Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Measures Amending the City Charter.  (City Council Charter Subcommittee)  [Not heard on March 17, 2020 or April 21, 2020]
Thank you very nice thank you all for for your good work and good report. Thank you, Mr. Bird and Mr. Garland. And have a great day. All right. All right, then we are moving on to item six, the. Recommendation to provide direction on potential measures amending the city charter. Okay. And this was a is an item that is being brought forth by the subcommittee that I appointed when I was sworn into office in December of 2018, almost two years now, not quite. These last couple of months have seemed like about a year. Anyway, I want to thank the the subcommittee, the charter review subcommittee, councilmember Desiree Vice Mayor Knox White. And who's taking the lead on introducing this item that you, Mr. Vice Mayor? I think that was Tony's arm, too. So are you guys going like this? I'm going right into the camera. Yeah. Thank you very much. We did it. Councilmember De Sorkin, I have met many, many, many times over the last year and a half, including on tonight's items with two different workshops and a number of community meetings between the Alameda Citizens Task Force and the Alameda Democratic Club and many other groups and voters you talked about with, I talked with as well. As we mentioned at the last meeting, we were going to bring forward a reduced list of recommendations. They fall into two groups. One is related to counsel compensation. So recommending that we allow future city councils the flexibility to determine their compensation. Right now, the city charter, as we all know, limits or sets the council compensation of $50 per meeting up to two meetings a month for council. And I think it's 150 per month for the for the Mayor. Rather than having the charter set a specific amount for the city council, we propose to set a maximum so that voters know that they're not just writing a blank check and that in ten years city council, the city council will meet. It would pay them themselves $180,000 a year. And we and given that the the job is part time, we felt that that that maximum should reflect what the average looks like in the in the Bay Area or in the East Bay, which is about 14, $15,000 per year for city councils, which also comes out to about 30% of the median individual salary, which is about in Alameda, which is 72%, $72,000. Also clarify that since we would be increasing how much money council members were making, we would clarify that council that that insurance is only for the city council and not for entire city council families and extended family measure to. Sorry. Could I could we get clarifying questions maybe on each item. If that's how you want to do it? Yeah. If if that's okay with you. We've gotten a lot of correspondence on this item, so I just wanted to ask you a couple clarifying questions. Vice Mayor Knox White. So is the is are you proposing that the council vote ourselves a raise? Not currently, no. And that the proposal would allow future councils. And in fact, actually, the language here would propose that a future council couldn't even vote for a raise until after January 1st, 2023, which would be after any of the five of us who are on the current council would be have finished our current our current election and their terms or anything. So, um. So is this something the voters would vote on? The voters would set the maximum. Yes. And in the language would say that it would not take effect until January 1st, 2023. So so just for clarification, for folks who might not have had a chance to read the staff member, these are ballot measure proposals you're introducing, is that correct? Yes, I would actually go so far as to say we're introducing the idea of the council directing staff to draft ballot proposals, which will come back in June or July, and for further council discussion and then a determination at that point whether or not to put it on the ballot and then the voters would vote, whether or not to. Sorry, I understand your question now. But no, I. Yes. Yes. And therefore, the that the voters would be determining whether or not the council should in the future have the flexibility to give themselves a raise. And in our public meetings on this issue, we had very strong support for the idea that the council is currently underpaid and that there is a concern that the current pay the council could be a limiting factor in attracting candidates. Who may not have the wherewithal to self-fund themselves, but being a volunteer for the city. Thank you. You've answered my question. Did anybody else have questions on this item before? Mr.. The vice mayor assigned to the second measure he's discussing tonight. Councilmember Odie. Thank you. So when you say clarify health benefits, so with what are we or what are you proposing we we do away with. Well, currently, there's no language about health benefits currently. I mean, would you know, it's very strictly our city charter says we make $50 per meeting. It does not talk about city health benefits. It doesn't talk about technology and car allowances, etc., the things that we do actually still collect. And so I think what this would do would not be this council adding yet another $15,000 on to $30,000 in or 20 to $25000 in health benefits, which some some past council members have taken. I'm not I haven't looked up. What? I haven't looked up who's taking what? Yeah. On the current council. But in the past, some council members have funded their their family health coverage through the city council. We have two other elected officials who do that as well. So this would this would clarify that council members would remain. So it would actually say that council members would themselves would be able to collect health benefits, but that it would not be family coverage. So then the only people that would be removed from eligibility are the family members of the council, which I'm incorrect. That would include Mayor. Yes, that's. Sorry. We are all the city council. We're the council. Yeah, that. Was that was that was my intent. Yes. And again, we can change any of this. This was just the the proposal. Tony and I came up here. Just to clarify. So if somebody wanted to change that or didn't like that and wanted to move forward with it with different without that language, with better with different language, that's fine. I just it was a starting point for. The conversation in 15 minutes. Okay. So if people were removed, you're proposing removing are the family members of the mayor and council? Yes. Okay. Yes. This does not past past versions talked about the city charter and treasurer currently that the charter gives the the setting of the compensation for the charter for the auditor and the Treasurer to the City Council. This would not change that in any way. Okay. Any other questions? Councilmember They certainly give a quizzical. Yeah, no, no, I, I'm not quizzical. I just. Tell my principal I just want. To present some data for that. For the public, for the viewing public, uh, city clerk y figure, are you able to post. That data that I put together? Yes, we can post it. It might not look great for the members of the public, but we'll try and zoom and just give. It a shot. Good. Mm. Great. Well, what you have here, I went through a state of California database called Transparent California. And I went through all of the cities in Alameda County. And as vice mayor, I had said earlier, when you look at the data on a city by city basis, the city of Alameda lags considerably when it comes to pay . Our pay is $100, as I said, in the charter. But in addition to that, there's roughly about $400 of additional pay technology and and and vehicle. So it's roughly about 400, $500 a month. But when you compare it against the other cities, you can kind of you can generally see how we lag considerably. Perhaps Albany is the only other city that that that is substantially lower as low as us. On