cc16_147 1
STAFF REPORT
MEETING
DATE: October 4, 2016
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeffrey A. Walter, City Attorney
SUBJECT: REVISING COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
REQUEST
Consider revising Section 3.02(f) of the City Council’s Policy Manual to substitute the three-step
process with a two-step process for placing items on a future agenda and requiring
Councilmembers who wish to have the Council consider placing an item on a future agenda to
provide advance, written notice of that intention to the City Manager so that the request can be
placed on the agenda of the meeting at which the request will be considered by the full Council.
RECOMMENDATION
Revise Section 3.02(f) of the City Council’s Policy Manual.
BACKGROUND
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”),
“. . . a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or
procedures of the legislative body, may… take action to direct staff to place a matter of
business on a future agenda.”
Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(2).
Without the action being agendized, the Brown Act allows a Council to take action to place an
item on a future agenda, provided that in doing so, the Council follows its own rules or
procedures. The Brown Act does not impose any limitation on the amount of time the Council
can take to discuss whether to place an item on a future agenda. Nor does the Brown Act
expressly prohibit the discussion of substantive issues that may be implicated by the item itself
or by placing the item on a future agenda.
The City Council’s current rules and procedures applicable to placing an item on a future agenda
provide two opportunities for Councilmembers who may wish to agendize a matter on a future
agenda. First, at the Council’s quarterly meeting, each Councilmember has the right to propose
that two items be agendized for a future meeting. If a majority of the Council agrees to agendize
one or both of the suggested items, the item(s) will appear on a future agenda, but only for the
purpose of deciding whether to advance the item(s) to a third meeting for which staff will
922 Machin Avenue Novato, CA 94945
415/ 899-8900 FAX 415/ 899-8213
www.novato.org
1
2
prepare a full analysis of the matter. At the second meeting for which the item is agendized, staff
is not required to prepare substantial information or provide analysis or recommendations for the
Council.
The second opportunity a Councilmember has to agendize an item for a future agenda is during
the first business meeting of each month. The same procedures for adding an item to a future
agenda that apply during the Council’s quarterly meetings also apply to adding an item to a
future agenda during the Council’s first business meeting of each month, except that the
Council’s rules currently provide that (a) the discussion during the first business meeting of each
month pertaining to adding an item to a future agenda should not take more than 3 minutes and
(b) a Councilmember cannot propose to place more than one item on a future agenda.
The City has now received two cease and desist letters from lawyer Edward E. Yates. In each of
those letters he contends that on December 15, 2015, in discussing adding items to a future
agenda, the Council violated its own rules when those discussions exceeded three minutes in
length. He also claims that in making substantive comments about those items, the Council
violated the Brown Act.
The recent case of Cruz v. City of Culver City (“Cruz”) answers Mr. Yates’ Brown Act claims.
In that case, arguments similar to those raised by Mr. Yates were rejected by the court. In Cruz,
the city had imposed parking restrictions in 1982 on Farragut Drive when residents complained
that parishioners of a nearby church “jammed” their street with parking during church services.
In 2004, the city established preferential parking zones (or districts) throughout the city, and
included Farragut Drive as one of those zones. Later, the city adopted regulations governing
parking in those zones. In 2014, the church’s attorney sent a letter to the city requesting
information about the procedures to be followed in seeking a change to those regulations as they
applied to Farragut Drive. The city staff responded that the city was unable to react to such a
request because there was no avenue available for non-residents to appeal the parking
restrictions. The church then sent a letter to councilmember Weissman complaining about the
staff’s response and asking to address the council about the “onerous parking restrictions.”
At a subsequent Culver City council meeting at which the council was acting to receive and file
correspondence, the church’s letter was brought up by councilmember Weissman. Following a
six-minute discussion between Weissman, the mayor, two other councilmembers and the city’s
engineer, the council agreed to agendize the matter for a subsequent council meeting. The city
was sued by plaintiffs who claimed that this discussion included “something substantive and
substantial,” all in violation of the Brown Act because the discussion had not been previously
agendized. The court disagreed.
