SR 04-27-2021 8B
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: April 27, 2021
Agenda Item: 8.B
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Comprehensive Review of Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and discuss recommendations from the Community Working Group
(“CWG”) and the City Clerk, as a result of a comprehensive review of all boards,
commissions and task forces, and direct staff to return with resolution(s)
implementing adopted recommendations for general policies and procedures
governing boards, commissions and task forces to become effective July 1,
2021;
2) Provide direction on additional CWG recommendations around board and
commission consolidation and reclassification, budgets, definitions, and
appointment methodology;
3) Direct staff to return with an ordinance converting the Environmental Task Force
into a permanent commission named the Commission on Sustainability and the
Environment, with the same term limits as other boards and commissions, as
recommended by the CWG; and,
4) Approve a policy permitting boards and commissions to meet quarterly for the
remainder of calendar year 2021 or until the end of fiscal year 2022.
Executive Summary
Santa Monica’s Boards and Commissions are a valuable opportunity for residents and
subject matter experts to examine important issues facing the community, engage the
community, and work with staff to bring policy and program recommendations to
Council. These Boards and Commissions have developed as needs arose over time
and many vary widely in practice as it relates to meeting schedules, agendas, and
workplans; they also require dedicated staff time, a resource that was significantly
depleted by the restructuring conducted in 2020 to address budget impacts from
COVID-19. Even prior to COVID-19, however, Council had expressed an interest in
ensuring the City’s boards and commissions were working more effectively. At the
December 17, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Clerk brought before Council a staff
8.B
Packet Pg. 1128
2 of 12
report requesting the establishment of a Community Working Group (“CWG”), in
consultation with the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office, to perform a
comprehensive review of the boards, commissions, and task forces to make
recommendations regarding best practices and consider possible consolidation of
certain boards and commissions with similar missions and purviews (Attachment A).
The CWG membership included one member of staff, one current board/commission
member and five members of the community. Facilitated by the City Clerk and staff, the
CWG held a series of meetings over the course of four months to discuss policies and
best practices regarding the governance, membership, training, and administration of
the City’s Boards and Commissions. The CWG discussed issues including attendance,
standardization of agendas and minutes, bylaws templates, financial and administrative
support, the boards and commissions appointment process, and, ultimately, the need to
consolidate certain boards and commissions.
The CWG provided the City Clerk with its recommendations, which were subsequently
reviewed by City staff. Input was also received from current members of boards and
commissions who were invited to submit comments on the CWG recommendations.
Based on that input, the City Clerk presents this report and the attached
recommendations to Council for how to make the Boards and Commissions more
effective, attract more diverse representation among members, and align Board and
Commission activities with departmental workplans developed in response to the
Council approved budget.
Background
Prior to the 2019 direction to form the CWG, the Council periodically revisited policies
governing the City’s Boards and Commissions, including:
• October 26, 2013 - Citing that several commissions have overlapping roles and
responsibilities, the City Manager asked Council to direct staff to evaluate current
boards and commissions and return with recommendations regarding meeting
frequency and strategies to reduce duplication and strengthen roles and
responsibilities (Attachment B).
8.B
Packet Pg. 1129
3 of 12
• October 27, 2015 - The City Clerk asked Council to establish term limits for task
forces and extended the rule of limiting membership to one board/commission at a
time (Attachment C).
• April 18, 2017- The City Clerk brought before Council a proposal to consolidate
the three resolutions regulating boards and commissions into one
resolution (Attachment D).
At the December 17, 2019 Council meeting, the City Clerk recommended to Council
that it make the Environmental Task Force a permanent commission, make specific
updates to the policies governing Boards and Commissions, provide direction
on more general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions and task
forces, and ask the City Clerk to establish a Community Working Group to provide a
comprehensive review of all boards and commissions. At that meeting, Council adopted
recommendations to shorten the required time to complete ethics training for newly
appointed members and to not allow members to serve on multiple boards,
commissions, and task forces simultaneously. Council further directed the City Clerk to
establish the CWG to perform a comprehensive review of the boards, commissions, and
task forces as well as to take up the consideration of such items as changing the status
of the Environmental Task Force to a permanent commission, and the standardization
of agendas and minutes, attendance policies, and bylaws. Council also directed the City
Clerk to work with the City Manager and City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and/or
resolution for a ballot measure to remove from the City Charter and add to the Municipal
Code, all provisions authorizing certain boards and commissions that are currently in
the City Charter, which was later deferred to the CWG.
On October 19, 2020, the CWG held its first meeting and continued meeting
monthly through February 2021. An Information Item was issued on February 4, 2021
detailing the background into the establishment of the CWG, the process of selecting
the members, and a status update on the project (Attachment E). On March 15, 2021,
the CWG held an open meeting to review its final recommendations and presented
them to the public. The City Clerk also invited all boards, commissions, and task forces
to meet and discuss the recommendations, and provide any feedback by April 15,
8.B
Packet Pg. 1130
4 of 12
2021. The City Clerk also met with Department Heads and staff to boards,
commissions, and task forces to obtain their feedback on the recommendations.