average, the monthly pay is roughly about 1200 dollars a month versus our roughly pay of $400. Um, so we want to just make sure to build a case that, that there is a considerable discrepancy by, in the way in which your city council here in Alameda is paid relative to two city councils in nearby areas. Um. So so that's just part of the discussion. I think the other part of this discussion is certainly members of the public has have expressed some concern about pay in this environment. And the reality is, though, is that the COVID situation is going to be with us for quite some time. So if we're going to have a discussion, we might as well have a discussion tonight on this regular Tuesday night meeting. It doesn't mean that we necessarily have to come to a decision, but at least we can begin to have that discussion so that the public is informed about where we're going when it comes to the council pay. The other thing I do want to say, though, is that if we are to move this forward, that to potentially put it to a vote in November, we have to recognize that this isn't occurring in a vacuum because there are several other considerable charter reform items that that we need that we will be discussing in the coming days. So I think each of us council members need to kind of put this specific item tonight in the context of the other things, too. So so I just want to make sure to mention that. All right. Well, thank you very much, Laura, for putting up posting this data from Transparent, California. And thank you also to Vice Mayor Knox White and in working together on this item. Oh, and also one more. Thank you to Mayor Ashcraft in appointing us to this charter item. And I, I appreciate the work that you have both than I spend many hours over the almost a year and a half that you've been working on this. And so thank you for for doing the deep dove and and then whittling it down a bit in light of the current situation. Okay. And any other clarifying questions on this report? And I did want to ask the speaker, do we have public comment? We have two. Okay. So, um, I think. Did I see Councilmember Ellis hand go up or did I just see you put your glasses on? Okay. Um, never clarifying questions at this time on staff report. Hey, let's hear our public comments, please, Madam Clerk. The first one is for mayor. I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry. Vice Mayor. Since. Since the comments maybe on also measure two. Can we quickly just go? I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought we did, but we did not. Okay. Yes. Let's go. Through. The entire staff report and then we'll have our public comments. Take it away. I am assuming I am assuming that this one will be even clearer because they are all items we have more or less spoken about. But the second measure so we we we did propose in these move forward is one but we proposed doing them as two separate measures would be to allow language to allow the city prosecutor to commit crimes committed crimes, prosecute crimes. But that doesn't sound right. To do crimes. Without prior to district attorney requesting. We're not allowing that. Currently, the the city prosecutor has made that request and has received that permission. But last September when we adopted the, uh, the language appointing or creating the city prosecutor position and whatnot, we also said we'd like to look at amending the city charter to provide this direction so that it's clear for all future years. Also clarify that the absence, that absence in remote meeting participation rules. We need to make some clarifications that when your parent time family care COVID that that there are times in which remote meeting is perfectly acceptable and you can do it from the city, etc.. And it would I would call bringing it bringing our charter up to the modern world. Obviously not something where you just decide not to come to the council on a Tuesday. But there are some very, very real and good reasons why people might want to phone in or video in so that they can take care of children and family members or COVID pandemics. And then lastly, we just wanted to if staff had any clean up language they wanted to present to us, that would also come back to Councilmember SACS point. I think at least in my mind, the three meetings we're having on the charter this week, depending on what direction is given, at the end of the day, we would have one meeting sometime in June or July where we would kind of determine and determine which which all some whatever of the ones that we said, why don't we bring these back for future discussion will go on the ballot so that we would have be able to have that kind of balance and conversation all at once. So those are the those are them. We had proposed a couple of community task force. Obviously, this is not the time for community task forces. So once the COVID emergency kind of has passed, we would recommend some form of task force on campaign finance and ethics reform. We would think that the Mayor would appoint two council members to do that. And, uh, Council de SAC is the also I'll let you speak about it, Tony, but I wanted also to suggest the idea of a task force on District 11 elections. That was something that came forward just just from Councilmember de SAC, but we wanted it to be captured. From Councilmember de SA. What would you like to say about that? Well, I think at some point in time we might want to take a look at, um, uh, having district council members represent districts. And there's a lot of great models across the state of California, but certainly one of the impetus is as more and more cities, by virtue of being pressed by legal challenges, and also more and more cities just out of a desire to have council members represent certain geographic areas. Um, even here within Alameda County are turning to district elections. But also I think we might want to take a look at district elections from the lens of a form of campaign finance reform in the sense that, you know, having to campaign for districts could potentially cost less money, depending on the depending on the form of districts that you take. And by just if I can say quickly what I mean by different models. For example, our neighborhood neighboring city of San Leandro has districts, but each council member represents a district, a given geographic area. However, in order to represent that district, they have to be voted on citywide. So that's an interesting model in terms of district elections. But the classic district model is certainly, you know, you represent a certain geographic area and my light to gone out. But so that's about it. And I think sometime in the we can I agree that we can hold off the discussion on district of elections potentially by inviting even more people to give us their insights, like the League of Women Voters as well as Alameda Citizens Task Force, etc.. Thank you. Okay. So now we've covered the staff report. Okay. Any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Councilmember Odie. Thank you. And thank the two of you for your work. So are we not being asked to consider the last two items or we are. The task forces and the district's election is that the task. Forces task to. Work with two task forces. I don't believe it was my intention to ask the council to consider tonight. Obviously, at the end of the day that whatever the recommendation is going forward tonight is the council's will. And so if they thought one or the other was worthwhile and saying, let's do that, and then we could start in September, we can now. Okay. Certainly wouldn't be against it. And I won't talk about it unless others do. All right. And if I. Remember Councilmember de CYC. I thought our specific marching orders from several weeks ago was to kind of narrow down this initial list. So that's why Vice Mayor Knox White and I have the two items as kind of the headlining items and the other things kind of as well. We'll pick it up later. