certain matters are characterized or not. The grand jury report and its findings are what they are, and we are being asked to respond to them in black or white, yes or no? And I think we deserve. We owe it to future residents of Alameda that we. That we do so. So there will be more things that I want to touch on. But let me just say, there were some items that were discussed this evening which I hope to have a discussion over regarding access to tapes, regarding censure, regarding making information available, and. I hope to have a discussion about those as well as what's before us with regard to the grand jury report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember de SAC by summary. Not quite. You want to make any comment?
Speaker 6: Sure. I bet I have. Just a couple quick questions I want to ask. Councilmember de SAC reminded me that I wanted to ask about there's been talk about tonight about releasing the tape, that that is not something we could do tonight. Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Audience. Audience. You've been stellar up till now. The city attorney is going to answer that question. We will get out of here on the same day we started if you don't do the audience participation thing.
Speaker 12: Mr. SHINN Councilmember That's correct. The agenda item we have not agenda is this as an item to consider that particular action by the Council.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then and I'm not sure who to ask this question of, but since it came up a couple of times, it relates to the independent Jenkins report. I think I'm going to look at I never get to call in the city clerk, but is the is the one executive staff who was here at the time that the grand jury report says that there were problems with allowing the editing. But at the end of the day, a decision by the council was to release the original document, plus the Arata sheet, which was the changes that were proposed. Is that correct? And we talked. But to your knowledge, there is no there was no other draft that was presented of the full report of the hundred page report that was edited and never seen redacted to keep names and things out.
Speaker 1: But correct. That original report is the same first original report the council read.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. This is not a not a fun conversation. Know when I was asked, how do you want to handle this? I said I wasn't here. I don't want I don't want to have to deal with it. But it's clearly not an option. I come at this from my knowledge. For the most part, it comes from two reports that were written and with a couple of degrees of difference, come to similar conclusions. Both one finds that what? Both find that when city manager or city councilmember violated the charter and the other one of the other two finds the same, I think any careful reading of the document finds. I can identify that the grand jury report does not say that both members were at the same level in the spectrum of of of influence, etc. They specifically call that out. Both documents recommend not moving forward with removal. And as somebody who has to come at this from reading the reports and knowing that people are looking at that I am I tonight am here to accept this. I do agree that there needs to be some acknowledgment that things did not go the way they were supposed to. We would not be sitting here if they had. You know, I'm not going to. It is true that some people are using these reports for political purposes. At the same time, you know, I am ready tonight to actually just vote, to agree on all four of the findings and more or less accept the recommendations of the grand jury. I personally don't feel that I need a lot of conversation about that. And in the end, I do think it's important for our community. We are at the end of the process tonight. This is the this is the. Somebody asked, when does this end? Tonight is the end. There is no unless we don't agree. And we have to come back in September and start the conversation over again, which, trust me, I don't want to do. And my guess is my council member council friends don't want to as well. You know, tonight is the end of the process. We went through the process. We had the opportunity to have the grand jury look at this. They looked at this. They did not recommend for either council member that they be removed. To me, that suggests that there is a spectrum that influence interference happens on. And they did not feel that that spectrum was crossed to the extent that that anybody could go to a to the D.A. and be successful and be having a chance of success for removal from office through that process. And so I you know, I have to accept that. I think we have to be very careful not to accept certain parts of the report and ignore others. Both reports show a city in chaos. Have you read the 100 page Jenkins report? It shows just absolute chaos across across the organization. The grand jury basically that basically specifically said everybody played a role in this. But we're we we were asked to look at the two council members. And I think we have to own that. So, you know, it hurts me. I understand when people sit here and say, we have we the three of us have lost your trust. I understand that. And that is a reasonable thing. On the other hand, the three of us were not a part of that grand jury report. Tony and I hadn't even been elected. We weren't here when it happened. Two of the other people who were here and it takes three votes to kind of make things happen. So I have questions about why some of this didn't get dealt with before now. But for me tonight, I'm ready to move forward. I would like to see us kind of quickly move forward, put this, you know, accept the findings and put this behind us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As much as you know, I also wish we weren't dealing with this. We don't have a way to turn back the clock. But here we are now. And as I often say, we play the hand were dealt. And so what I propose to do is go through we've all read this report probably several times. The grand jury has made four findings 19 Dash one, two, 19 Dash.
Speaker 3: Four and four.
Speaker 0: Closely related recommendations as well. Let's take a look at the first one, which is 19 dash one, finding 19 dash one. If you're in the staff report, it's page two of four. So the city of Alameda is failure to provide council members with adequate training upon first being elected to city council as well as annual training on governance helped contribute to an inappropriate interference in the fire chief hiring process. I have trouble agreeing with this finding completely. I think it is a good thing to have training. I know that our council, our city, offers and pays for new council members and in fact, new mayors to attend the League of California Cities boot boot camp , they call it, for elected officials in Sacramento. Some people avail themselves of that opportunity. Others don't. We do all swear an oath when we're sworn into office to uphold the charter, and presumably one would read and know what it was they were agreeing to uphold. I am also mindful of the fact and the vice mayor just noted this, that anything we decide tonight has to be by unanimous vote, because we, a majority of the council, no matter how many are sitting at the dais, is three. In some cases, if we were doing a conveyance of real property, we would need four votes. But so we have to we have to come to agreement. And I don't see the the benefit of coming back in September because I'm not sure what would happen in those intervening weeks. But Councilmember Desai, can I ask you to weigh in on finding 19 dash one?
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 5: On finding on the findings, will you will find that my approach is, for the most part, the same and three out of four so far for finding number 19 dash one. I believe we should just keep it simple. As I said from in in my outset, I said, let us not read more into the grand jury report beyond what is already there in plain English. So by keeping it simple, my recommendation is simply to write a letter. In our letter that we transmit that we indicate that the following we agree with the finding that 19 dash one comma, which comma in summary form indicates that. And this and that and the wording that's there.