Feedback from the boards and commissions is attached here. (Attachment F).
At the request of the advisory boards who were suspended from meeting during the
COVID-19 pandemic, a Councilmember discussion item was introduced and approved
at the December 15, 2020 Council meeting permitting those boards and commissions to
hold one meeting during the first quarter of 2021.
Discussion
Recommendations from the Community Working Group (CWG)
Based on the Goals and Objectives established by the City Council at the December
17, 2019 meeting the purpose of the Boards, Commissions & Task Forces Community
Working Group (CWG) was to submit to the City Clerk recommendations and
suggestions for the consolidation of boards and commissions with duplicate or similar
purviews, establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of
members, and setting consistent bylaws and policies across all boards and
commissions. A primary goal of the CWG was to promote participation in the City’s
boards and commissions based on inclusion, diversity and equity, given the belief that
service on boards and commissions furthers good governance and provides members
the opportunity to develop leadership skills.
The CWG’s process included a survey of all current board, commission, and task force
members; evaluation of board, commission, and task force structure, effectiveness and
best practices, and development of a Working Group Report that includes the CWG
recommendations and suggestions. The report provided recommendations and best
practices to:
• Determine differences between boards, commissions, and task forces, and then
appropriately categorize each current body;
• Revisit and update all board and commission bylaws to establish uniform rules of
order consistent with City Council direction;
8.B
Packet Pg. 1131
5 of 12
• Establish guidelines as to the roles and duties of board, commission, and task
force members;
• Review existing boards, commissions and task forces to see if there is an overlap
among their responsibilities and, if so, consider consolidation that could benefit all
represented constituents and better align with the City’s Framework priorities;
• Review term limits and whether those limits should differ between different
boards and commissions, as well as consider increasing
the minimum time required between serving on the same board or commission;
• Consider different methods for Council to make appointments;
• Establish consistent policies regarding absences and attendance;
• Establish roles, expectations, and budgets for department staff and liaisons; and
• Propose a periodic comprehensive review of all advisory bodies to occur every
five to six years (non-election years).
While conducting its review and developing its recommendations, the CWG relied upon
the following resources and documents:
• January 2020 City of Santa Monica Boards & Commissions Directory
• 2020 City of Santa Monica Boards and Commission Handbook
• Current bylaws of all the boards, commissions, and task forces
• Santa Monica City Charter
• Santa Monica Municipal Code
• Samples of board, commission, and task force agendas and minutes
• Staff report and minutes of the December 17, 2019 City Council Meeting
• Resolution 11220 adopted on December 17, 2019
In addition, staff conducted a financial assessment of the boards and
commissions’ budgets and expenditures for the last three fiscal years as well as the
amount of staff time spent per meeting. (Attachment G). Based on this assessment it
was determined that an average of 58 hours of staff time is spent (across various
members of staff) per meeting which includes but is not limited to scheduling
meetings, meeting with chairs to discuss agenda items, compiling and distributing
agenda packets, attendance at meetings and drafting minutes. Further, there is an
8.B
Packet Pg. 1132
6 of 12
inequity of budget resources spent among all the boards/commissions. Staff also
provided research from other cities of similar size regarding budget allocation,
appointment methods, and roles of department staff and liaisons for their board and
commission programs. (Attachment H).
Based on the established criteria and the review of the above referenced documents
and information, below are the recommendations from the Community Working Group.
The Clerk is largely in agreement with these recommendations and additional
recommendations from the City Clerk are integrated below. These are organized into
two groups: first, those staff recommend adopting now; and second, those on which
staff seeks Council direction.
Recommendations for Approval
Bylaws
A. Every City Board, Commission, and Task Force should have consistent bylaws,
established by resolution, which include the following:
1. Officers should rotate and should serve a one-year term as Chair, in order to
promote diversity and provide a leadership opportunity for more members of the
community.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: Officers should be elected annually and should
have one-year terms. A member should serve as Vice-Chair for at least one year
before serving as Chair. A member may turn down the position of Chair if they do
not wish to serve in the position.
2. Election of officers should take place in July after the annual appointments.
3. Year-end appointments in December should be moved to June to align with the
annual appointments.
4. A rule should be added that all bodies produce an annual board and commission
workplan to set priorities for the year, which should align with the department’s
workplan.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: All boards, commissions, and task forces
should produce an annual workplan to set priorities for the year, which should align
with the department’s workplan and account for any state / county / or city-
mandated required operations (e.g. adjudicatory and quasi-adjudicatory functions).