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Um, okay. Let's have our public speakers. Okay. The first one is Janet Gibson, who's an Alameda resident. Dear Mayor and Council Members. Alameda Voters want charter discussions to be inclusive and transparent. We respectfully request that the Council postpone these important discussions until our governor lifts the shelter in place. Order. If ever there were a time for City Council members to listen to your constituent, it is now tonight. You have received many letters asking for you to pause these discussions. But. Three are particularly significant letters from Alameda League of Women Voters, Alameda Citizens Task Force, an Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. These letters are especially important because each organization represents hundreds of Alameda citizens. What is everyone asking for? They are asking that you respect the limiting conditions of all of us are living under during this pandemic period. The situation makes all of us unable to engage in serious deliberation over the important issues that will affect the future of Alameda. Voters are asking that you postpone these charter discussions. If you want potential charter amendments to pass at the polls, the process must be trusted by the voters. You've got to get the wording right. And although that's essential over the long run, our city can function well while we work on forming a consensus. And then the next speaker is Patricia Gannon, who's also an Alameda resident. Honorable mayor as he Ashcraft, an honorable members of the Alameda City Council. I am following up on my letter of April 22nd regarding this topic. This is a complex and complicated issue which deserves to be fully debated in person by council members in an open setting so that Alameda citizens have a full understanding of the issue and have an opportunity to express their views fully in person. With the City Council at a meeting in council chambers, as convenient as matters to modern technology may be, sometimes the old fashioned way is the best way to proceed. There's absolutely no pressure to push this forward. I again urge the Council to table this issue until social distancing is ended and the myriad issues can be fully debated in an open setting. If the Council does decide to move forward, I fully support the recommendations of the Army two citizen task force submitted in its letter dated May 4th, 2020. Thank you for your consideration. And that's the last speaker. Okay. Well, then with that we will close public comment. Um. Okay. So now. We go to a council comment and then we'll see what we what we decide. So I would like to start. As I say, I'm happy to. But do you want to start today? So. Sure. I'd like to offer this comment. I think the comments raised by the members in the public comment portion, as well as the volumes of emails that we had received, um, uh, are right. But for different reasons. Um. I think the data clearly shows that the City Council of Alameda for generations has been underpaid. I think the data clearly shows that, and I think the reasonable resident will see the data and then come to the same conclusion that that we're not a city council that's asking for for a change to the charter when it comes to pay. Insofar as the request is is grounded in the data that was before us is not we're not asking for the moon. I think it's reasonable in relationship to the to to what's around us. But I think, though, that as significant as this request is, I think we all know that any time that you have a request for a pay increase, it becomes a form of political football. And if it's going to be a form of a political football, I'm really concerned about this because I believe that there are two other items that we are going to discuss. And we can't we can't discuss it tonight because they're going to they're going to be discussed on the in the following days. And my concern is, any time you have pay, that it becomes a form of a political football and it could become an unwelcome distraction as we tackle the of the two one of the two other items that it could become a unwelcome distraction. So. I'm okay with postponing this until I understand where we are with the other two. At which point in time I would make it. I think we should then come back to this and figure out if we're going to put it, if we want to move forward to bring it to the voters. But I think there are two other items, though, that if we all if we bring up all three together, it could become an unwelcome distraction. And for that reason, I, I certainly support postponing it for now. So I'm postponing I'm supporting the notion of postponing, but for different reasons, not not necessarily because of COVID 19, but because of how we position this or anything it or anything else. This coming November, if there is to be a November vote. Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna go next. I have paid close attention to the many emails, voicemails, the public comments we just heard. And. And I respect all of your opinions. But I also want to make a few things clear. First of all, the council is not voting to amend the charter. The council will vote on whether or not to consider allowing or to allow the voters to amend the charter. To amend the charter. We will put forth proposals if we have a majority to do that and we'll take it to the voters. That is democracy. And while it is true that we are under a shelter in place order, there is still the need for government to move forward to function. You heard the items, many of them that we just discussed and approved and moved on earlier today have to do with the city moving forward in a responsible manner. And so I also want to point out a few things about this notion that the only way we can have full participatory democracy in our city is if we all are allowed to come to city council, fill the chambers, make our voices heard. Well, we are all adjusting and adapting to a new reality, and none of us is, at least I don't think on this council is anticipating that we're going to go back to the days of filling the chamber because we are still going to need to practice social distancing, whether it's in our schools, our restaurants, our businesses. This is the new reality that's going to keep us healthy. The other thing for all of the seniors out there to keep in mind is the governor's orders have specified limitations on what seniors can do in public. And I believe the golf resumption excludes people 65 and over. I don't think you'd want to be told that you can't come and speak to your council because it's not healthy for you to do so. But the ability to participate from the comfort of your own home. Submitting your comments by email, voicemail, or text message that are heard by the Council and considered and made a part of the record gives you your ability to speak and in some ways makes it even more convenient for the parent of a young child, for someone who would need to arrange childcare before they went out. For someone whose mobility is limited and it's just more of an effort to get to the council chambers for a meeting. I mean, we've all gotten accustomed to doing things in a certain way, but we're now learning new ways and we're going to adapt to those and we're going to move forward. And I know I got an email from the League of Women Voters saying maybe this isn't the time to have a thoughtful public discussion. But then yesterday, our League of Women Voters of Alameda announced the exciting news that for the first time, the United States Supreme Court began livestreaming oral arguments. And I say, if the Supreme Court can do it, we can, too, although we can give you video as well. The other thing is that this is a time when people are paying attention. They have more time on their hands right now with shelter in place. Many people aren't working. Many people are at home. I hold the weekly mayors, COVID 19 town hall on Fridays, and I've had at Friday and on Friday at noon on a day with nice weather. 