CCMIN110706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hearing no further requests to speak, public comment was closed. Council member Brozosky indicated he did not support the item at the last meeting, indicating he felt it was poor for a Council to enact a raise at the last possible meeting. He indicated he is distraught that the Council did not go about this correctly because of the Brown Act. In addition to not supporting this because of the timing, he added the current Council has the obligation to continue this item indefinitely and to let the next Council take it up. To protect the integrity of the Council, he said he will continue to vote no on this matter. Councilmember Sullivan stated it is unfortunate that the first discussion on this was in Closed Session. But, it was unintentional. The Brown Act does provide a remedy to correct that action. There have been two additional hearings and the public has had an opportunity for their input. He believes that the Council is following a legal course to resolve an issue that was unintentional and unfortunate. The integrity of the public process is being maintained. He feels the recommendation is completely in line with others in the area and that it is appropriate. He indicated he is supportive of the direction and staff's recommendation. Councilmember Thorne indicated that he heard from one council candidate whose concerns were much like his own which has more to do with what happens alter the election than what is going on now. He indicated he feels much of the Council's credibility has to do with perception. Public perception is as important as the reality of the remedies. He indicated he will have to change his mind from last meeting and vote no on this issue. Council member McGovern indicated she takes the Brown Act violation very seriously and apologized for the violation and for her participation in the Closed Session. She added that her integrity has always been her foremost guide to what she does and how she does the public's business, and maintaining that integrity is of the utmost importance to her. She stated the Council did violate the process and feels the Council should stop and not move forward with this raise. She added that everyone in attendance at closed session bears some responsibility for the violation and she doesn't feel the violation is totally on the shoulders of the City Manager. She believes that the Council needed some Brown Act training. She indicated the Council also needs to look at the 5% rule and the possibility of including that review during the budgeting process. She also indicated when looking at this next time, the issue of stipends should only be looked at and not at increasing benefits to Council. Referencing the survey, she noted the only Council receiving car allowances is Walnut Creek. Councilmember Brozosky commented that the integrity of the public process was discussed and indicated he doesn't feel having a public hearing does the public justice. He indicated there was a lot of discussion during Closed Session regarding how much a raise could be, how much a car allowance should be if one was established, and even a discussion regarding an increase of medical benefits. Those issues were never brought to the public. For that reason alone he would not want to move forward with this issue at this point. Mayor Hosterman referenced Chapter 9 of the Government Code regarding Open Meetings. She added that the entire Council is concerned about maintaining the City Council Minutes 9 November 7, 2006