8.B
Packet Pg. 1133
7 of 12
5. Required trainings for the year should happen immediately after the appointments in
July.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: Required trainings for the year should be
completed within three months of appointment.
6. All Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces should adopt the same order of
business on their agendas. If a rule does not apply to a Board, Commission, or Task
Force, it should be noted in the agenda.
7. Attendance requirements should be included in the bylaws, they should be
consistent, and clarify the rules for what is considered an excused and an
unexcused absence.
8. The latest start time for any meeting should be 7:00 p.m.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: Unless there are extraordinary circumstances,
the latest start time for any meeting should be 7:00 p.m.
9. Accommodation language should be included in the bylaws template after
consultation from the Disabilities Commission.
10. The Task Force on the Environment should have term limits since there are now
more people with environmental expertise as opposed to when the task force was
originally created. The status of the Task Force on the Environment should change
to a permanent commission with the same term limits as other boards and
commissions.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: The Task Force on the Environment should
have term limits since there are now more people with environmental expertise as
opposed to when the task force was originally created. The status of the Task Force
on the Environment should change to a permanent commission (as it has been in
existence for over 25 years) with the same term limits as other boards and
commissions. The Task Force should be renamed the Commission on
Sustainability and the Environment.
11. All existing Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces should review their current
bylaws to remove outdated information and/or procedures and utilize the bylaws
template to be consistent with the City Council format.
Term Limits
B. Term limits should remain the same, allowing members to serve two consecutive terms
and request a third term from the City Council. However, members who term out must
wait two years before applying to another board or commission.
Clerk takes no position on this recommendation other than to be amenable to
8.B
Packet Pg. 1134
8 of 12
decreasing the wait period to one year.
Unexcused Absences
C. Members who have two unexcused absences out of six consecutive
meetings should automatically vacate their seat. An absence is considered unexcused
when a member does not communicate their absence to the Chair or liaison of the body
prior to the scheduled meeting. If a member has more than two excused absences,
they will receive a warning from the Chair. If another two meetings are missed, then the
liaison shall inform the City Clerk’s office, who will then inform the City Council.
Special meetings shall not count towards unexcused absences.
Clerk’s Alternative Recommendation: Members who have two unexcused absences out
of six consecutive meetings should automatically vacate their seat. An absence is
considered unexcused when a member does not communicate their absence to the
Chair or liaison of the body prior to the scheduled meeting. If a member has more than
two excused absences, they will receive a warning from the Chair. If another two
meetings are missed, then the liaison shall inform the City Clerk’s office, who will then
inform the City Council. Special meetings shall not count towards unexcused
absences. This applies to boards meeting monthly. Boards with meeting schedules
other than monthly should adopt bylaw provisions consistent with the intent of this rule.
Staff Liaisons
D. Staff liaisons are expected to do the administrative work for Boards and Commission
and not intensive research. Instead, staff research should be limited to information that
the department uniquely has access to and should align with the department’s
workplan.
Clerk’s Alternative Recommendation – Staff liaisons are expected to do the
administrative work for Boards and Commission and not intensive research. Instead,
staff research should be limited to information that the department uniquely has access
to and should align with the department’s workplan and workload.
Budget
E. E. Budgets for Boards and Commission being part of department budgets.
Members Ages 18-29
F. A seat should be added, or if necessary dedicated, to every board and commission for
a member between the ages of 18-29, with a one-year term and the possibility of
reappointment.
Clerk’s Alternative Recommendation – A non-voting seat should be added, or if
necessary dedicated, to every board and commission for a member between the ages
of 18-29, with a one-year term and the possibility of reappointment. The addition of this
8.B
Packet Pg. 1135
9 of 12
seat shall be optional.
Enhancing Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
G. Explore all means to enhance diverse representation that reflects the Santa Monica
community that includes:
1. Increase the use of social media to reach and encourage community members to
get involved.
2. Consider involvement at fairs or booths at festivals, such as COAST, for interested
applicants to meet active board and commission members and City Council
members to learn more about each board and commission and have an opportunity
to build connections.
Clerk’s Alternative Recommendation: Explore all means to enhance diverse
representation that reflects the Santa Monica community that includes:
1. Increase the use of social media to reach and encourage community members to
get involved.
2. Consider involvement at fairs or booths at festivals, such as COAST, for
interested applicants to meet active board and commission members and City
Council members to learn more about each board and commission and have an
opportunity to build connections.
3. Consider community-based meetings that give residents more opportunity to
have informal conversations about community needs and concerns.
Five-Year Review
G. H. A comprehensive review of all advisory bodies should occur every five years.
Clerk’s Alternative Recommendation: A comprehensive review of all advisory bodies
should occur every five years, except that no such review shall occur in an election
year.