75 people in in the discussion, you know, listening. It's not for me it's for the pretty amazing speakers I get on this week. Speaker is the county public health officer, by the way. But so and I've also read some really encouraging news lately that young people are younger generation 18 to 30 are getting more politically active and interested. And a lot of it has to do with the impact on their lives that this COVID crisis has had and what they see as governments maybe from the top mishandling of this. We're also going to have a presidential election in November. So life goes on, life goes forward. We take very seriously our duty to communicate with the public, and we're learning more ways to do it all the time. I've had probably more opportunities lately to communicate directly with my constituents in these Zoom town halls because they ask me questions. Not just the speaker and I, I'm. Be looking forward to to maintaining some of these new forms of communication. So as far as the items themselves, and again, I thank the subcommittee for bringing this forward, I do believe that it is worth bringing to the public the idea of allowing a future council to be compensated in a different manner, and also more in keeping with the the pay that other city councils are making around the Bay Area. There's nothing in Alameda that we do less of than other cities, and in fact, none of us has our own staff. So we're doing an awful lot of the heavy lifting by ourselves. I mean, we have fabulous city staff, but we are not assigned staff people the way Oakland and some other cities are. Um, and then the, uh, the city prosecutor language. I think that's a really important one for our residents. These are often quality of life kinds of cases that can be prosecuted by our city prosecutors, which the Alameda County DA's office just doesn't have the interest or the bandwidth to deal with, given everything else they're dealing with on a county level. So that's that's important for our for our city. And then as far as and clean up language, asking staff to take a look at the charter and see any clean up language that they want to identify and bring back to us. I think that's perfectly reasonable. I think I heard my two colleagues on the subcommittee say the formation of community task forces can wait and I would be agreeable with that. So those are my thoughts and I'm happy to hear from. Let's hear from Councilmember Vela. So I take a little bit different perspective, I guess. I think that shelter in place has actually impacted a variety of people differently than Ms.. Well, I'm so sorry. I have to interrupt you to do a quick motion because it's 1058. Sorry. Hold that thought. Um, so, counsel, we need a motion to consider two items. After 11:00, it's like 2 minutes to 11. So the next one is item six. This is the one that came back to us because council member, vice mayor in that vote had to leave and that's direction. On whether or not to waiver a conflict on the retention of a particular legal firm by both the city and the Housing Authority. And the other one is, um, nine A which is my counsel referral about the, uh, the community, the tax exempt special fund to provide gap resources for local businesses, renters, local organizations. So what we can do, if you like. Sorry. The, um. We can make a motion to continue in here those items, but only to go to a certain time. But I would like those items heard. So do I have a motion? I move? Okay. And is it until the time when you're like, um. What do we think, council? It's ten now. 1145. It's, I mean, it's it's 1059 that 2:00. Jim. 11 now it's it's 1059 on my watch. 1145 you said, okay. Ten 1145 think we could do this in 45 minutes? I think we can. Okay, um, do have a second to Councilmember de fax motion. Yes. No. Um. Second. Sorry, my mike. I turned my mike off the second. Second. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Could I please have a voice vote? Councilmember de SAG? Yes. Not quite. I. I. Vella. I'm mayor as the Ashcraft High. That carries by five days. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Councilmember Vela, please excuse the interruption. Just got this text. Okay. You were saying. Yeah. So I take a little different view about the shelter in place. I think that while some people may have more time, unfortunately, because they're unemployed and now out of work and, you know, trying to figure out where how they're going to afford to live, I actually that worries me about considering an increase to council pay even regardless of the data and what the data shows. I also think that many of us actually have less time on our hands. I am still working my day job and still teaching. In fact, I teach tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.. I am. Here at council meetings, having multiple meetings and doing a lot. And I also have zero childcare, so I'm actually doing a lot more and I think that we have a lot of working families and parents in Alameda who are doing a lot. And those individuals, whether they are unemployed and waiting in line at the food bank or, you know, trying to balance work and home life and child care, I think are not necessarily able to fit in and paying attention and participating or are not necessarily aware that these kinds of discussions are happening because they're assuming that we're working on, you know, essential or pressing matters. I do think some of the proposals like the perhaps the the clean up, the need to update our charter so that it's not. You know. Archaic in terms of the language that we have relative to access and absences. I think particularly with COVID, where even what we're hearing is that, you know, a lot of people, for instance, if of Kaiser, my mom had to go in and get tested for COVID last week. Both of my parents are seriously ill right now. I'm also taking care of them. You know, they would have had to be hospitalized in San Leandro. And so we have residents and members of our council are Kaiser participants. You would not be hospitalized in Alameda. You'd be hospitalized. At the Kaiser facility outside of Alameda. And under our charter rules, potentially your seat would be in jeopardy. So I think that sort of language is pressing. I, I am worried about the digital divide. I think it's real. I think we need to be careful about how we are letting people know that we're having these conversations, that we want meaningful participation. And yes, there are people that are online, but there are a lot of people that are not online. And our own systems have had glitches. And we've had a meeting that literally got cut off in the middle of the meeting. Tonight, I had issues getting on to zoom. And I think that, you know, if we're going to have these charter conversations, we need to publish it well in advance. It needs to be published in the newspapers with the information about how people can download whatever platform we're using, how they can get access to it, and what phone number they can call into to access the meeting, that sort of thing. We need to be publishing it on multiple different platforms and getting the information out. Working with Meals on Wheels, working with Mastic to get the information out because some people are also afraid to go pick up their newspaper, for instance. So I just think that we need to be thoughtful about how we're actually connecting with people so that they know that these conversations are occurring. Regarding Measure one, I think the Council can move forward at any time to make a recommendation to look at council pay. I am concerned, having seen a number of people in line at the food bank and the number of families picking up meals right now that the timing of this is just. It's just bad. It's not good timing. Well, I know that it would be for a future council. Let's have this conversation in the future, because how I feel about it, I agree that we're underpaid, especially somebody who literally pays to be here at times. When child care was available, I was literally paying to be a council meetings and