TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
John Jalili, Interim City Manager
FROM:
Senior Management Analyst, David Biggs
SUBJECT:Title
Update on Six Month Trial Period on Meeting Management and Open Government Initiatives (Senior Management Analyst Biggs).
RECEIVE REPORT AND APPROVE MODIFICATIONS
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report on Meeting Management and Open Government Initiatives and modify 1) agenda posting deadline to be end of day Wednesday, and 2) revert to action minutes in conjunction with enhanced video capabilities.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The only recommended action with a fiscal impact would be the return to Action minutes which would result in savings of $24,000 a year or more of third-party vendor costs.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has been engaged in two significant initiatives related to Meeting Management and Open Government.
The Meeting Management efforts were undertaken by the City Council as a whole. The culmination of these efforts occurred on August 13, 2013, with the final actions embodied in a resolution approved by the City Council on October 1, 2013. The Meeting Management items were implemented as set forth in Attachment 1 - Meeting Management Matrix. The Meeting Management Matrix was developed following the numbering system presented in the August 13, 2013, agenda item (Attachment 2), with modification/additions made based on how the items evolved. The Open Government initiative was initiated in 2011 and was tasked to the Ad Hoc Open Government Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Howorth and Councilmember Lessor. The Subcommittee identified 28 open government items which have been implemented over a period of time, with direction on the final six of the 28 also discussed by the City Council on August 13, 2013, with final decisions also made on October 1, 2013.
There is a level of overlap between the two initiatives which has been previously identified. Staff understood that the intent of the City Council was to review the general status of the items implemented at the six-month mark. Given the staggered adoption dates of various items, with the last implementing actions having been October 1, 2013, this item is being presented now to provide that review. It should be noted that there were five items where the City Council articulated a specific desired review period or feedback:
Meeting Management
1.b Parking Restrictions at City Hall During Council Meetings - modified restrictions approved with a 90 day trial period.
2.a Council Meeting End Time - the 10:30 PM and 11:00 PM rules were deleted.
2.b Posting of City Council Agendas - approved to require posting and production of agendas by the Wednesday before the regular Council meeting with staff to report back on any problems.
2.f I Setting a 15 Minute total Time Limit Per Speaker Per Meeting- setting a 15 minute total time limit per speaker each meeting for non-public hearing items was implemented on a six month trial basis.
Open Government
8. Policy on the format of minutes (action vs. summary) - summary minutes were to be produced for a six month trial period with an assessment of the additional cost and staff effort.
For some of the items implemented, April 15th would be the end of the six month period. An updated Public Record Act Request Log is also attached as that was an element of the Open Government discussions (Attachment 3). In addition, one element of the Open Meeting initiative was the discussion of a Sunshine Ordinance. Elements of what has been implemented related to Open Government fall within the scope of a typical Sunshine Ordinance. Examples of Sunshine Ordinances were reviewed by the Ad Hoc Open Government Subcommittee and a Sunshine Ordinance was touched upon by the City Council during the review and consideration of the Meeting Management and Open Government initiatives.
DISCUSSION:
The assessment of options and the implementation of the Meeting Management and Open Government initiatives occurred over an incremental period. Some of the items implemented have been in place since approximately May, 2013. Others were implemented as of October 15, 2013, and as such are near the end of a six month timeframe. This item has been developed to allow the City Council to assess and take measure of those items which have been implemented and to determine if there are any changes or modifications needed. It is also possible that this assessment could result in the identification of additional desired measures given the experience over the assessment period. This item will also allow for public input on the Meeting Management and Open Government initiatives.
Staff has also undertaken an assessment from an internal operations perspective and based on feedback received. The staff assessment is presented in two components. First the five items specified under Background above are reviewed and assessed below:
Parking Restrictions at City Hall During Council Meetings
As of October 25, 2013, 90 days had passed since the parking restrictions had been changed to allow for free parking after 5 PM weekdays. Staff had been making regular observations regarding how the lot was functioning under these revisions and the Council was solicited for any of their observations at that time. In December the City Traffic Engineer concluded an evaluation and found that beach parking or downtown employee parking was not evident on any occasion in the lower level of the Civic Center Parking Lot on various days after work hours. It was noted that the typical parking demand after 6pm on days without a public meeting is comprised of about 15 private vehicles and 15 city-owned vehicles. The lower level of the parking lot holds 103 vehicles. Based on the minimal parking demand, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that the existing parking restrictions are satisfactory at this time.