Speaker 0: If I could just point out it for the finding, for each finding, it is required that the response shall either be agree or disagree wholly with an explanation or disagree partially with an explanation.
Speaker 5: So agree.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this is one of these areas where I think it's it's probably more important to get this report back to the grand jury with our finding. I think in general, in principle, a new council members should have training, but not all council members are created equal. And I do believe my two council colleagues we are discussing are very smart, talented attorneys. Their background and experience has been noted. But if what you're saying council member did so, is that for the good of this organization moving forward with this process, do you think we should just agree this is.
Speaker 5: This finding, in my opinion. While it speaks mostly, I think, to the larger body of council members and while the larger body of council members, myself included, would rather not be implicated in in this, nonetheless accepting it, I'm not going to lose sleep over or over acknowledging that, yeah, we need we need better training. So I'm fine with the findings of 19 dash one as. As written. I you know, I don't see any necessity to amplify it one way or another. I don't see any necessary necessity to introduce something called the Jenkins Report and all that. I just just accept it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Thank you for sharing that. And Vice Mayor Knox White, I suspect you feel.
Speaker 6: I would concur.
Speaker 0: The same. Okay. So so with that then and actually what I'm also going to propose is that we take a vote on each each one of these items, just so it's clear for the record. So, Madam Clerk, and where we may have times where we're actually going to do some editing of the the letter that's in the staff report, in this case, the editing is just delete, delete, delete all. Okay. Is it okay? It's up before us now. Yeah. Okay. So. But I would say it is simply agree. And the bottom paragraph. While the city of Alameda currently provides area at it, it's just degree that goes so, so moved. Okay. Okay. So so.
Speaker 6: You're on a.
Speaker 0: Vote.
Speaker 5: And let me explain. This is a finding. It's in the recommendations where we're going to, you know, give meet to.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. Right. Right, right. Okay. So. So we have a motion. You want to second that? Okay. We have a motion. And second, all in favor. I, I look at that unanimity. Okay. We will move on then. So let me ask it a little differently. We'll still take separate votes. Does anybody on the findings? 19 Dash Tuna, 19 Dash three and 19 dash four have other than an agree that they want to offer.
Speaker 5: This is the one where I do have there's a slight march which.
Speaker 0: Went.
Speaker 5: 19 dash to is the one where I would I do have a slight modification to the language because the language that's in there right now does not accurately characterize the charter review process that's underway.
Speaker 0: And go ahead. And then before I interrupt, you could to explain.
Speaker 5: As a council, we made the decision to bifurcate the charter implications resulting from Councilmember Avella and Councilmember Otis actions in 2017. We made a decision to bifurcate that from the charter review process that is described in the in the in the, in the draft letter. And the agreement was that that council itself would take on the matter of what kind of the remedies that we would come up with to deal with the seven, specifically to deal with a7-3 step.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember Daza, if I could just interject that this is a finding. And so it is talking about the city of our need is charter at this point in time, at the point in time where the grand jury reviewed the charter in conjunction with their investigation. And so I think your points would perhaps be better applied when we come to the recommendations. I'm just talking about the finding. Finding 19 dash to the city of Almeida's charter fails to provide enforcement mechanisms when council members and staff violate provisions of the of the charter, creating uncertainty when such violations occur.
Speaker 5: It's just that let me be.
Speaker 0: Clear, Councilmember Desai.
Speaker 5: In the draft letter to Judge Carvell under finding 19 Dash two currently we have before us two options. Well, I would not move forward with option two. What I'm saying is option one has kind of it doesn't tell the full story of what we're doing, that's all.
Speaker 6: Can I make a recommendation?
Speaker 0: I actually I just want to clarify that because this actually bothered me about the staff report. If all we were being asked to do, if we agreed, was to agree with that explanation, I think the and I know staff was well and trying to capture a lot of different views. But I don't again, that that verbiage doesn't belong in the explanation of the finding. It belongs over in the recommendation.
Speaker 5: The words are used where you were.
Speaker 6: I was just going to propose that we just say response. Agree.
Speaker 5: Yeah. End of story. Much in the same way. Okay.
Speaker 0: Would that be a motion?
Speaker 6: That would be my motion.
Speaker 0: Would there be a second? Second? All right, all in favor. Okay. So the response to 19, Dash two, Madam Clerk, who's our scribe, is just agree.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. So moving on, finding 19 Dash three from the grand jury is council members who were the obvious subjects of the independent investigation were allowed to participate in the editing of the outside investigators report, damaging the independence of the analysis. And again, I'm just going to voice my disagreement with going into the explanation in the draft letter that, well, you know, it might have, but then we released the report, but that would be arguing that then we released the flawed report. So again, I think this one is just an agree or maybe it's not.
Speaker 5: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: Let me member decide.
Speaker 5: For if there's any frustration on the part of the public here or the viewing public. My reaction to the findings is that where the real meat on the bones occurs is in our response to the recommendations section. So there are four recommendations section, and that's separate from the findings section. So if somehow you feel like, wait, all they're doing is saying yes to 2 to 19, that's 119. That's to 19, actually 19. That's four. Yes, we are doing that. But only because, you know, if you're not ready to accept the findings. Doesn't that say something? And if you're going to quibble over the findings, does that say something about your, you know, follow through potential when it comes to recommendations? So at a minimum, let us at least accept the findings. And that is for that reason I'm suggesting that we not, as I said from the outset, that we not read too much language into it. Let's just accept it. I mean, it was a historic and the findings are historic unto themselves.
Speaker 0: Would you like to make a motion?
Speaker 5: Agree. I agree with finding number 19, dash three.
Speaker 0: So you so you move that our response to 1993 will be agree. So second.
Speaker 6: Second.
Speaker 0: All in favor. I oppose abstain motion carries unanimously. Okay. The fourth and last finding in violation of the city's charter they had sworn to uphold. Two council members did interfere with the city manager's ability to conduct an open and transparent recruitment for a new fire chief.