Update to Applications
I. Consider updating board and commission applications every five years.
Additional Training
J. Consider training sessions on running meetings, participating during meetings,
parliamentary procedure, and other trainings. Such trainings would be for
Commissioners but could also be open to general public (members of community
groups, non-profit boards, etc.)
8.B
Packet Pg. 1136
10 of 12
If approved by Council, the above recommendations would be effective July 1, 2021.
Recommendations for Future Consideration
While the Working Group developed recommendations for the consolidation and
restructuring of various Boards and Commissions, staff believes that direction from
Council is needed before action is taken. Following Council direction, staff will continue
to engage the community and Boards and Commissions’ membership to evaluate and
refine recommendations that will come before Council later this year.
These recommendations include consolidation or reclassification of the following
bodies:
Consolidation of Social Service Boards/Commissions
A. Consolidate the commissions relating to social services (Commission on the Senior
Community, Commission on the Status of Women, Disabilities Commission, and the
Social Services Commission), into a single commission named the Human Services
and Equity Commission. Creation of subcommittees or ad hoc committees to work on
specific tasks would alleviate the issue of time constraints, as well as allow more
diversity, equity and inclusion of the community to participate in more specific topics.
Clerk Alternative Recommendation: The City Clerk supports this recommendation as a
means to make these boards and commissions more efficient and to ensure efforts are
not being duplicated. This also ensures that these boards/commissions have ample
work to produce. By creating resident driven subcommittees on specified areas of
interest more opportunities will be created to receive more diverse and inclusive input
from the community.
Consolidation of Urban Forest Task Force with the Task Force on the Environment
B. Consider combining the Urban Forest Task Force with the Task Force on the
Environment (to be replaced by the Commission on Sustainability and the Environment
should Council approve the recommendation in the current item), or creating it as a
subcommittee under the Recreation and Parks Commission.
After consultation with Acting Director of Public Works, City Clerk does not support this
recommendation at this time but supports revisiting the recommendation to make the
UFTF a subcommittee of the Planning Commission should the private tree ordinance be
adopted.
Consolidation of Architectural Review Board with the Planning Commission
C. Consider the Architectural Review Board becoming an advisory body of the Planning
8.B
Packet Pg. 1137
11 of 12
Commission.
Since the permit process has been streamlined and more work is being done
administratively, the ARB will start working as an advisory body for larger projects only.
In addition to these recommendations, the CWG also examined but did not define
formal recommendations on:
1. Definition and differences between Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
2. Process for Council Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
Note: The CWG considered various methods for appointments to boards and
commissions from other like-sized cities. No consensus was reached but
considerable discussion was had by the group and feedback was received
regarding the current method for Council appointments. There is some concern
that the applicant pool does not reflect the diversity and cultural richness of the
City and that the same people are consistently appointed by Council. City Clerk
asks that Council consider finding alternative methods for making appointments
to boards and commissions that will promote more inclusivity and solicit a wider
cross-section of views from the community.
Quarterly Meetings through June 2022
Finally, due to the continuing concerns of staffing shortages as a result of department
restructuring due to the COVID-19 pandemic, staff recommends that Council allow
boards and commissions to continue meeting quarterly, and maintain self-sufficiency
with minimal department staff support, through the end of calendar year 2021 or until
the end of fiscal year 2021-22. Exceptions to this include those boards and
commissions enumerated in the Charter, boards and commissions with adequate
administrative staffing, and quasi-judicial/decision-making boards/committees
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate impact to the budget. However, board and commission support
requires dedicated staffing resources, many of which have been reduced or eliminated
following the City restructuring in 2020. Any desire to maintain existing boards and
8.B
Packet Pg. 1138
12 of 12
commissions structure or enhance staff support would require Council to provide
direction on relevant trade-offs in other areas of City operations to provide the
necessary additional staffing. Also, additional trainings could require an increase to
budget line items which would necessitate a trade-off in funding priorities. If a ballot
measure were added the cost would be included as part of the 2022 Consolidated
Election budget.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A
B. Attachment B
C. Attachment C
D. Attachment D
E. Attachment E
F. Attachment F
G. Attachment G
H. Attachment H
I. Written Comments
8.B
Packet Pg. 1139
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2019
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Boards and Commissions Discussion
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and comment on staff recommendation to change the status of the
Environmental Task Force to a permanent commission with the same term limits
as other boards and commissions.
2) Review and comment on staff recommendations for changes to the general
policies and procedures governing boards, commissions and task forces to:
shorten the required time to complete ethics training for newly appointed
members; not allow members to serve on multiple boards, commissions or task
forces simultaneously; require boards, commissions and task forces to utilize the
same Agenda and Minutes templates as those used for the City Council; and
provide direction for the City Clerk and City Attorney to establish required training
for commission and advisory board members and chairs, as well as establishing
consistent training guidelines for staff liaisons in order to better understand their
roles and responsibilities.