The Culver City Council’s discussion morphed from a proposal to agendize either a general
discussion about the appeal process or the church’s appeal in particular, to agendizing the
reconsideration of the very existence and nature of the district itself. And during this colloquy,
council members and staff offered their opinions as to the merits of whether the church had a
right to appeal, inquired as to whether agendizing the issue would be academic or adversely
affect appeal rights due to the passage of time, expressed their opinions as to whether parking
2
cc16_147 3
districts should be subject to change and then agendized a discussion about changing the district,
implicitly rejecting agendizing a discussion about the church’s appeal.
This is the type of discussions councils must be allowed to have in order to make informed
decisions, even as to whether an issue should be agendized for further and deeper discussions in
the future. This is, in essence, what the Cruz court held. It stated that these discussions,
statements of opinions, and statements of positions were not “substantive or substantial” and
were permissible under the Brown Act.
With respect to Mr. Yates’ claims regarding the three-minute limitation, it is proposed that the
Council’s policies be revised to eliminate that limitation (even though as currently written it is
only advisory in nature).
Attached, please find Section 3.02(f) of the Council’s Policy Manual. Proposed changes to that
section are shown in red-line format. The major changes which are being proposed are as
follows:
1. The current three-step procedure to agendize an item on a future agenda is replaced with
a two-step procedure.
2. At the first Council meeting (“first” meeting) (be it the Council’s quarterly meeting or the
first business meeting of each month), a Councilmember has the right to request that any
number of items be placed on a future agenda.
3. The limitation of the number of agenda items a Councilmember may request be placed on
future agendas is eliminated.
4. Seven calendar days before the first meeting, a Councilmember who wishes the Council
to consider placing items on the agenda for a future meeting (“second” meeting) must
submit to the City Manager a written request identifying those items.
5. That request shall be added to the agenda for the first meeting, and the written request
will be made part of that meeting’s agenda packet.
6. The three-minute recommendation applicable to the first business meeting of each month
is eliminated.
7. If at the first meeting a majority of the Council agrees to place an item on a future
agenda, in doing so the Council must also specify (a) the nature of the matter to be
agendized, (b) the amount of time and resources the staff is to spend in preparing the item
for the second meeting, (c) the nature of the notice to be given in advance of the second
meeting, and (d) whether the matter is to be agendized for discussion only or for action or
for both.
Additional matters which the Council may wish to address in discussing this rule revision are:
A. Whether to place a numerical limit on the number of items a Councilmember may
propose be added to a future agenda.
B. Whether to place a limit on the number of pages or other materials a Councilmember may
wish to accompany his/her request to agendize an item for a future agenda. This
limitation would apply to the information/materials submitted for the Council’s
consideration at the first meeting.
3
4
On a going forward basis, by revising the Council’s Policy Manual in the manner recommended
herein, the issues raised by Mr. Yates will be rendered moot. This is so because the item sought
to be placed on a future agenda will actually appear on the agenda for the first meeting, thus
giving the Council – at that first meeting - full reign to discuss the issue as long as the Council is
interested in discussing it.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to explain the rationale for revising the Council’s Policy Manual in
the fashion indicated.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve the revisions to its Policy Manual as set forth in the
attached exhibit.
FISCAL IMPACT
There should be no fiscal impacts resulting from the adoption of the revisions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Section 3.02(f) of the City Council’s Policy Manual (redline changes shown)
4
(f) Scheduling Agenda Items.
The following items shall be routinely scheduled by the City Clerk on a future agenda: 1) items which are
the result of an application submitted to the City for a permit, license or discretionary approval; 2) items
which relate to the approval of budget appropriations, amendments to the budget, and other routine
expenditure requests; 3) items which are directly related to one or more of the City Council’s current
Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives; 4) items which require immediate action by the City Council due to
an emergency, the request of another governmental agency, or other matter which in the judgment of
the City Manager or City Attorney would disadvantage the City if a delay were to occur; and 5) such
other routine, generally non-substantive matters determined by the City Clerk, City Manager or City
Attorney to be appropriate for immediate consideration by the Council.