special meetings because I had to pay for somebody to watch my child. When we had work sessions during the day, I was taking vacation off of my day job and then paying somebody to stay with my son. So I agree. We're underpaid. I just think that the because council can bring it at any time and because it would be for a future date, I think it's a conversation that we should look at maybe in a year or two, hopefully, when the economy has recovered. And I think also for the, um, regarding the health care, it just seems discriminatory. I don't take health care from the city at all. And I way that I have health care through my day job. But it seems discriminatory to say that you're not going to provide health care for families. Um, and I have concerns about that, especially if we're underpaid. That might literally be the only benefit for people right now. So I'm a little hesitant to move forward on that change right now. For Measure two, I think we need to do a better job of clarifying the parameters of the city prosecutor relative to how we're publicizing this issue. I think it's an important change that needs to happen, but I think we need to articulate it better to the general public so they understand what it what we mean by it. And they don't just think that we're going to have our own special prosecutor who's going to go out now and start prosecuting everybody. And that's some of the feedback that I've gotten. And so I think we just need to think about how we message that a little better to get some better engagement from people around that issue. Because I think once we have the conversation with them. They're supportive. Of it. I just think that they don't understand it. And so we need to think about how we engage people around that. As I said, I'm supportive of changing the language around remote participation and absences. I think the language is very much outdated and needs to be updated. In terms of district elections, I think we need to wait for the census results and the census is taking place right now. I think that could really inform the conversation. And so I think having I just be concerned about having a task force now and then getting the census data later, I think we need to get the census data and then let that kind of inform where we go. And hopefully we get good census participation so that we get good census data. The whole other story. And then in regards to just the other topics that I know we're not going to be able to discuss, I unfortunately will not be able to participate in Thursday's meeting. I have childcare conflicts and my husband has an evening meeting and my kid has a hard time going to sleep when both of us aren't able to be with him to get him to go down. So I won't be able to participate. But. Thank you, Councilmember Villa, Councilmember Odie. Thank you. And maybe my suggestion to the vice mayor and Councilmember de design present in that time should not be counted against them if they wanted to have more discussion. But I, I also agree with the take on of Councilmember Bella. You know, we are focused on this. This is our job. You know, when we're not doing our day jobs, those of us that are lucky enough to still have them or that are not there 12 hours a day because they're a critical employee, that the public really isn't focused on this. I mean, the public is focused on their health. The public is focused on their safety. If they're a family with child or school age children, they're focused on educating their children right now. I mean, they're really not paying attention. They're wondering how they're going to get through the next day without getting sick or getting the lessons taken care of or, you know, whether their business is going to be operating so or their parents are going to get sick. So I. I think it's. It's careful, too. I think we should pay close attention to what the public is focusing on. And then to Councilmember de SACS point. And I think it's the Janet Janet Gibson. I mean, we do have to be concerned about the perception. You know, we have two potential measures today. I mean, these were supposedly the least controversial. We have one tomorrow and then we have another one on Thursday. And I think if there's a perception whether we're not we're doing it or not, because I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything. If there's a perception over jamming this through, you know, right now it's past 11. We're discussing this. There's probably nobody that's that's watching because typically we lose audience at 11. And if we do this on multiple items, especially ones as critical as we'll be talking about at the end of the week. We have to be mindful of that perception. And this is where I think the perception problem arises with with at least one of these items. I totally admit we are not amending our charter either today or tomorrow or the next day. But what we are doing is, like we did two weeks ago, we are narrowing the focus. So we are setting up the framework and the parameters on what type of charter amendment we are going to ask the staff to bring us. So we're already chopping, you know, different alternatives off so that even though we're not doing an amendment, we have to be careful about that. And even though we are not voting to raise our pay today because we can't we are voting on a potential process or we're voting on the parameters of how we might want to do that in the future. So the optics of this particular thing in today's time concern me, especially if we're going to ask our our public. I have a lot of faith in them to sort through, you know, all of the noise. But if we're going to ask them to do make a change to something that's been around for 50 years like we might do on Thursday, I think we have to be cautious of that. So, I mean, nobody's here for the money. I mean, I know I knew it was a $50 a meeting. You know, that's kind of a second thought. I don't think anyone does it for the health care. I know that personally. I used it one month when I had a transition from one job to another. But that's not why we do it. We do it because we love our city. We want to make a difference. We we have people that share our values that think that, you know, we can do a great job representing them. But, you know, the optics now, we have 20% unemployment in our country. So at the time that 20% of our people don't know where their next paycheck is, we are discussing parameters on how we can increase hours. You know, we have we heard today that businesses are going to close, whether we like it or not, we're going to lose some some probably great Alameda business establishments. And, you know, those businesses are worrying about how they're going to pay their rent, how they're going to pay their rent, how they're to pay their employees, how you're going to pay their rent at home or their mortgage. And, you know, we're setting parameters on, you know, whether or not or how we're going to get a pay increase. And my cat is now climbing on my notebook. And, you know, we have. You know, I don't know if people know this, but, you know, right now our $50 is pensionable or posible or whatever the word is that that we make up to describe that. And that's $50 the the benefits if they're taken or not taken or not, the allowances are not. And by bumping up our pay, um, there could be valid reasons that Councilmember de Sykes added a different time and a different place. But, you know, it's not just the $25,000, it's the purse costs. And, you know, we've already I got a warning email just today about, you know, the funding of the purse system. And that's going to be a big issue next year when we have contracts up. And for us to sit here and ask others to take a cut or to contribute more. And at the same time, we're establishing parameters and us getting more attention pay. So I think that's an optics issue to me. And you know, then there's the whole issue of the pension costs. And we've heard on this dais, you know, the potential budget shortfalls that we're