|
Patricia Lord, Community Resources Manager, presented the staff report.
Vice Mayor Lee stated that Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 include a cost element and asked staff if they have a recommendation on the funding. Coryn Campbell, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that staff did not have a recommendation, but it could be included in staff recommendation to Council for the 2007/2008 budget. City Manager Chan stated Council has (discretionary) set-aside funds. Vice Mayor Lee asked City Manager Chan what the current balance is in the set-aside funds. City Manager Chan stated the balance is $400,200.
Vice Mayor Lee asked if other cities surveyed spend about the same amount for the commission to be formed. Manager Lord stated the projection on the fiscal impact was based on similar boards and commissions in our City, as shown on page 13 of the staff report.
Vice Mayor Lee verified that the intent of Alternative No. 1 was to direct a specific multicultural issue to the appropriate board or commission.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked which board or commission would incorporate and accomplish the outreach efforts as listed in Alternative No. 1. Assistant to the City Manager Campbell stated that the intent was not to identify a specific board or commission to assume the responsibility of community outreach. Instead, various boards and commissions would provide multicultural outreach as they gather community input about issues they are considering.
Robert Walker, Assistant City Manager, stated the concept was to raise the level of awareness on the part of the boards and commissions and that staff would encourage them to be more proactive in terms of outreach and multicultural diversity.
Councilmember Moylan stated Alternative No. 2 proposes a committee that would report to staff and Alternative No. 3 proposes a board or commission that would report to Council. He inquired as to why the proposed committee reporting to staff would cost less than one reporting to Council. He also asked why on page 13 of the staff report the estimated costs to start a new board or commission (that reports to Council) is listed as $15,000 for the first year and $13,000 for the second; whereas under Alternative No. 3, the cost is listed as $12,000 for the first year and $10,000 thereafter. Manager Lord stated there is a clerical error on page 13 of the staff report and that the estimated amount for the first year should be $12,000 and the subsequent year would be $13,000. The reason a board or commission that reports to Council is more expensive is due to the staff time involved subject to the Brown Act. Councilmember Moylan verified that the more economic way to set up a new board or commission would be to make it an advisory committee to staff.
Councilmember Chu asked what would be the advantages of having an advisory committee reporting directly to staff. Manager Lord stated the advisory committee could advise staff on more administrative and operational issues, which may be of more interest to the members of such a committee.
Councilmember Chu asked how committee members would be chosen. Manager Lord stated it would be important to implement extensive community outreach to encourage wide representation. Councilmember Chu asked if that search would be part of the boards and commission interview process. Assistant City Manager Walker stated that if Council approved a board or commission that would report to Council, then selection would go through the normal board and commission interview process. If Council were to approve the advisory committee to staff, staff would select individuals that reflect the diversity of the community.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. No one wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 8:23 p.m.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lee moved and Councilmember Chu seconded to approve Alternative Nos. 1 and 3:
1. Utilize Role of Existing Boards, Commissions and Advisory Committees to further address Multicultural/Diversity Outreach and Issues. Incorporate multicultural/diversity outreach and issues as appropriate into their ongoing work plans.
3. Develop a new Council-appointed board or commission on Multicultural/Diversity
Outreach and Issues – Advisory to Council.
a. The new board members to be appointed by Council and act in advisory role to Council.
b. The new board will review policy level issues and activities focused on multicultural diversity outreach and issues, and meet quarterly.
c. New board of commission to comply with Brown Act.
Include a first year start-up and implementation budget of $12,000 in the City Manager’s proposed FY-07/08 operating budget, with funding of $10,000 for FY-08/09. Return to Council in fall 2007 with proposed By-Laws and Resolution. New board to operate on a pilot basis for two years; staff to return to Council with an evaluation report in FY-09/10.