3) Provide direction to the City Clerk to take the necessary steps to establish a
Community Working Group to provide a comprehensive review of all boards and
commissions in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, and come
back to Council with recommendations and suggestions for best practices,
including consideration of consolidation for boards and commissions with
duplicate or similar purviews.
4) Discuss and direct the City Clerk to work with the City Manager and City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance and/or resolution for a ballot measure to remove from
the City Charter and add to the Municipal Code, all provisions authorizing certain
boards and commissions that are currently in the City Charter, thereby making it
easier to make future changes to the enabling provisions for these bodies.
5) Adopt the attached resolution incorporating the proposed changes referenced
above to the general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions
and task forces.
Executive Summary
Our boards and commissions represent diverse community viewpoints made of
members with subject matter expertise. As our Council grapples with complex policy
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1140 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2 of 9
issues and looks to make our government do more with less, now is the ideal time to
undertake a review of our boards and commissions to ensure they can be effective in
engaging our community and developing policy recommendations for Council’s
consideration. To do this, staff proposes making a handful of immediate changes as
well as convening a community working group to look at longer-term structural changes
that would help draw more people to participate, define the mission of each board and
commission, and ensure our boards and commissions operate ethically and
transparently.
As initial steps, staff recommends that the City Council: (1) change the status of the
Task Force on the Environment, converting it to a formal commission named the
“Commission on Sustainability and the Environment”; (2) adopt a Resolution
implementing certain changes to the general policies and procedures governing boards,
commissions and task forces that are intended to provide greater consistency in
membership, training and meeting policies and procedures; (3) direct the City Clerk to
create a Community Working Group, in consultation with the City Manager and City
Attorney, to perform a comprehensive review of all boards, commissions, and task
forces; and (4) direct the City Clerk to work with the City Manager and the City Attorney
to prepare a ballot initiative to move from the City Charter to the Municipal Code the
authorizations for five boards and commissions whose authorizations are currently
found in the City Charter.
Background
There are currently 16 boards and commissions, two task forces, three non-profit
boards, and two district boards that the City Council appoints. Over the past 20 years,
the number of boards, commissions, and task forces has increased, with the largest
number added under the Human Services Division of the Community and Cultural
Services Department. Because there has not been a comprehensive review or
oversight of the boards and commissions, a significant amount of overlap has
developed in the roles, goals, and purviews of several of these bodies. This overlap
has caused some bodies to lack specific goals, therefore potentially reducing their
effectiveness as formal advisory bodies to the City Council. In January 2019, the City
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1141 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3 of 9
Council reaffirmed the established Framework for a Sustainable City Wellbeing, and
articulated six Framework priorities around which to focus allocation of resources and
measurement of progress. A comprehensive review of the boards, commissions and
task forces would create an opportunity to align the advisory bodies with the Framework
priorities. Below is a complete list of all of the boards, commissions, and task forces
that the City Council appoints:
Bodies established by Charter
• Airport Commission
• Planning Commission
• Recreation and Parks Commission
• Personnel Board
• Santa Monica Library Board
Bodies established by Ordinance
• Arts Commission
• Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission
• Commission for the Senior Community
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Disabilities Commission
• Housing Commission
• Landmarks Commission
• Social Services Commission
• Architectural Review Board
• Audit Subcommittee
• Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Task Forces
• Task Force on the Environment
• Urban Forest Task Force
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1142 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
4 of 9
Boards of Non-profits
• Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
• Downtown Santa Monica, Incorporated
• Santa Monica Pier Corporation
District Boards – Membership Only
• LA County West Vector Control District
• Metropolitan Water District
Discussion
Convert the Task Force on the Environment to a Formal Commission
Staff recommends that the status of the Task Force on the Environment be changed
from a task force to a formal commission. The Task Force on the Environment was
established in 1991 by the Santa Monica City Council to advise City Council on
environmental programs and policy issues as a result of the development of the
Sustainable City Plan. Over the past 25 years, Santa Monica has become one of the
cities prominently known for their sustainability efforts, and the task force has never
been deactivated. Considering the City’s dedication to setting environmental policy and
decisions, in accordance with the guiding principles, goals and objectives of the
Sustainable City Plan, staff recommends that the status of this task force be changed to
a formal Commission on Sustainability and the Environment. The Commission would
remain intact with its current membership until the next annual appointments in July
2020. After that, appointees to the Commission would be subject to the same term
limits as all other advisory boards and commissions. Because this Commission will
continue to have special requirements for membership (retaining the current
requirement that each member have significant expertise in one or more areas of
environmental policy), staff recommends that the Office of Sustainability and the
Environment review applications and provide recommendations to Council as part of the
appointment process. Staff reached out to the Office of Sustainability on this matter,
and if Council agrees, staff would return with a resolution or ordinance to convert the
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1143 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
5 of 9
Task Force to a Commission, and the Commission would update its bylaws to reflect
the modified appointment process.