Speaker 2: It them.
Speaker 0: Every day.
Speaker 5: So let me throw in one more qualifying comment. I am of the opinion that as a council member when I agree with finding that 19 days for that in plain English says in violation of the city charter these two these two council members had sworn to uphold. Two council members did interfere. I am of the opinion that I am making sending a straightforward message that we did not agree with the actions that had occurred in 2017 and subsequent to that. So I believe that maybe in agree using one word agree to finding 19 dash four. To me, one word is as powerful as 100 words or 200 words. So that's why. I'm okay with just agreeing with 19 dash four and one through three.
Speaker 0: Okay. And again, our options are agree, disagree wholly or disagree partially. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 6: So I will move approval of our response being agree.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: Yes. I will second that. Now, let me make sure to say when I'm responding to agree, I am not accepting the verbiage. It's just a we agree. That's okay. Thank you. Thank you. The second.
Speaker 0: What does that mean?
Speaker 4: Well, it's nice to see the way the way.
Speaker 5: That the draft letter is written. And then there's.
Speaker 0: Yeah, you know, and I'm so and also with three. I do want you to get rid of the additional verbiage. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I did. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Oh, you're doing that? Yeah.
Speaker 0: And it's on our screen. It's just a little smaller. Okay, so you made a motion and you seconded, right? Okay. All in favor. Hi. Okay. So the findings are all unanimous. And again, they're all one word responses. No explanations. You're having a little technical difficulty. Your I will just noted that the vice mayor was actually going to make it even simpler by just saying findings 19 dash one through 19 dash.
Speaker 1: For agree agree.
Speaker 0: To all. I hate it when he shows me up like that. You're not kidding. Okay, let's move then to the recommendations. I'm vice mayor. Do you want to take the lead on that? Sure.
Speaker 6: I believe similarly. So I wrote up some notes here. I believe we need to I believe we should accept the recommendations. I would change some of the language because I think that the proposed language, which I believe is for the most part, an option one each time, suggests that things have not been done when actually we have been taking action on some of these things before the grand jury report came out. So on on 19 Dash one, I would recommend that our response be this recommendation will be implemented in the near future. Staff City staff expects to return to the council at an agenda sized public meeting within the next six months to provide recommendations on implementation of this policy.
Speaker 0: And just for the benefit of the audience that might not be following along. Recommendation one is that the the City Council must establish policies for mandating initial training in orientation and ongoing training for elected officials and senior staff related to ethics and governance.
Speaker 5: Councilmember de so I am of the opinion that the so now this is where we start putting meat on the bones, you know, so, so this is where we start putting meat on the bones. I am of the opinion that the response should be the following. The City of Alameda will implement strategies and develop a work plan for implementation. City staff will return to council at an agenda public meeting for update and discussion. Not more than six months after this, Will says, we will do it, it, it, it, it it confirms that we are taking this seriously and we're giving ourselves a timeline . Not, I believe the phraseology of will conduct additional research on implementation.
Speaker 0: It's a little yeah, we were we were getting rid of their verbiage. That was. Although Madam click are you how how's that working?
Speaker 1: Well, if I wanted to allow you guys to deliberate, I didn't want to type something until you've had consensus or. I mean, if you want me to just try and type both options and then have them up, I.
Speaker 0: Can you read back what Councilmember De Sykes said? I feel like it might be the same thing the vice mayor said, but with a little.
Speaker 1: More.
Speaker 0: Affirmative dramatic.
Speaker 1: Type it. But I think if you go a little bit far I could type it as you say it can you could you reread it again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Slowly this time.
Speaker 5: Scratch sentence one recommendation 19 dash one requires further analysis. No. The new will read as follows The city of Alameda will implement strategies and develop a work plan for implementation. City staff will return to council at an agenda meeting. And. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Was there a timeframe?
Speaker 5: Well, maybe six months. I mean, not more than six says not more than six months. I'm going to work within that. Not more than six months.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 0: Is that reasonable stuff? Yeah. Well, you wrote it. This is true. Why am I asking you that? And I mean, I do think that it is important. It's part of the closure that we address this soon. But, you know, you you all should feel free to chime in if you have some things that you want us to hear. Okay. You know, city attorney, the city clerk, city attorney.
Speaker 12: I just want to add one point of a technical point, please. Penal code requires that if we are going this route, which is that the recommendation will be implemented, we must lead the sentence with the recommendation has not been implemented. Okay. Okay. So we must lead with that. But then we can.
Speaker 0: Continue.
Speaker 12: With the the city of Alameda will implement the protocol requires a leading phrase that it has not been implemented. And I apologize.
Speaker 0: That's why we have a city attorney sitting here. Okay.
Speaker 1: So and that was exactly my question. There are the same there is multiple options that you have to use. And that's exactly what I was going to ask about.
Speaker 0: Yes, I would say let's keep it legal. So on the recommendations, yes, please use the the responses with the necessary language and in the first sentence, but then.
Speaker 6: Essentially an option to. But Councilmember De Sung has said instead of city staff expects to return to council, the city staff will return to council.
Speaker 1: The recommendation does not that will be.
Speaker 6: Then essentially when he proposed his option to with the meeting.
Speaker 0: So cities have yet down an option to.
Speaker 1: Of got it here is that little.
Speaker 0: Farther down option to.
Speaker 1: I thought Councilmember de SAC said will see development and will implement strategies and develop a plan. Climate mobilization. Sorry that little thing daily and city staff will and then sentence above is what the city attorney needed added. Correct. So option two goes away.
Speaker 6: Oh, that's fine.
Speaker 5: No, no. Option two does go away. It might. The changes that I indicate are for option one. The City of Alameda will implement and develop.
Speaker 0: Yes. The option one just.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Oh, the word option. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay. So that first sentence has two states has the state.