Councilmember Moylan stated, “the real question is if Council creates such a body, does Council have them working on operational issues advising staff or have one coming up with new policies advising Council, which is more expensive. My understanding of the motion is that for an extra $2,000 a year, we get to copy other cities and I find that an unpersuasive argument.” He stated the role of this committee would have a fundamentally different mission than the boards and commissions that report to Council and he finds the staff recommendation for Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 more persuasive and the one he would support.
Councilmember Howe asked Vice Mayor Lee what the scope of the proposed board or commission would be and compare/contrast that to any other city listed on page 7 of the staff report. Vice Mayor Lee stated he saw the scope as a mixture of the Human Relations Commissions for the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View.
Councilmember Howe asked Vice Mayor Lee if the intent of his motion was to include Public Safety matters. Vice Mayor Lee stated that it was not intended to be a Police Review Commission.
Councilmember Howe asked Assistant City Manager Walker about the approximate cost to incorporate the board or commission scope as Vice Mayor Lee described as part of his motion. Assistant City Manager Walker stated staff would need to go back and look at this scope, but it is a much broader definition of multicultural or diversity than just focusing on the cultural aspects and would take significantly more staff time.
Councilmember Howe asked about the amount of staff time needed to create a staff report that would cost out the alternatives and clarify the Vice Mayor’s motion. Assistant to the City Manager Campbell, stated it would be a substantially larger number of staff hours than a narrowly focused multicultural advisory committee or board/commission as proposed in the staff report. She stated that the City of Palo Alto listed that 500 hours were required to staff their commission. Assistant City Manager Walker stated there would be additional complexity since the commission’s primary role would be to develop potential study issues. The time involved with study issues would need to be magnified depending on the nature of the potential study issues. Councilmember Howe asked if Assistant City Manager Walker agreed with Manager Campbell’s staff time projection. Assistant City Manager Walker stated that it would be a minimum of 500, hours but more likely significantly more.
Councilmember Howe explained to Vice Mayor Lee that instead of voting no on his motion, he would like this item delayed until such time staff can provide a cost estimate of the scope of this committee as identified.
Councilmember Howe asked if staff were to cost out the current alternative and the one as Vice Mayor has described in his motion, when could that potentially come back to City Council. Assistant City Manager Walker stated it would take approximately one month to prepare that report.
Vice Mayor Lee stated he would like to change his motion to continue this item (to not more than three months) to allow for the preparation of a cost estimate for a commission as he outlined, and then report back to Council as soon as completed.
Councilmember Chu offered a friendly amendment to not continue this item; instead have the responsibilities of the committee remain as listed in Alternative No. 2, but that the committee report to Council as identified in Alternative No. 3, and that the increased scope of the committee (as Vice Mayor Lee has proposed) become a study item at a later time. Friendly amendment accepted.
Mayor Swegles asked staff to explain the difference between an advisory committee and a committee that reports to Council. Assistant City Manager Walker explained that one of the basic differences is board and commission members are limited to policy issues that relate to Council and do not get involved in operational aspects and administrative issues. By comparison, a committee reporting to staff would work with staff to see if they are reaching the right people, to identify mechanisms for outreach efforts and to determine if we are seeking the right people. These are examples of things that the City would not get from an advisory board to the Council.
Vice Mayor Lee stated he now understood that the two groups identified in Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 would have different roles. He stated he did not believe one is more important than the other, and understood that one can not substitute for the other. He asked that given that information, would staff recommend developing a multicultural board or commission in addition to an advisory committee to staff. City Manager Chan stated although it is Council’s decision, she would not recommend that Council direct staff to have both the advisory committee and a board or commission. This would create a conflict of roles and responsibilities.
Councilmember Spitaleri stated he was concerned that staff is focused on community awareness of services and getting them involved in boards and commissions rather than a commission that would deal with diversity issues. He stated multicultural and diversity issues should be separated. Multicultural would deal with issues of involvement and awareness of City services. Diversity outreach and the broader community include everyone and every issue. The study should come back with a definitive goal and clearer recommendations.