Amend Resolution Regarding General Policies and Procedures
General policies and procedures for boards, commissions and task forces are set forth
in Resolution No. 11034 (CCS), which was adopted by the Council on April 18, 2017.
Staff is recommending the adoption of a new resolution to implement a few immediate
changes to these general policies and procedures that will increase consistency
regarding training of members and the conduct of board, commission, and task force
meetings.
First, in keeping with the City’s values on Ethics, staff is recommending that Section 11
of Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be amended to require all new appointees to boards,
commissions and task forces to complete the state’s two-hour online ethics training
within the first 30 days after being sworn in. With the AB1234 training available online,
everyone can complete the state training in this time frame. The City would also create
in-person training covering additional City ethical requirements. This supplemental
training would be approximately one hour and would also be required to be completed
within the first 30 days after being sworn in.
Second, staff recommends that no one be permitted to serve simultaneously on more
than one board, commission, or task force. Currently, Section 3 of Resolution No.
11034 (CCS), Membership on One Board, Commission, Committee, Task Force, and
the Boards of Certain Non-profits, reads, “With the exception of the Building and Fire-
Life Safety Commission, no person shall serve simultaneously on more than one board,
commission, committee or task force, including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation,
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., the Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau (now
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism), and the regional advisory boards, except with a
super majority vote of the Council.” In order to allow an equal opportunity for all
members of the public to participate in the board and commission appointment process
fairly, staff is recommending amendment of this section of the resolution to remove all
exceptions and to no longer allow any board, commission, committee, or task force
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1144 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
6 of 9
member to serve simultaneously on more than one appointed body. Again, this change
would not take place until the annual appointments in July 2020.
Third, as a result of our biennial review of minutes and agendas and in an effort to bring
about consistency and transparency in formatting and delivery of information to the
public, staff is recommending that Section 6 of Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be
amended to require all appointed bodies to use the same minutes and agenda
templates as the City Council. The templates would allow some flexibility in categories
depending on whether a board or commission is acting as an advisory body or a quasi-
judicial body.
Fourth, after consulting with Department Heads and Staff Liaisons and in response to
the current lack of uniform onboarding training for members and chairs, staff
recommends that Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be amended to add new Section 12
directing the City Clerk and City Attorney’s Office to work together to create and
implement on-boarding training for new members and annual trainings for members and
chairs, and Staff Liaison training. This would include Brown Act training and general on-
boarding training for all new members, and training on how to effectively run a meeting
for all chairs.
Finally, staff is proposing certain additional changes, including no longer permitting City
funds to be used for the purchase of individual business cards in Section 5, and the
reporting of any prolonged member absences to the City Clerk in Section 10.
Comprehensive Review
With the priorities and goals of the City changing, now is a perfect opportunity for the
Council to direct the City Clerk to work with an outside consultant or firm to create a
Community Working Group to perform a comprehensive review of all advisory bodies in
Santa Monica, excluding Boards of Non-profits and District Boards. The Community
Working Group would consist of residents, active community members and former
board/commission and task force members. An outside consultant or firm would be
retained to appoint Working Group members, assist with establishing a scope of work,
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
7 of 9
perform a board self-assessment survey, develop basic board responsibilities, evaluate
board structure and effectiveness, review governance best practices (committee
charters, policies, letter of commitment, expectations of board members, etc.), and work
with the Community Working Group to arrive at recommendations designed to
strategically strengthen effective governance. The City Attorney would be consulted to
ensure compliance with all legal requirements and provide assistance in drafting
ordinances, resolutions, or other implementing actions for presentation to the Council
for consideration.
After consulting with Department Heads, Staff Liaisons and meeting with Community
and Cultural Services Commissions, items for the Community Working Group and
consultant to consider as part of the comprehensive review include, but are not limited
to the following:
• Defining the differences between commissions, advisory boards and task forces,
and determining into which category each current body most appropriately falls;
• Revisiting and updating all board and commission bylaws to establish uniform
rules of order consistent with City Council direction;
• Establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of board, commission, and task
force members;
• Reviewing existing boards, commissions and task forces to see if there is an
overlap among their responsibilities and, if so, considering consolidation that
could benefit all represented constituents and better align with the City’s
Framework priorities;
• Reviewing term limits and whether those limits should differ between different
boards and commissions, as well as considering increasing the time limit
between serving on the same board or commission;
• Considering possible different methods for Council to make appointments;
• Establishing consistent policies regarding absences and attendance;
• Establishing roles, expectations and budgets for department staff and liaisons
that would be consistent across all boards and commissions
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
8 of 9
• Proposing a periodic comprehensive review of all advisory bodies to occur every
five to six years (non-election years)
The goal would be to have this Community Working Group report back to Council with
recommendations and results from the comprehensive review by spring 2020, in order
to adopt any changes prior to the June 2020 annual appointments.