Speaker 1: Just pulled up the sentence from option two that the city attorney indicated was needed? So is that correct? Okay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Oh. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 0: Good. Good with you. Okay. So do we vote to approve this language?
Speaker 6: So moved.
Speaker 0: Council member. Dave Oh yeah. Second rate all in favor of this wording before us. I think that passed unanimously. So we go on to recommendation to city clerk. You want to read the recommendations?
Speaker 1: They are going to count. City Council must investigate possible charter or municipal code amendments to clarify and strengthen provisions relating to city governance. The Charter should delineate the specific types of conduct that constitute a violation of Section seven, Dash three, as well as outline an enforcement process.
Speaker 0: Okay. So who wants to lead on this one?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just.
Speaker 0: Oh. City manager, Mr. Lovett.
Speaker 4: So we had. So I was thinking that on your statement 19 dash one the you were saying six months from when. Tonight. But city attorney was saying that it would be six months from the issuance. So I would ask that you say six months from. The day, the letter, which is tonight. That way, if it ends up going to the end of December or first week of January or January, we don't we aren't in violation of your statement. I'm hoping to be sooner, but just in case.
Speaker 0: Six months from the date of this letter. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 4: That's what I'm requesting.
Speaker 0: Okay. So six months. It's July. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Are you okay with that?
Speaker 5: Yes, I'm fine with that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So now. Okay, we've just heard recommendation 19, dash two. So, uh, anybody want to.
Speaker 5: I said my recommendation on recommendation 19. Dash two is to start off with language that. That ignore that that says that we the city of Alameda agrees with recommendation 19, dash two and then all the language that you see in there. But then at the word at the end of the word enforcement process, period. Add the following phraseology as well as outline and enforcement. Process. Process perron such as? Censure. Comma City Council sponsored recall. Karma. Etc..
Speaker 6: I would prefer to keep details of this out, I think. I think that we're getting well ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 1: Limits of my touch.
Speaker 0: So hold that thought. I actually worked on this one a little since it was I who named the subcommittee. The two of you. So what I said, and you can just listen to this, and if you don't like it, we'll do something else. But I said, whatever the magic language is, we need to hit first magic language. And then upon being sworn into office in December 2018, Mayor Maryland, as he Ashcraft noted that quote, I have this that I can hand you to Laura in quotation in Alameda, The public trust has been shaken by turbulent events of this past year period. We need to restore public trust and make city government more effective. One place to start is by bringing our city charter in line with current day needs and realities. Close quote. Mayor, as he Ashcraft established a city charter subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor Knox, Wade and Councilmember desire to review the city charter and return to the council with proposed changes and amendments to provide greater guidance and clarity to city officials, staff and the public. So I would I believe the two of you as a subcommittee are still doing your work, and I believe you're going to come back to that in the fall to the council with these proposals. So rather than wordsmithing what those proposals would be, you could bring them back to us in a package at that time. But your thoughts?
Speaker 5: Okay. I hear what you're saying. And let me just first address my concern about this goes to what I was saying from the outset, the paragraph that begins on March 16th, 2019, the charter review process. That whole paragraph only tells part of the story of the charter review process. And if we're going to have that paragraph in there, and I think this is important, we also have to have a separate paragraph that says as part of that, something along the lines of as part of the charter review process, city council as a whole agreed to separate out the the situations that led up to 7-3 violations and the possible remedies to that. And that the city council would have a week because we said we ourselves were going to have a conversation about the remedies. So that's where where we would begin to address, you know, should it be censure or should it be a city council sponsored recall or whatever. So that is a missing paragraph because.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let's hear from your subcommittee member.
Speaker 6: Well, I was. I was. Yeah, I was okay with the language you proposed. It didn't actually have any this kind of what I would call extraneous. The workshop wasn't about this item. It feels odd to even mention it, even though it did happen. We did a lot of work, but it didn't talk about this issue. I like the idea that we have a subcommittee. You and I are working on it. We're going to bring back some recommendations for discussion at the City Council at an agenda meeting in the fall. I think that's kind of what we're and that's what we're doing. I think it basically says we're on it and we're moving it forward.
Speaker 5: I agree. Then I think, though, that for purposes of the residence and for the purpose of giving clarity to the grand jury, because also we the judge is going to be looking at this and say, okay, what's the timeline when they're going to get it done? We again, have to give a timeline as to.
Speaker 0: So you'd go with my language if we could put in a timeline.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: Where does that go and what do we say? Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 6: To provide greater guidance and clarity to city officials, staff and the public. The work is expected to return to the council.
Speaker 0: Will return.
Speaker 5: Will return.
Speaker 6: Will exactly.
Speaker 0: Will return.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes. The next update and discussion will return to the full council in early fall 2019. For consideration. You know, it will be considered to put before the voters in 2020. Right. Oh, that's good.
Speaker 0: Good clarification. So so when we're talking about amending the charter, this is done by a vote of the people. So it is not something that this council can sit here tonight and do or when we come back in September. But among the things they're looking at, they're looking at a number of things that may go on the ballot in 2020, either the March primary or the June general election. So you'd be coming back to us in six months with those recommendations?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think the last time the council discussed this, we decided not March because it's nothing on the just to set expectations. There's nothing local on the March ballot. So it would be an $800,000 addition for us to join, whereas it's much cheaper for us to go next November.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'd say that conversation is still taking place in different quarters, but yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: I'll tell you that.
Speaker 5: Well, several things let me make sure to capture. I mean, my thoughts are that, you know, if we're going to reference the city charter review process, that we then need to clarify that that we had bifurcated the process that we, in an effort to take seriously, take in an effort to take seriously by the city council members the 7-3 item, which is has to do with the charter that says you can't interfere in job selections, hiring selections. And that I think we should also have language that says that city that the charter review committee will return to the city council as a whole with our recommendations with regard to 7-3 violations and again giving the timeline. And I think it gives and I think that's important because we as a council have have decided to separate out 7-3 from the other charter review process. By the way, the other charter I.
