My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 02242025
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2025
>
CCP 02242025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2025 10:03:48 AM
Creation date
2/25/2025 10:03:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
2/24/2025
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
243
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 13, 2024 <br />Page 7 <br />Mr. Montez explained the committee format benefits would include flexibility, <br />accessibility, authenticity, and membership. The barriers would be perceived lack of <br />transparency and lack of familiarity. <br />Ms. Olson noted the piece on the flexibility with a committee, the committee could do a <br />hybrid model if meeting in person whereas currently, with the structure under a <br />commission, the City does not do a hybrid model. In addition to the barriers, she would <br />also add that there has been concern with making sure this group is sustained and making <br />sure the work is continued and ongoing. <br />Councilmember Schroeder indicated with a commission the City does a background check <br />on the member and asked if a committee, does the City need to do a background check. <br />City Attorney Tierney thought that was a decision that the Council could make. <br />Councilmember Schroeder thought one of the reasons for a background check was because <br />the Commissioners were involved with youth. <br />City Attorney Tierney noted that was a good point and thought the City might want to do <br />a little research about it. Her instinct is that there may be a way to avoid the background <br />check. But, the other consideration of the background check is that the City wants to be <br />careful about what kind of information is shared with the commissions and that can become <br />an independent reason to want a background check. <br />Mayor Roe asked if the City established this by a resolution and in the resolution, there is <br />information about how business is done. If it starts to look a lot like a Commission, he <br />asked will it then be subject to the open meeting law and other things. <br /> City Attorney Tierney explained to start with some of the Commissions’ work may not <br />actually be legally required to be subject to the open meeting law. The City would need to <br />be careful about the responsibilities that the Council assigned to the Commission. Based <br />on the description, she did not think the Council would need to make this committee subject <br />to the open meeting law. Again, the City would want to be careful about the level of <br />responsibility that the committee is given. The Council would then explicitly state that the <br />committee is not subject to the open meeting law and would also make sure there is some <br />level of transparency built into the structure of the commission. <br />Councilmember Groff understood people think that Zoom is great, and a lot of work can <br />be done there, but he did not feel that way. He thought Zoom was distancing and hard to <br />read what someone else is thinking or feeling because when the Council used Zoom for its <br />meetings, he was not able to see body language or have those interactions. So, for him, <br />having a total Zoom Commission would be the beginning of the end of this. <br />Qbhf!:6!pg!354 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.