facing. And again, the optics of us asking, putting parameters around us, making more money and not that we don't deserve. I mean, we all do a great job, but the optics of that, at the same time, we're going to be asking our staff to come up with cuts because we are going to be in a world of hurt next year. Let me just tell you, we heard from Eric a couple of weeks ago. We heard it from our treasurer. You know, we are going to have to make some serious decisions if this is not turn around. And at the same time, we're asking, you know, Eric, to cut money. We're discussing the parameters of of giving ourselves more. So, I mean, I think this is just me speaking. So I'm not speaking for anybody. You know, I signed up for the $50. I think there are probably 500 more people in the city more deserving of a $25,000 raise than me. You know, you can start with that. Our city manager, who's been heroic, you can start with our assistant city manager, our city clerk, our city attorney. You know Mr. Potter, you know Lois Butler, all the people in economic development. And if I don't mention your name, is still as a raise from our police department, from the top to the bottom. I mean, everyone who mans or staffs the EOC, I mean, all of those folks just done a heroic job. And, you know, personally, this is me speaking. I would rather be giving than $25,000 or some portion of that than taking it myself. So on the health care, you know, we just had a campaign nationally about Medicare for All and health care for all. And now many people here on this dais supported people that advocated for that. And now we're we're considering, you know, something that takes it away. And I agree with Maria. I think, you know, it hurts women because if you're on the fence between running for a council and not maybe you're a single mom and maybe you're your reason why you might run as you might get health care. I mean, I don't think anyone does it for that reason. But, you know, if you can't get health care, you may not run. So by just saying you can't have your family coverage. And I do think it's discriminatory against families because, you know, if that's somebody's determining motive, you might just end up with a bunch of single people. And that's not representative of Alameda and the city prosecutor. You know, we've talked about this. I think there needs to be some more parameters around that. You know, we're having a discussion tomorrow where there is a proposal on the table that, um, a councilmember could be prosecuted. And let's not get into. I'm not just. I'm just let me finish. And so I think that there are some parameters because I worry about that power being abused, someone who's in the minority. I mean, I think our city attorney has a great staff. He does a great job. But, you know, he's an up and comer. He may not be here. All those others that work for him are rising star. So who knows who's going to be here next. And I say that because, you know, in our last situation, we had an agenda item on closed session. And I was told by our city attorney that if the council voted to approve that litigation, she wouldn't prosecute it. So I don't say that. To be. Critical. I say that because you can have a political conflict on that level that could manifest itself into something, something bad. So that needs to be some. Clock. Issues. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to three more points then I'll be done. On the absence of remote. I agree with Maria, you know, if you're sick or out of the city or quarantined, we had that ridiculous issue with her taking family leave where she could have lost her seat and the clean up language that's a little broader . I mean, that's sort of what comes back, you know, gender neutral, I think needs to be taken care of. It's not she anymore. So that gender neutral has to be wider. And then if we're not discussing the task force, I won't discuss the task force. But you know, Alameda progressives were not a group mentioned and then we have to be careful of unintended consequences fractionalization and you know we mentioned San Leandro Lee Thomas. Both ran citywide. He won his district, but because he ran citywide, he lost. So, you know, just all those unintended consequences. So thank you. I'm sorry I went overtime. That's okay. Um, let's see. Who haven't we heard from? I mean, Vice Mayor, you presented and Councilmember de. Thank you. I guess you did speak a bit. I do want to come back to a couple of points, but Vice Mayor, you didn't really did you have anything more you want to say or have? You know, I just I would just clarify a couple of things I heard. And it doesn't you know, however we move forward is how we move forward. And I, I respect my my colleagues regardless of how that is. Now, I think it's important to point out that the items on tonight's agenda, all of them went through public hearings. In fact, I think everybody on the council here attended at least one of those hearings. They were well attended and provided information. And I think it's important not to suggest that somehow this is being done at the last minute in a rush, in the dark of night. I understand that that is the language some people are using to to stop things. They don't want to see it moving forward. But I think that that we should at least acknowledge that there were online forms and many forms that that happened. I just I just I want to clarify, because Councilmember Odie, who I respect your position, but you kept saying we are we are deserving, we're trying to give ourselves money and whatever else. And as proposed, we would not be doing anything for ourselves if we ran and we won. If you run for reelection and you won at the same time that this was passed, you might in the future be able to give yourself that option. But I think it's I just, again, for for clarity, for people watching. There is no proposal for us to give us ourselves. There is no trade off between giving people a raise this year or next year or giving ourselves more money to live on the health insurance certainly can be swayed. I mean, I can't go anywhere on that one. It doesn't sound like it's moving forward. But, you know, I think that there are cases. I also think that at a certain point in time, you know, there are costs. And we should think about that regard. Costs for the health care, for the amount of work that is actually put in on the council. We have people we have employees currently in the city who do not get health care, who work more hours and that than the council does and whatnot. And so I do think that there's it's an important balance to think about, but I think it's up for discussion. If and when we decide to move this forward, it's a matter of time and I'm okay with that. Yeah. Okay. I and I'm just going to chime in on a couple of things. I, I listened to Melissa as councilmember and councilmember and I agree with what you said about the health insurance. And as far as the cost, I think we would actually need to know. Oftentimes a premium for water for two is the same premium. And the employee can pay to add family members, which I think is, is actually the way it works in many cases. Um, I do think and again, thank you for the clarification. Vice Mayor. We are not voting to raise our pay. None of us will see a raise in pay and that's okay. We know what we signed up for. The reason I support it and I think it should go to the voters to decide for a future council is it does help level the playing field. If you didn't happen to have the personal financial wherewithal, say, to to run a campaign to work less hours because of the commitment that running to serve on the council takes, you didn't have, you know, some special group or whatever that would you knew you could count on for backing. It would be good to know you were being fairly compensated. I mean, women for many years, we're still fighting the battle to be paid equally for the work we do compared to a man doing the same job. So I'm taken aback to somehow have it