Speaker 6: Don't think that was actually the council that was you and I as the subcommittee.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And I will just I will just interject that I don't really think the presiding judge cares about bifurcation. I think that Judge Carvell just cares about what we're going to do with regard to recommendation 19, Dash two.
Speaker 6: Can we just can we can we just the one thing that's not overly overly clear, right? It just so if we go back to the the subcommittee will return will continue their work providing regular updates to the city council and consideration of potential changes to the charter on this issue. Right. So that we're being clear for consideration of presentation to voters in 2020. The next update in discussion by the full Council is expected will occur in early fall 2019.
Speaker 0: Can that be said with fewer words? Probably skip every window did. I mean, we just want to let the judge know that the subcommittee work is continuing. I mean, do you anticipate more than one update or do you think you're going to be ready to come forward with a recommendation?
Speaker 5: Councilmember Desai whatever the recommendations are. Again, going back to what I said from the outset, I want to respond to the plain text reading of what the grand jury report says and the plain text reading of recommendation 19. Dash two specifically calls out some kind of response to seven, Dash three. So all I'm saying is that that.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 5: When we say we're coming back with charter review amendments, we have to specifically say how we're going to come back, that we're going to come back with Charter Review Amendments two seven, Dash three that align with the concerns raised in recommending that recommendation 19 Dash two those concerns being the need to clarify and the need to strengthen
Speaker 0: . Right. And I would just tend to delineate the specific types of conduct that constitute a violation of 7-3, as well as outline and enforcement process. So you all are going to work on that in the subcommittee. Okay.
Speaker 5: And let me let me just for the edification of the public, because the charter review process has coming down the pike deals with. District voting deals with ranked choice voting and to other items. So I don't want us just to think that and those things that I just enumerated are not related to 7-3. So I want to be clear to the judge or whomever that we will. You know.
Speaker 6: It just. I agree. Can we just can we just add that to the the language? And I think we're I think we're all saying the same thing and we're all in agreement. So if we can just get that written, maybe we can just vote to move this thing forward. Because I'm mindful of the fact we have far more media, three or four media items.
Speaker 0: And it's ten, 1030. Okay, almost. What do you have, madam? Close to what? I think we need to give you a quick a little more direction on what we're.
Speaker 1: Going to need. The same first sentence in the response, right? Yep. Oh, let me. I'm right here. Okay. And then I. So we're we we're sticking with this. Are we going with what they may have read you? I know we're talking to the end of it, but the beginning part she's I keep on hitting that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: You know, I feel like let's go with whatever is shorter. Okay. Well, I would I don't want that second paragraph about everything that happened on March 16th. So just delete that, please.
Speaker 6: Can we can we change in recent months to in December 2018?
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. And to start in December 2018.
Speaker 6: And then and then at the.
Speaker 0: End, the mayor established a subcommittee. Yeah.
Speaker 6: The. Let's see. So, yeah, they arrested the city officials, staff and the public. The subcommittee will return.
Speaker 1: Just go right to that.
Speaker 6: To the full city council.
Speaker 0: That last sentence.
Speaker 6: With proposed changes to seven. Dash three.
Speaker 1: The suits will return. Oh, jeez. I'm really bad at this keyboard. Maybe I'll go to other keyboards. I would kill.
Speaker 0: She's doing well where? I didn't see where that.
Speaker 6: This is what I read more or less earlier.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: And I was.
Speaker 6: Just saying, if it got typed, then we can. So.
Speaker 5: In the in the language that was just mentioned now. I would mimic the language that's in the grand jury report. Don't just say return with changes to seven, dash three. I would say, well, come return with changes that clarify and strengthen and outline an enforcement process with regard to 7-3. That's what the language says. So.
Speaker 0: Well, I think the prescriptive part of that paragraph is the charter should delineate the specific types of conduct constitute a violation as well as outline enforcement. So that's what I would be looking for you to bring back. And then I think by doing that, you're satisfying the direction in the previous sentence. So I would.
Speaker 5: An enforcement process clarifies and strengthens as.
Speaker 0: No, I would say if I were doing it, I would say that the subcommittee will return with a report delineating the specific types of conduct as well as outlining, you know, dot, dot, dot, as well as outlining an enforcement process. And I think by doing that, you're satisfying the clarity and strengthening that the grand jury is asking for recommending.
Speaker 6: I say instead of a report. Can we say a proposal? I don't know that it's going to be a report. I think it's going to be a proposal. It's a potential language for discussion.
Speaker 0: Proposal.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: Problem with that. And it's a problem that's inherent in the way that the grand jury wrote this report. So the way the recommendation the third paragraph reads, the third paragraph reads the recommendation 19 dash two sentence to the charter should delineate the specific types of conduct that constitute a violation of Section seven, DASH three.
Speaker 6: I think we're starting to violate the getting into the weeds. I don't think we have to be so precise, so prescriptive as to I think the idea with responses to grand jury stuff at work on a regular basis because the San Francisco grand jury is very, very well busy. And and I think that this would be this would be a fine. I think they just want to hear we're going to look we're looking at it, we're coming back and it's in motion.
Speaker 0: I think that satisfies.
Speaker 5: For my to be satisfied that I'm trying to convey something to the public. What I'm trying to convey is this in in my delineating seven, dash three as said here, my effort is not to re change the plain text language of 7-3 that says neither the Council nor any members shall interfere with the execution of the city managers. Not to change that, nor is it to change an attempt by a council member to influence the city manager in the making of. So by delineating, I don't anticipate changing that. I anticipate focusing on enforcement processes because that's what's that and.
Speaker 0: We're saying that councilmember de so that's that sentence that right there the subcommittee will return to council with the proposal delineating the specific types of misconduct that constitute a violation of Section seven three, as well as outlining an enforcement process not more than six months after the date of this letter.
