The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutE-05. Grand Jury Response ReportCONSENT ITEM E-5 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL VIA: TROY L. BUTZLAFF, ICMA-CM, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOUIE F. LACASELLA, MANAGEMENT ANALYST DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 SUBJECT: APPROVE THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE 2015-16 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT REGARDING APPOINTED COMMISSIONS SUMMARY: On June 30, 2016, the 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury for Los Angeles County (CGJ) issued its Final Report, which included an investigation of information regarding appointed commissions that is available on city websites in Los Angeles County (Attachment 1). The CGJ found that many cities’ websites lacked detailed information about their appointed commissions. The CGJ also concluded that many cities’ websites were “unsatisfactory for ease of use,” including the City of Azusa’s website. However, the CGJ provided little to no information about how it came to this conclusion. The proposed action authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit the City’s response letter regarding the report by the 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury regarding appointed commissions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1) Authorize the City Manager to sign and submit the attached correspondence in response to the report by the 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury regarding appointed commissions. DISCUSSION: On June 30, 2016, the 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury for Los Angeles County (CGJ) issued its Final Report, which included an investigation of information regarding appointed commissions that is available on city websites in Los Angeles County (Attachment 1). The CGJ found that many cities’ websites lacked detailed information about their appointed commissions, including: Compensation for appointed commission members; Eligibility of elected officials to serve on appointed commissions; Eligibility of persons to serve on multiple appointed commissions simultaneously; and, Availability of commission agendas and minutes. Approved Council Meeting 9/19/2016 Response to 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Report September 19, 2016 Page 2 The CGJ also concluded that many cities’ websites were “unsatisfactory for ease of use,” including our own website. However, the CGJ provided little to no information about how it came to this conclusion. The CGJ makes five (5) recommendations in its Final Report. California Penal Code Sections 933 (c), 933.05 (a) and 933.05 (b), require a written response to all CGJ recommendations, to be submitted to the Clerk of the Court no later than ninety (90) days after the CGJ publishes its Final Report. The deadline for responses is September 30, 2016. Staff has prepared the attached correspondence in response to the CGJ recommendations (Attachment 2). The City Clerk’s Office and the Information Technology Department have already developed a “Commission Facts” webpage that will address the issues raised by the CGJ in Recommendation Nos. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. In addition, with respect to Recommendation No. 5.4 the City has taken steps to ensure that all agendas and minutes have been updated and are current. With respect to Recommendation No. 5.5, it should be noted that, as suggested by the CGJ, the City’s website already includes a conspicuous link to information about appointed commissions under the “Your Government” tab on the home page. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: Louie F. Lacasella Troy L. Butzlaff, ICMA-CM Management Analyst City Manager Attachments: 1) 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Report 2) Response to 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Report The Canyon City -Gateway to the American Dream September 19, 2016 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: APPOINTED COMMISSIONS: TRANSPARENCY WILL MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC TRUST Dear Honorable Presiding Judge and Civil Grand Jury, Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 (c), 933.05 (a) and 933.05 (b), enclosed is the written response of the City of Azusa to the recommendations contained in the Civil Grand Jury's Final Report entailed "Appointed Commissions: Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust". At its regular meeting of September 19, 2016, the Azusa City Council approved and authorized the submittal of these responses to the Civil Grand Jury's recommendations, set out in the enclosed document. The City appreciates the efforts of the Civil Grand Jury in promoting transparency in government. Sincerely, Troy L. Butzlaff, ICMA-CM City Manager cc: Honarbale Mayor and Members of the Azusa City Council Louie F. Lacasella, Management Analyst Adrian Garcia, Chief Deputy City Clerk Ann Graf, Director of Information Technology and Library Services City of Azusa Response to 2015-16 Civil Grand Jury Final Report Appointed Commissions: Transparency will Maintain the Public Trust RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.1. Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether compensation is paid and in what amount, including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If there is no compensation, state that none is provided. Response The City of Azusa is in agreement with the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) that information about the compensation of appointed City commission members should be included on the City’s website. In Azusa, each commission or board receives $25 dollars a meeting, except for the Art in Public Places commission which receives no compensation. However, this commission has never met. With respect to compensation in event of missing meetings, attendance is required in order to receive compensation. In response to Recommendation No. 5.1, the City currently has a “Boards and Commissions” link on the City’s homepage under “Your Government”. The City has placed an updated “Commissions Facts” document (Attachment 2), which includes the information required in Section 5.1, stating commission compensation received and if attendance is mandatory for the payment. Therefore, this recommendation by the CGI has been currently implemented by the City. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.2. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it. Response The City of Azusa agrees that information about the eligibility of elected officials to serve on appointed City commissions should be included on the City’s website. Azusa elected officials are not allowed to serve on City commissions. This ensures that the City Council receives objective recommendations and feedback from the City’s appointed commissions, which serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. In response to Recommendation No. 5.2, the City has updated the “Commission Facts” with the required information under Section 5.2, stating whether or not elected officials may serve on any commission or board. Therefore, this recommendation by the CGJ has been currently implemented by the City. 1 RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.3. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on more than one commission at the same time.” Response The City of Azusa agrees that information about the eligibility of residents to serve on more than one (1) appointed City commission should be included on the City’s website. This ensures that the City Council receives recommendations and feedback from the broadest possible spectrum of City residents, commissioners are only allowed to serve on the Art in Public Places Commission if appointed by the City Council. In response to Recommendation No. 5.3, the City has reviewed and updated the “Commission Facts” stating whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on more than one commission at the same time. Therefore, this recommendation by the CGJ has been currently implemented by the City. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.4. Each listed city should publish or provide a link to the current agenda and timely meeting minutes for each meeting of each existing commission on the website. Response Regarding 5.4, the City meets the requirements of Section 5.4; a published link is on the home page that directs the user to current agendas and meetings for all active City commissions and boards. Therefore, this recommendation by the CGI has been currently implemented by the City. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5.5. Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to “Commissions” on the home page or as a menu option under “Departments,” “Government,” or “Services.” Response The City of Azusa agrees that links to information about the City’s appointed commissions should be conspicuous and easy to find on the City’s home page website. The City has a conspicuous link to Boards and Commissions titled “Boards and Commissions” which is located on the home page of the City’s website as a menu option under “Your Government”. Therefore, this recommendation by the CGJ has been currently implemented by the City. 2