suggested that, you know, just just suck it up, that, you know, you shouldn't vote yourself a raise again. We're not voting ourselves a raise, but I think we do need to think about succession planning and and finding ways to level the playing field. You're right. We got a. Little. And Mayor, you saw your clock is up, too. Yes, my. Because that so let me just wrap up quickly, because what I wanted to say about as far as yeah, I don't like having a meeting at 11:00 at night either, but our next two meetings tomorrow starts at 530 and the next one starts at 6:00. And I can guarantee you we're not going to be still talking it at 11:00 at night. And this isn't the last these aren't the last conversations we're going to have on this topic. So, um, with that, I, um, I wonder where we can go from here. I, I think a lot of work's been put into this. Councilmember de SAC has his hand up and great. Well, time on the clock go. Well, thank you. Just. I'll be quick. I'm going to recommend that we postpone a decision on this item, on the pay item, specifically until the first meeting in June. And I'm going to make that recommendation largely because I'm mostly interested in what we're going to be discussing when it comes to charter reform on Thursday night. And that has to do with what will potentially be the mother of all battles to do with our historic measure. Thank you. We'll cross that bridge when it comes to you. Is this a motion councilman mediator? That's a that's a motion, yes. Okay. I see. So your motion is to. Postpone decision on the council, pay specifically to the first meeting in June. We've taken public testimony. We've had our public thing. I just think that the potential Thursday night discussion, if that is going to be on the ballot, that's going to be the mother of all battles. And this will be a sideshow that that's going to that's going to be just get in the way. So that's why I'm I need to know what we're going to do with on Thursday night first. Thank you. Okay. That's a motion we'll get to whether there's a second. But Councilmember Rivera has her hand up. Yes. I just wanted to say, I think at least I think we need to make a decision separate about when things go on the ballot. I would hope that we can move forward certain things for points of discussion without necessarily making a determination on what goes on the ballot. I would like to have a conversation about politically. Street. Strategy, about presenting things and in terms of a timeline for ballot consideration and at a separate meeting. And I would also just like to say that, you know, in multiple evening meetings in one week are very, very difficult for me with with a young child. And they are, I know, for other families because of that. So if we are going to have a conversation about that, to think about alternative times that we might be able to meet and have that like on a weekend or something like that, then that that's a good point and thank you for raising it. We I know when the clerk reached out, it was because these two nights had been set aside for the budget hearings. And so I guess, you know, there had been some consensus. But that's a that's a very good point that you raise. And so, Councilmember Vela, what you're suggesting is to also have a further discussion about the sequencing of the timeline for bringing items for the ballot. Yeah, I think we need to have a thoughtful conversation around combinations and timing and what we would want voters to consider, because there could be a number of different things on any given ballot. And I just want us to be thoughtful about what the overall ballot composition looks like and not giving voters too much to kind of consume in one and one on one ballot. There's a lot of different proposals. I think we might want to think about what gets put together on what ballot. So timing wise, would you want to have that discussion also at the first meeting in June, or do you want to see a separate special meeting? I didn't understand which I, I think if there's room on the at the specials at the meeting in June, I don't know what that agenda looks like. I also would want to know what we're asking folks to move forward on. Like, for instance, I'm not necessarily I want to get the census information back before we talk about, you know, districts or something like that and for some of this. I just want to kind of understand. Can I make a motion that we all have more time to discuss this on the census? And I want more than 24 hours in the day myself. But on the census, I keep hearing from Congresswoman Lee that they have asked for an October, an extension to October, to get the census materials in. But then when she was on my town hall last Friday, she didn't know and her age didn't know if that has actually been done. But I can say I think we're safe in saying we're not going to see that data in this calendar year. Right. Yeah. So I just I think just trying to narrow this conversation down so that people understand what it is we're considering and when we're considering, it would be helpful. And I think that motion. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think the motion is a good idea. You guys are really past your rules. And if you're going to all keep speaking, I would highly suggest going forward. I think. It was for 3 minutes more each. That we're sure. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a say? Okay. That was a motion. And second, let's have a quick roll call vote and everyone gets three more minutes to wrap this up. Councilmember Daisy Knox White. Hi, Odie. Hi, Vela. Guy Mayor is Ashcraft. Hi. Thank you. Thanks for being a good race person there. Um, the. Anyway, what I wanted did want to ask quickly of the city manager because I know I just looked at the agenda for the next meeting, but I don't know what early June looks like to you, Mr. Leavitt, get at that crystal ball. Um, I do not know why June is right. Off the top right now. I can try to find. That real quick if you want. Um, if. If possible. Um, uh. I see Vice Mayor as hands up and then back to Councilmember Vela because I was just. Going to suggest that, that given that some of the concern is about shelter in place and the first meeting in June is going to be sometime around possible changes. The second meeting in June, if we are able to go into July before actually making the final, final decision, the second meeting in June would still give us some months to have give some further direction and bring a final something back in July. And it would also give the community a little bit of time to start thinking, understanding what's going to happen with shelter in place. And so it might give us that six weeks instead of four weeks to come back with something. And if I could interject and I'm going to call on you, Councilmember Avila is I might actually ask for placeholders in both June meetings, because I think it's good to break up topics. So we're not covering too much at one time, and it also increases the likelihood that we finish earlier. Councilmember Vela, back to you. I was going to say, if we want to have a further discussion on what items we might want to move forward on, and then a second discussion on timing, that might be the way to do it. And I think when I talk about timing, there's a number of different elections between now and May 2023 even. And so I think figuring out when those elections are and what the timelines ahead of them are. I'm also thinking of staff time because if we're asking for that and that's going to have to put input, I think it might be a big ask to say, here's five charter changes. We want you to get ready for the ballot as opposed to here's one or two, let's do this, this election. There's these other elections we can consider. So for the second meeting in June, I think it would be helpful to understand when the regular elections, not where we would be paying for a special election, but where we have other things on the ballot. And also, if there would, if there is a need to have