Speaker 5: Okay. I appreciate that. I just have to say it out loud.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 0: But you don't need the language in the letter, right? Great. Do we have a motion to accept that wording moved.
Speaker 5: Second all.
Speaker 0: In favor. I. Okay, that pass. Let's move on to 19 dash three. Okay. So 19 dash three. I will read it. The American City Council should adopt a policy stating that council members who knowingly violate ethical codes of conduct or charter provisions may not seek reimbursement for related legal representation. Thoughts. Comments.
Speaker 6: And now that I understand the has not been implemented, I would propose we just go straight with option number two. It has the timeline. It says it's going to implement this thing, it will implement this.
Speaker 0: And I have a question for the city attorney then this came up with in some of the comments. Is there a reason we can't implement a change now.
Speaker 12: Because it's not agenda? Madam Chair, the agenda provides that the.
Speaker 0: Council for the response.
Speaker 12: The Council is providing guidance for the response of the Council wishes to actually implement the policy. We should agenda set for a future meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. And is it necessary to wait and looking back through the responses. Is it necessary to wait for what do we say, six months.
Speaker 6: And expects to return within?
Speaker 0: Um. Is it possible? I mean, do we have to have everything come back at the same time in six months or could some things come back sooner?
Speaker 12: No, everything does not need to come back all in one package. They could come back piecemeal. I will defer to the city manager on timeframes.
Speaker 0: City manager, your thoughts?
Speaker 4: For this particular this particular one. Yeah. So in some ways. This is for this particular one. So in some ways.
Speaker 0: She didn't speak into the microphone. So everyone captures what you saw.
Speaker 4: So in some ways, this is probably the some of the others are going to take more length in some of the research or how well developed the policies in this one. This one is probably a little more complex than that as as you as a city council know and dealing with litigation. Anytime there's claims, there's always things. So I think it could come back probably in four months and then you could have a discussion on it. I mean, probably I would say. For four months. I mean. There's always all these nuances on any type of litigation. So because this is talking about future claims. So there's always there's anticipated issues on litigation.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 12: Mr. Shen I think to add to the city manager's comment, I think that I'll echo his concern that given that there are ongoing claims that this policy may or may not implicate city managers wisely, advising some cost prudence and giving us sufficient time to get to the right place. I think we're coming back within six months, and I think I heard the city manager say as soon as possible. But giving us additional latitude is a wise decision.
Speaker 0: Okay. And of course, we don't discuss pending litigation in open session, but we also don't want to do anything that would jeopardize pending litigation.
Speaker 12: Precisely.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that said.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai, would you like to comment?
Speaker 5: So my druthers with this is similar to what we said before is something along the lines of. Option two as modified. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City Council at an agenda public meeting within the next. Eight months, six months will provide recommendations, will implement that will implement this policy. We're being asked to implement something historic has happened and we're being asked to change our policies. So we need to rise to the level of the historical importance.
Speaker 0: We're being asked to adopt a policy. We have none at this point.
Speaker 5: Exactly. But I'm saying we're going to commit to it.
Speaker 0: And I think I heard the city manager say it could come back within four months. But do the two of you concur on that?
Speaker 4: As I said.
Speaker 0: Enthusiasm is palpable.
Speaker 2: I said for you.
Speaker 4: I said four months that we can come back with options for you to consider.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. So let's. Okay. So. Instruments will, yes. Provide recommendations.
Speaker 1: If you just like.
Speaker 6: We aren't going to implement this in four months, that's not what's being recommended.
Speaker 0: We'll will provide recommendations for implementation of this policy. Derek Kilmer deserves.
Speaker 5: I just think we should do what we have to. When we devise a policy, we have to implement it. So we will we will implement a policy. Right. So there's no need to say provide recommendations to implement. We will adopt a policy one way or another. Right.
Speaker 4: So we will you as a city council always have the option whether you don't adopt a policy.
Speaker 5: But the thing is, we don't have options here. We do. It's the grand jury thing that you will adopt if you agree with the findings, which we did. You will adopt a policy. So we have to adopt a policy.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure if it's that clear.
Speaker 6: But that's not.
Speaker 0: How it works. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 6: I, I'm fine with. I intend to adopt to work to adopt a policy. The grand jury does not direct our work and cannot compel us to adopt a policy. They are saying that they are recommending that we are doing it and we are telling them we intend to do that. We are planning to do that. And a year from now, if for whatever reason, we can't get to a policy that we like or there's legal, legal issues or whatever else, we will be asked to report on whether or not we did it. But at the end of the day, you know.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 6: So I like what's written.
Speaker 0: Its recommendations will be original within the next four months, will provide recommendations for implementation of this policy. I find this affirmative councilmember desire. We're saying we're going to do it for months. We have to respect that. There's some litigation and it takes some time for staff to put this together. But no one's saying it's not happening.
Speaker 5: Four months instead of six months.
Speaker 0: It's there, right there in front of us for months.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: All right. You want to move approval of that?
Speaker 5: I'm not going to move for a wait.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 0: Oh, I want to say.
Speaker 4: We may want to say four months from the date of this meeting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh, okay. Rather than within the next four months. Within four months of the date of the letter.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Which is what we're saying in the other things. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So do I have a motion? So moved in a second.
Speaker 5: 1/2.
Speaker 0: I will. Second. All in favor. I. Okay. That passed. Okay.
Speaker 1: Last one.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't do that often. Okay, last one. Recommendation 19 dash four chest went away. The Alameda City Council, working with the city attorney, city manager and city clerk must develop and implement a code of Conduct and Council Member Handbook. And this one's pretty straightforward, I think.
Speaker 6: Vice Mayor I would just that's pretty recommend option two. I would take what I would call the data edit and change expects to return to will return. Um, and I'm just going to look to city staff to make sure that now that they know what their what they've signed up for whether six months is the realistic policy and it's.