Council Meeting End Time
Elimination of the previous 10:30 PM and 11:00 PM rules and process has not seemed to hamper the conduct of the City Council meeting. The Council's current practice of handling the Council meeting duration and determining end time on an informal basis seems satisfactory.
Posting of City Council Agendas
City staff has been mostly successful in getting the Agenda posted and delivered on Wednesdays, but not by 4 PM for the posting and not always by 6 PM for delivery. The process for the development of the agenda and staff reports concludes with a final review of the draft agenda in the Department Head meeting conducted by the City Manager on Wednesday at 10 AM. Often there are revisions required to the agenda and/or staff reports which preclude it being posted by noon that day. Staff would recommend that the goal be revised for the posting of the agenda to be by the end of the day on Wednesday with the delivery of the packages to the Council by 6:00 PM on Thursday. The above modification would be implemented on a forward going basis subject to review of the agenda development and creation process by the new City Manager.
Setting a 15 Minute total Time Limit Per Speaker Per Meeting
The 15 minute time limit does not appear to be a problem for most wanting to participate in a City Council meeting. On occasion, one or two regular commenters have come close to the total time limit. The tracking of cumulative time is a burden on staff and is not yet finely tuned, but seems to be working without any great detriment on staff's ability to facilitate the City Council meeting.
Policy on the format of minutes (action vs. summary)
The transition from action minutes to detailed summary minutes with the meetings also fully documented via the video archives has been costly in both dollars and staff time. The cost of the third-party vendor who prepares the summary minutes is $175.00 for each hour of the meeting. City Council meetings last an average of 6 hours at a cost of $1,050.00. With more than 24 City Council meetings a year, the total cost will exceed $24,000 annually. In addition, once the draft summary minutes are received from the third-party vendor, they have to be reviewed by staff in the City Clerk's Office to ensure they are accurate, especially as to the spelling of names of those persons and locations with which the vendor is not familiar, and to ensure the motions and actions taken are correct. This often requires staff to review the video which is also time consuming and somewhat duplicative of the vendor's effort but unavoidable.
Given the high cost and the additional staff effort associated with the preparation of detailed summary minutes, staff recommends ending the trial period and returning to action minutes. This should be done in connection with enhancing the ability for those interested in reviewing the videos of the meetings to do so in a more user friendly manner.
Second, other observations and recommendations regarding the other items implemented or deferred are as follow:
· Placing Items on the Agenda - At various City Council meetings, Councilmembers have asked about the process for a Councilmember placing an item on the agenda. The existing agenda format has a section for Other Council Business, Committee and Travel Reports, and Future Discussion Items. In most communities, items raised for future placement on an agenda require the concurrence of a majority of Councilmembers or are considered through a two-step process. The current practice in Manhattan Beach is that if two Councilmembers concur regarding a future agenda item it can be placed on a future agenda. Clarification as to the City Council's preferred option should be included in the meeting management resolution.
· Removal of Consent Calendar Items by the Public - This practice has been implemented with items pulled by the public. At times, a member of the public may pull an item which is deferred until later in the evening and the member of the public is not present when the item is taken up. This requires staff to stay for an item, often for many hours, only to find that there is no need to have stayed. In most communities, the public is provided an opportunity to comment on Consent Calendar items not pulled by a Council Member before action. This presents an opportunity for the Council or staff to respond to questions while still taking action on the Consent Calendar item or alternatively adding that item to those items pulled before action. An alternative to the current process may be desirable.
The Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Open Government did discuss the interplay between their efforts and a Sunshine Ordinance in a number of meetings. The possibility of adopting a Sunshine Ordinance will be considered by the City Council at a later date.
CONCLUSION:
The Meeting Management and Open Government initiatives implemented six months or more ago overall seem to be working well with modifications recommended in two areas: extending the agenda posting to the end of day Wednesday and delivery deadline to 6:00 PM Thursday; and reverting to Action minutes in association with enhanced video review capabilities. In addition, the City Council can provide direction as to other possible modifications or changes.
Attachments:
1. Meeting Management Matrix
2. August 13, 2013, Open Government Staff Report
3. Updated Public Records Act Request Log