Charter Amendment
In an effort to be consistent and create greater efficiency if it is determined in the future
that it is necessary to make changes to board, commission and task force policies and
procedures, staff is proposing that the City Council direct the City Clerk to work with the
City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a ballot initiative to be placed on the ballot at
the next General Election to modify the City Charter to move the authorizations for
those boards and commissions whose authorizations currently are in the City Charter to
the Municipal Code. Those bodies whose authorizations currently are in the City
Charter are the Planning Commission, Library Board, Personnel Board, Recreation and
Parks Commission, and Airport Commission.
Possible Financial Impacts in the Future
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. Existing budget will cover the cost for consulting fees or services
and the comprehensive review that will be conducted by the Consultant will present the
financial impacts on Department and Board/Commissions budgets and staff time.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
9 of 9
Attachments:
a Clerk - Resolution - Boards and Commissions - 12.17.2019
b Social Services Commission resolution
c Written Comments
d PowerPoint Presentation
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Attachment A (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: October 26, 2013
Agenda Item: 4-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rod Gould, City Manager
Subject: Changes to Boards and Commissions Processes
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and comment on potential revisions to the current application,
recruitment, screening and recommendation process for new board and
commission members for Council consideration and direct staff to implement
the proposed changes.
2. Direct staff to evaluate current boards and commissions and return with
recommendations regarding meeting frequency and strategies to reduce
duplication and strengthen roles and responsibilities.
Executive Summary
To improve the application and screening process for new board and commission
members, staff proposes revising application forms to solicit information relative to
applicants’ skill set. This would facilitate Council’s ability to select people that
complement existing members and better advance the board or commission’s
mission. Staff recommends that, with the exception of the formation of new task
force or working groups, staff not review applications in order to avoid potential
conflicts with Board and Commission members.
Recognizing that there are several commissions that may have overlapping roles and
responsibilities, staff requests Council direction to meet with current boards and
commissions, evaluate roles and responsibilities and return with recommendations
regarding focus and frequency of meetings.
Background
Current Process
City Council votes on all appointments. Except for five members appointed by the
Chamber of Commerce to the CVB Board of Directors (Council appoints the other
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Attachment B (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
five) and six members elected by Santa Monica Property Owners to Downtown Santa
Monica Board of Directors (Council appoints the other six), the Council appoints all
commissioners. Task force and working group appointees are often recommended by
staff, based on criteria related to the work of the group.
In addition to reviewing applications, Council currently receives additional input
regarding prospective board and commission members in a variety of ways. Current
practices vary by Council member, by board or commission, and by interest of outside
organizations. Some boards and commissions perform individual applicant interviews
on an ad hoc basis via chairpersons or subcommittees, with recommendations
forwarded to the Council either informally or via letters of support and/or
recommendation.
Another common practice is for individual board or commission members to forward
their assessment of prospective applicants informally to individual Council members.
Additionally, representatives of outside organizations will assess applicants on
occasion and forward their findings to Council either informally or by submitting letters
of support and/or recommendation for the public record. Whereas, past practice
involved recommendations of the Council liaisons, this is no longer an element of the
board and commission structure. Due to the number of annual vacancies on the
many boards and commissions, the opportunities for Council members to interview
applicants individually are limited and varied. Consequently, Council is increasingly
challenged to make appointments based primarily on the written applications. Council
votes on all appointments during a City Council meeting, usually tabling the decision
to a meeting at which all Council members are present.
Applications for membership are accepted year-round and are valid for one year; they
may be renewed for an additional year. On a quarterly basis the City Clerk’s Office
updates the current pool to remove expired applications. Prospective applicants are
notified in writing how to reapply should they remain interested in serving on the
board or commission.
In December 2011 Council directed staff to implement a new recruitment and
application process for the reconstituted Pier Corporation Board of Directors. This
recent recruitment and vetting process for the reconstituted Pier Board included a
more detailed application form and a process that included staff review. Board-
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Attachment B (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
specific application forms were designed to solicit information relative to eligibility
requirements and identified skills and experience that reflected the new Pier Board’s
focused objectives to help give staff and Council a complete understanding of how
the applicant could contribute to the board. Staff reviewed the applications,
interviewed candidates, and submitted recommendations to Council for
consideration.
Council received copies of all applications in addition to those that staff recommended
for the board. The number of recommended applicants exceeded the number of
vacancies. Ultimately, the Board selected by the Council included applicants
recommended by staff, applicants with recommendations from outside organizations,
and applicants who were not recommended. Council members commented that the
staff recruitment, screening and recommendation process provided them with an
independent assessment that was useful in evaluating prospective board members.