Speaker 0: Within six months from the date of this letter rather than within the next six months. I'm Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 4: So I'm relatively comfortable on the implementation development implementation of code of conduct. I'm a little more concerned on the councilmember handbook because that's a possibly a more lengthy document. And so what.
Speaker 0: Timeframe would you recommend?
Speaker 4: I'd say a year for the second part, but six months for the first part I'd be comfortable with.
Speaker 0: How do we feel about that?
Speaker 5: Okay. That's the city manager's.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So moved.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that can really mean it's not even on the screen yet, guys. Okay, we're getting there. So. So city staff will return to council. Oh. So we're directing or the. Oh yeah. That is. This is staff which you see within the next six, within six months we can get rid of the next within six months of the date of this letter to provide recommendations on developing a code of conduct. And within one year from the date of this letter to provide recommendations on developing and by the way, the verb is developing in the previous line I developing a council member handbook. Customer Handbook? Yes. And Madam Clark, if you look at the third line to provide recommendations on, it's developing now. Thank you. Okay. How does that sound? Colleagues.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 5: Great.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I wanted to ask.
Speaker 5: Is it an option.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 0: If the option to.
Speaker 1: A large.
Speaker 2: Jennifer.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's the next to the last time.
Speaker 5: I would put a I would put a comma after conduct for developing a code of conduct comma and within one year from the date to provide because those are two.
Speaker 0: And I've got another little wordsmithing on the first line. Let's make it. These recommendations have not been implemented since we're bifurcating the handbook from the Code of Conduct. So these recommendations.
Speaker 6: Well, except its recommendation 9.4.
Speaker 0: Uh. Okay.
Speaker 6: I just. I think.
Speaker 0: It's recommended.
Speaker 6: The recommendation has not been done. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Good. Move. Approval. Okay. I have a motion to have a second.
Speaker 5: I will second that and let me just offer my closing comments.
Speaker 0: Um, let's vote on it first. Your closing comments in the whole thing. Yeah, yeah. Let's vote on this finding, then you put your closing comments. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor of recommendation 90 dash for the response to 90. Dash four. I. Okay. That passed unanimously closing comments.
Speaker 6: But can we. Can I make just a motion? I'd like to just approve the letter as written. There's an intro in and out, whatever else.
Speaker 0: I just want an opening paragraph in the closing.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. Which is as proposed.
Speaker 0: Is that okay with you?
Speaker 5: Yes. Yes. And I think.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de SACS, closing comments. Yes. Well, that was a motion.
Speaker 6: I'm going to move move approval of the full letter and authorize the mayor to send it on our behalf.
Speaker 0: So the full letter as we've revised it tonight. Okay. I have a motion to have a second. And then you can make your comments. And how about we get a motion second? We have a discussion if this is the topic that you want to discuss.
Speaker 5: Um. Yeah. I think somewhere along the lines we have to recognize that the people want more information and we have to recognize that the implementations strategies that that we're going to do that that are going to result from it when we were discussing. I think we have to give a flavor as to what we're talking about. And I think the way that you do that is have a sentence that's in the final paragraph that at least acknowledges the fact that something along the lines of residents of Alameda through throughout this process, residents of Alameda have voiced a desire for not only transparency in the form of of any information, including electronic recordings being released, but also for for strong remedies, including censure, as well as some form of city recall. I'm not saying that we're going to do censure. I'm not saying that that that we're going to do recall. All I'm saying is I'm trying to reflect the fact that the people have said that. And so.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai I would submit that the people have said a lot of things here tonight and that was said by a few, but not all. And I also think that that language is going beyond the scope of what the presiding judge is asking for. And I think that we want to be responsive to the findings and recommendations. I think we've done that. And I think there's still time as these matters come back to us to explore how we implement what the people want. But I think we've done our task.
Speaker 6: Oh, that I just I don't think that's an appropriate statement to put in a letter to the judge that this letter to the judge is not a letter to the community. And I, I think, per se, I think you've been very clear that that that is where you see this going and important. And I think it's incumbent upon each of us to communicate to not just our our entire community, but the community of the message that we'd like them to hear. But I would not feel comfortable, including in a response to the grand jury judgment. Yeah. Statement that is not really written as a part of the response that we are legally required to give. It starts to muddy up what the what this document is.
Speaker 0: I think we're very close to completing this task and getting this letter sent off to the. The presiding judge in response to the grand jury's findings. I would hate to have to bring this back in September because we couldn't agree on the first and last paragraph after doing all this work up until now. So I would ask you, council member decide.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Go with the first and last paragraphs as staff wrote them.
Speaker 5: Well, let me just say. You know what people are upset about, as I said from the very outset, is that. There is a that the grand jury report has clearly indicated that some have felt that they are above the law and that that we have a process in place that's not transparent enough to gather information, to demonstrate the extent to which. Some have been above the law and that's hence the call for four tapes because they want to hear it themselves. But they've also been frustrated. The people have been frustrated by the inadequacy of remedies. In seven, dash three, seven, Dash three says this is the penalty, but the way in which the penalties implement implement is not clear. And I just wanted to somehow capture that in the letter to the judge, because I think that underscores the the importance and historic nature of this and the way in which residents are concerned.
Speaker 0: But and I would submit to you that everything we've done in terms of our agreement with the grand jury's findings and the responses that we have made in response to those findings does everything you said without your specific interpretation. And the simple fact is you don't have two votes to go with you. So either we move this letter forward now and get it sent off to the grand jury, which I think is sending a powerful message in itself that the city council is ready to address this issue head on. Or we. Come back after our break in September and are really pressed for time and try to get the closing paragraph written. And I just think that you've had your say, and I think there's other ways to communicate to the people that you're referring to. But this is a letter to the presiding judge of the Superior Court, and it is time to put closure on this.