it, have it on a ballot, that we wouldn't necessarily have a council member running. But we have so many items that we're looking at moving forward. What would the cost be to do that? And we need to understand both. Yeah. So I think I'm hearing you say that to hold to to hold discussions in both meetings in June and and and we'll discuss timing. I do think there is an advantage to having some more significant things happen on this November election. Just because we can assure I hope we can assure a really good turnout in the November election and that just, you know, also gets more participatory democracy. But okay, so let's we're saying we'll hear items. The first meeting in June, the second meeting in June. What are we hearing? The first meeting in June? Councilmember de SA, you proposed I. Propose that we simply postpone our decision until June. And by the way, it could be mid-June or first week of June, either way. Um, and by postponing. The decision, basically. I'm also suggesting that we not even tonight that we not even adopt in concept the possibility of an increase in council pay. That could be a discussion that we would have again in. In mid-June. I just did. So it's either going to be the first meeting in June, which is the first Tuesday or the third Tuesday. So I believe you had earlier said bring back the council. QUESTION in the first meeting in June. I originally said that. But, you know, mid-June is fine too. Okay. Um, so, uh, Councilmember Vela, could we at least agree to drop certain things off of consideration like this? The. The elimination of family health care. Could that drop off? Since we're working towards narrowing. I would be okay with that because I would want to drop that off. And then I think the other thing that I would want to clarify for folks is on the district elections, that we would be postponing a conversation on that until after the census so that people aren't worried about it. And then I think we just know that there's. No proposal to even move forward. Is that right now. They're not. Making a proposal. I just want to there is no recommendation. I was I think I think just well, all I would say is I just really wanted my direction would be that we even wait on having a task force until after the census numbers. I think I'm understanding that both of this task forces are off the table for now. Okay. So it's more going back to the items. Measures are one and two. So I would I would want to eliminate the family health care conversation from Measure one. And I think just we need to clarify a little more the parameters and perhaps that could come with the then the next staff report around the city prosecutor and maybe the conversation tomorrow night could. Inform that a little more. Yeah, I think yeah, I think that's a good point. Okay. When we're thinking of divvying up between the two June meetings, I think we do need to think about the items that are coming to us tomorrow and Thursday. Tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday, don't we? Yeah. Can I. Can I propose the next. The June meeting should not now be two different meetings about different topics. I think the first meeting is which topics do we want to. Yeah. We've now had this conversation about all the topics. Which do we want to move forward? Right. Okay. So you're saying by then we would know we've seen or seen or heard everything. Which do we want to move forward on is the first June meeting? Yes. And the second meeting is now that we have some language from staff or whatever else, based on that they're going, we're going to have some sense of what looks like it's moving forward. Right. That right. You know, tonight, coming out of tonight, I'm not confident pay is moving forward, but it sounds like, you know, the measure to more of this. Right. And then and then the second meeting in June would be more about, you know, do you package it all together as one thing? Is it three items? Are there a couple we want to push off about 2023 because there is not another meeting until 2023. Timing secret election. Yeah. Um. Okay. So is that are you putting and you're accepting of Councilmember Val's suggestion to drop the. Yes. Okay, so can you can you put that in a motion? Cause I think you might get a second. As long as yeah. As long as yeah. I guess I hear from move measure for one forward for future discussion without discussion of health benefits and measure two. And I would just recommend my, my, my colleagues who want to clarify the language around city prosecutor provide that language to provide input to the city. Attorney So we going to have some conversation in June, in January about that because we can't all talk about it. In January and. June. Terry I do June in January all the time. Sorry said yes when. You're here in January. No, I'm in June. Thank goodness I'm talking. Snow moved us to bring those back for further conversation in June, along with whatever moves forward on Wednesday and Thursday. And any other language clarifying language that staff identifies. Yes. Councilman Brody. I mean, I. I could actually second that if we actually if we're giving direction on Measure two, that actually there's language that comes back. Right? Yes, yes, yes, yes. That's a clarification. Yeah, right. Okay. Thank you. Right, right, right. Yes. With language. So. Okay. So between meeting one and meeting two. Yeah, I mean, I could second that and with a caveat, I mean and a caveat is that we're back in chambers, but I'm not going to push that if we'll just see what happens. Okay. Hey, Councilmember Vela, then Councilmember de Soto. Okay. I and I'm prepared to support the vice mayor motion. That second by second is right. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Okay. Go ahead. Yes, sir. I just want to clarify that the second meeting in June would also include a conversation about I know that there's two scheduled countywide elections, but there's also other dates for other elections. And I think understanding what the cost of running various measures, perhaps at an off election would be would also be helpful. Okay. So cost and timing of each of these specials. Yeah. Okay. All right. It counts everyday to get your hands out. I think the simplest answer for me is just to simply abstain on this motion pending what we see happen on Thursday. Um, cause I'm not clear what it means to move forward. If that means we're accepting in concept the idea of council of Pay or we regulate. You're council member, it says, okay, vice mayor, let him finish. And then you the. In effect postponing tonight's discussion until mid-May. Because if that's if that's the the what what moving forward means is that we're basically postponing tonight's discussion until later. We're we're we're. Narrowing. Vice Mayor, back to you. Yeah, yeah. Very postponing and narrowing. We are narrowing it down, Tony, but we are. And I can make. Decisions about what move forward. I think they built on actually they built on what you what you first. Yeah. And it doesn't that for all intents and purposes is going to happen after Thursday. Yeah. All right. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second move. We have a roll call vote. Please. Please. Thanks, everybody. Councilmember de SAG. Yes, yes, I get it. Thanks. Not quite. I Odie. Yes. Bella. I mean, there is the Ashcroft. I like Carrie's, but. I just think you could I just say I really appreciate all of you and your thoughtful discussions. You all bring a lot to the table. And I do appreciate it. So thank you. I know it's late and all kinds of other things. Let's race through this because we've got, um, 12 minutes. 12 to the 4407. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, um, um, so if I could you please read item six e. Recommendation to provide direction to the city attorney to consent, modify or reject law firm, firm Ltd's request to waive conflicts of interest in connection with legal representation of the City of Alameda and Housing Authority of the city of Alameda.