City Manager Chan stated the study was focused on outreach to promote diversity and increasing outreach activities. There would be many opportunities for an advisory committee to undertake some of those activities. If Council is interested in an advisory board to look at policy issues, an advisory board to the Council would be appropriate. She stated the study issue process allows for community input and can raise policy issues for consideration. Not having a formal advisory board/commission does not mean there would not be any opportunity to address human relation policy issues. However, having an advisory group to Council allows for members to identify and discuss policy issues for the City of Sunnyvale. The issues from this board or commission could create significant staff hours in researching the study and policy issues that this group may develop. She stated there are pros and cons for this type of board or commission. If Council is interested in exploring a Human Relations board/commission, staff can come back with some of the issues that may be addressed by this group and the cost involved. She stated what Council is suggesting is an expanded scope of the responsibility of the proposed board/commission.
Councilmember Moylan stated, “right now, the way the City is currently recruiting board and commission members, I would not be highly confident in our ability to recruit a board or commission that had the appropriate makeup to serve as a diversity outreach committee. I think we have to solve that problem first.” He stated he still is in support of Alternative Nos. 1 and 2.
Mayor Swegles stated he can not support Alternative No. 3, because it would be more beneficial for the diversity of the community to have a committee report to staff.
Councilmember Howe asked if the motion that Council is voting on is for Alternative Nos. 1 and 3 as listed in the staff report. Mayor Swegles confirmed that was accurate. Councilmember Chu stated that he believed that the motion was for Alternative Nos. 1 and 3 with the duties of the commission to be outlined as in Alternative No.2 with a study issue coming back to explore an expanded commission. Councilmember Howe verified with Councilmember Chu that the commission would report to Council with the specific duties to be as outlined in Alternative No. 2. (as identified by his accepted friendly amendment).
City Manager Chan advised Councilmember Chu that the responsibilities listed for Alternative No. 2 are operational. Councilmember Chu therefore withdrew his second to the motion.
Vice Mayor Lee withdrew his motion and stated he would make a new motion.
Councilmember Howe agreed to second the motion but offered a friendly amendment. He would like as part of the study issue, a possible expansion into the other roles as listed by all cities identified in the staff report, page 7. Vice Mayor Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Moylan offered a friendly amendment. He stated a study issue to expand the two-year pilot program is premature before the pilot program has even started. He offered a friendly amendment to delay the study issue by one-year after determining if the program is working. Vice Mayor Lee stated Council is looking at outreach efforts this evening and that is different than a Human Services Commission. He wants the items looked at separately and did not accept the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Chu offered a friendly amendment that membership on this advisory committee would not preclude a member from serving on a board or commission. Mayor Swegles confirmed that was correct and advisory committee members are able to serve on boards or commissions. He stated that since this is already in place, a friendly amendment was not needed.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Lee moved and Councilmember Howe seconded to approve Alternative Nos. 1 and 2:
1. Utilize Role of Existing Boards, Commissions and Advisory Committees to further address Multicultural/Diversity Outreach and Issues. Incorporate multicultural/diversity outreach and issues as appropriate into their ongoing work plans.
2. Authorize funding (first year start-up and implementation budget of $10,000 in the City Manager’s proposed Fiscal Year 2007/2008 operating budget, with funding of $8,000 for Fiscal Year 2008/2009) to support staffs’ creation of a pilot committee on Multicultural/Diversity Outreach and Issues – Advisory to Staff.
· The advisory committee members to be selected by staff and act in an advisory role to staff.
· The new committee would review and make advisory recommendations on City programs, activities and possible Study Issues related to multicultural/diversity and outreach.
· The new committee would meet quarterly.
· Staff to return to Council with a committee evaluation report in Fiscal Year 2009/2010.
with: a Study Issue sponsored by Vice Mayor Lee, and Councilmembers Howe, Spitaleri and Chu to explore the establishment of a Human Relations Board or Commission advisory to City Council.
VOTE: 6-0 (Councilmember Hamilton absent)
|