Speaker 5: I think that the power of this document is in the fact that three council members, a majority of the city council members, have agreed with grand jury findings. And the grand jury findings are. I mean, they were pretty serious stuff and. And I think, you know, I, I think it is time to move on. People know how I feel on the other issues. And we'll and through the process that we talked about through recommendations 19 at 19.2 or 9.2. Well, we'll deal with that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Your remarks have been noted. I have a motion to the vice mayors made to send the letter. As we have. I drafted it with our edits. Second, I have a second all in favor. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay, so yes, you may.
Speaker 6: I know it's not typical, but I just. I feel like we have gone through a lot. I wonder, I, I instead of speaking before we voted, because I know the U.S. Council member decided to wait until after. Would like to just say a couple of you.
Speaker 0: May.
Speaker 6: Things not quite as prepared as I actually expected it to be. I don't think this was an easy evening for for any any of the folks up here. I think at the end of the day, our city council has said that things did not go the way that they should have gone. And I it would be hard for me to believe that anybody can kind of look at the acrimony and everything else that has happened over the last year and a half that happened two years ago, actually, and not see the things things went badly. You know, from my standpoint. I think this council has acknowledged that mistakes were made. And I think we have said that, and we acknowledge that unanimously and actually quite civilly. And I also hear Councilmember de SOG and mayor as the Ashcraft, and I'll say it right now as well. I think it's also time for our community to move forward and move on. We can't control political conversations around this and whatever else. You know, I, for one, believe that both the investigative report and the grand jury came to the right conclusion. People made mistakes. It doesn't mean that they should be removed from office. I, for one, am willing to accept this. We don't have a censure process right now, but this is about as close as a council can get to it. Public bodies all over the the region, the state, the nation have censure processes. People get censured. You move on and you start working together. And I believe that strongly that we can do that tonight. And I'm actually just asking the community to find a way to join us in figuring out how we can move forward. There is no process for removing people. There is an election in a year. People can certainly, you know, have their say at the ballot box and whatnot, and everybody will. But I think it's now time for our community to move forward and be the best animator we can be. And I want to thank both my my my colleagues. Those are my statements. You know, I'm sure we all have a slightly different perspective, but I want to thank you. This was a civil and respectful conversation. And I appreciate this because it was not easy.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Okay. My very.
Speaker 0: Briefly.
Speaker 5: Brief closing comment is simply that I don't believe that the city of Alameda is ready to move on yet. It's only when we look at the recommendations that we come at that come out of our specific charter review committee and council recommendation that come out of 19 dash two on how we are going to strengthen 7-3. That's the only time when when I think healing can begin. I think right now there is still kind of a scab there that hasn't healed yet.
Speaker 0: And I will concur that I think the process takes time. But I think we took a very important first step. And no, it wasn't easy, but when we signed up for this job, we signed up to take responsibility. And I think we've done that tonight. So thank you very much. If we could bring I'm just getting close to 11:00 and. Okay. Five minute break. Can we do 5 minutes? Okay.
Speaker 1: So do you think a vote as soon as you get back to continue continuing to do what you want to do. Well, need to wait for.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um, you know what? I actually saw that you just. Could we get everyone to take their seats, please? Amelia, can.
Speaker 1: You? Yes.
Speaker 6: We can vote.
Speaker 0: We thank you, everyone. We have to vote because it's almost 11:00. We have to take a vote. And we need for affirmative votes to continue items past 11 so that the four remaining items are item six. C is the the midway developer and exclusive negotiating agreement. Six Stormwater Fees. Six Zoning for New Fires Facility. 90 is a referral, a council referral and the Commission on Disability. I will just throw in that. I would be okay if we didn't get all the way to the council referral. I do think that six Sydney are important to be heard tonight. Do I have a motion to.
Speaker 1: Go back.
Speaker 0: And count? Yes. Councilmember Vella.
Speaker 11: Could we consider limiting the amount of speaker time? In light of the late hour on the remaining items.
Speaker 0: What do you propose?
Speaker 11: I'd like to reduce the speaker time by commit.
Speaker 3: Well, if we could reduce it by 2 minutes. That was.
Speaker 0: 2 minutes. It. Well, do we have many public speakers. We have four.
Speaker 3: We could reduce it to 2 minutes each. I mean.
Speaker 11: That's for just for this item or for all of the remaining customs.
Speaker 1: Or just for the six C, there's four speakers on 60 and no others.
Speaker 11: But we could we could potentially get more speaker slips.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. I, I, I mean, that's okay with me. What do we think?
Speaker 9: I'll be okay with that? I'm sorry. That's okay. I'll be okay with that. But can staff kind of be concise too because.
Speaker 0: Yes, sure. Yeah.
Speaker 9: So there's no some of these issues are like the second or third time, so.
Speaker 0: Yeah, okay. And Vice Mayor, I'm supportive.
Speaker 6: I just want to make sure nobody is here to address the commission and disability issue because I didn't see folks.
Speaker 0: Earlier, I did see a.
Speaker 1: Lag.
Speaker 6: So if anybody was planning on staying here.
Speaker 0: Did you leave? I do not see anyone here in the commission.
Speaker 1: Okay. I'm sorry. We do have one more speaker slip on six D as well. One for. Yeah. No, I my proposal.
Speaker 0: My proposal is that we hear all of the regular agenda item six Sydney and but that we drop the council referral until our September meeting is okay.
Speaker 6: So moved.
Speaker 0: On. Okay. Have a motion to have a second. Hours growing later, picking oak has been moved by the vice mayor, seconded by Councilmember Odie. All in favor. I have any abstention, any loss that I have from you, Councilmember. Okay, that was unanimous. Okay, let's go. Okay. Item six, see who's presenting this.
Speaker 1: Hi. Selecting a development team for the West Midway Project and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an exclusive negotiation. Right. To negotiate agreement. Sorry. With Selected Development team. Okay. Good evening.
Provide Direction on Letter to the Presiding Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court in Response to the 2018-19 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report. (City Manager 2110)