All other requests for items which do not meet these criteria shall be considered by the City Council in
either of the following two ways:
1. Quarterly Meetings: At a meeting held quarterly to consider significant agenda items, the City Council
will forecast three months ahead to determine if and when an item not meeting the above criteria will
be considered by the City Council.
a. At this meeting, a Councilmember has the right to request up to two items for consideration;
provided, however, that at least seven calendar days before the date of the quarterly meeting at which
the Councilmember intends to make such a request, that Councilmember has identified - in writing
timely delivered to the City Manager - the item(s) which s/he desires to place on a future agenda and
when s/he wishes the item to be agendized. That written request shall be made part of the quarterly
meeting’s agenda packet and the agenda for that meeting shall reflect the name(s) of each
Councilmember requesting consideration of placing an item on a future agenda and the description of
the proposed item(s). Failure to timely request, in writing, consideration of an item for placement on a
future agenda pursuant to this Policy shall waive a Councilmember’s right to request, during the
quarterly meeting in question, that that item be placed on a future agenda.
b. Three votes are needed to advance the item, which will be added to a future agenda at a time
determined by a majority of the Council. At the same time that a majority of the Council places an item
on a future agenda, the Council shall also specify (a) the nature of the matter to be considered at the
meeting held to address the item, (b) the amount of time and resources the staff is authorized to spend
in preparing the item for Council consideration, (c) the nature of the notice staff should provide in
advance of the meeting at which the item will be considered and to whom that notice should be
provided, and (d) whether the item should be agendized for discussion and/or possible Council
action.for discussion of whether the Council desires to allocate staff resources toward providing a full
staff analysis/report on the matter at a subsequent meeting.
2. Regular Meetings:
a. At the first business meeting of the month, a Councilmember has the right to request that can bring
forward no more than one agenda item be placed on the agenda for consideration at a future Council
meeting; . provided, however, that at least seven calendar days before the date of the meeting at which
the Councilmember intends to make such a request, that Councilmember has identified - in writing
timely delivered to the City Manager - the item which s/he desires to place on a future agenda and
5
when s/he wishes the item to be agendized. That written request shall be made part of the first
business meeting’s agenda packet and the agenda for that meeting shall reflect the name(s) of each
Councilmember requesting consideration of placing an item on a future agenda and the description of
the proposed item. Failure to timely request, in writing, consideration of an item for placement on a
future agenda pursuant to this Policy shall waive a Councilmember’s right to request, during the first
business meeting in question, that that item be placed on a future agenda.
b. The request to place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda shall be addressed during raised at
the “Councilmember/City Manager Reports” section of the meeting. and should not take more than
three minutes.
c. Three votes are needed to advance the item, which will be added to a future agenda at a time
determined by a majority of the Council. At the same time that a majority of the Council places an item
on a future agenda, the Council shall also specify (a) the nature of the matter to be considered at the
meeting held to address the item, (b) the amount of time and resources the staff is authorized to spend
in preparing the item for Council consideration, (c) the nature of the notice staff should provide in
advance of the meeting at which the item will be considered and to whom that notice should be
provided, and (d) whether the item should be agendized for discussion and/or possible Council actionfor
discussion of whether the Council desires to allocate staff resources toward providing a full staff
analysis/report on the matter at a subsequent meeting.
Councilmembers will not encourage members of the public, in lieu of this procedure, to pressure the
City Council to place items on the agenda through email campaigns or mass demonstrations at Council
meetings.
(g) Intentionally left blank. Expedited Agenda Process.
If a Councilmember has made a request to add an item to a future agenda in one of the methods shown
in F1 or F2, above, and, if the item is deemed to be straightforward and manageable, will not require
any new work or independent analysis to be performed by staff and, in the aggregate, does not require
more than one hour of staff time, it may be agendized for Council deliberation and decision without
undergoing the second step of the process. The determination of whether an item meets these criteria
will be made by the City Manager, taking into consideration his knowledge of the relative complexity of
various issues. Examples of this type of item may be presentations from outside groups and letters of
support or opposition.
(h) Request to Move an Agenda Item.
Councilmembers may request that one item be moved to a different agenda if they will be absent from
a particular meeting, and only in the case where there is no time sensitivity for the item and with no
pressure being put on staff in making the request. The request to move an item may be made once in a
fiscal year. If staff does not honor the request, the Councilmember may submit a brief written
communication to be read into the official record or use teleconferencing to participate remotely. If the
request is not honored, the Councilmember may make an additional request during that fiscal year.
(i) Requests for Agenda Items from Members of the Public. If a member of the public requests that an
item be put on the agenda during Public Comment time, the Council will not respond to this request
6
immediately at the Council meeting, but may choose to bring it up during Councilmember Reports as an
item for consideration using one of the two opportunities described above.
7