The recent recruitment for the Civic Working Group has employed a similar process,
including a new application form and staff involvement in the vetting of applicants.
Discussion
To build on the strengths of these recent recruitment efforts, staff recommends that
several adjustments be made to the current application process for filling vacant seats
on the City’s boards and commissions. The recommended revisions are intended to
facilitate the Council’s ability to match the skills and experience of prospective
members with the mission of the respective Boards and Commissions.
Specifically, based on the Council’s feedback on the Pier Board recruitment and
vetting process, staff recommends that the application form be updated to solicit
information similar to the forms used for the recent Pier Board and Civic Working
Group recruitments. Additionally, staff recommends that its role in the recruitment
process be limited as discussed below.
Board and Commission Application Forms
Staff recommends application forms be revised to solicit additional information relative
to applicants’ skills and abilities in the following areas:
· Areas of demonstrated expertise relative to the board/commission;
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Attachment B (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
· Vision for the City relative to the mission and responsibilities of the
board/commission;
· Confirmation of time commitment required for board/commission;
· Personal qualities relative to leadership, creativity and innovation as well as
the ability to work effectively in a group setting and an ability to balance
competing needs.
Soliciting this information in addition to the standard questions regarding community
involvement and service on City boards and commissions would better inform the
Council regarding the skills and abilities of prospective members. This would
facilitate the Council’s ability to select people that would complement the existing
membership and better advance the board or commission task or mission. To
implement this new procedure, the application form for each board and commission
would be changed to include additional questions in a format similar to the Pier Board
and Civic Working Group applications.
Applicant Interviews
Due to the large number of appointments made on an annual basis and the high level
of community interest in serving on the City boards and commissions, staff recognizes
the challenges inherent in a selection process that relies on individual interviews with
applicants. Currently, applicants may be interviewed by Council members, by the
respective board or commission, or a subcommittee of that body; however, there is no
formalized process to facilitate this type of assessment. At this time staff does not
propose instituting any changes to the current ad hoc interview process.
Staff Role
For the Pier Board recruitment, staff reviewed the applications, interviewed
candidates, and submitted recommendations to Council for consideration. Council
received copies of all applications in addition to those that staff recommended for the
board. Staff has also been actively involved in the review of applications for the Civic
Working Group. However, while this approach was deemed necessary for these
newly formed groups, this approach is not recommended for annual Council
appointments to the boards and commissions or to fill unscheduled vacancies. Staff
believes that their active involvement in the recruitment process for appointments
may be problematic, especially for those boards and commissions with quasi-judicial
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Attachment B (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
functions, i.e. the Planning Commission, Personnel Board, and Building and Fire-Life
Safety Commission, and could create conflicts between staff and the boards and
commissions they staff. Therefore, it is recommended that staff involvement be
limited to the formation of new task force or working groups.
Potential Commission Changes
There are several commissions that may have overlapping roles and responsibilities.
Staff requests Council direction to consider if and how the core missions and
community focus of the boards and commissions may have evolved since their
inception and whether adjustments are warranted to ensure that these groups remain
relevant to community needs, as well as the required number of meetings for each
commission to determine if the current number is appropriate relative to their current
mission(s). Restructuring several commissions that have overlapping roles and
responsibilities into one commission may be appropriate in light of past
accomplishments and changes in policy focus over time. Staff requests Council
direction to meet with current Boards and Commissions, evaluate roles and
responsibilities and return with recommendations regarding focus and frequency of
meetings.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared by: Laura Beck, AICP, Management Rotation Program
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Rod Gould, City Manager Rod Gould, City Manager
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Attachment B (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
City Council Report
City Council Regular and Special Joint Meeting: October 27, 2015
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department
Subject: Modification of Boards and Commissions Policies, Council Rules of Order,
and Amendments to the City’s Election Code
Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Adopt a resolution modifying the policies for City Boards, Commissions, and
Regional Advisory Boards to effectuate ethics training requirements and modify time limits for speaking at meetings; establish term limits for task forces; and extend the rule of membership on one board/commission to other Council-appointed members; and
2) Adopt a resolution modifying the Rules of Order and Procedure for the
Conduct of City Council meetings to revise the rules on donation of speaking time and add a rule for disclosure for quasi-judicial matters; and
3) Introduce an ordinance amending sections 11.04.010, 11.04.040, 11.04.090, 11.04.100, and 11.04.165(c), and deleting sections 11.04.170 and exhibits from
Chapter 11.04 Elections of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to, among other
things, increase transparency.
Executive Summary
As recommended by the Institute for Local Government’s (ILG) Good Governance
Checklist, staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution modifying the policies for City Boards, Commissions, and Regional Advisory Boards that require the City Clerk
to: provide the Council with member’s attendance records to AB 1234 Ethics Training and make compliance a condition of continuing appointment for appointed officials. Staff also recommends setting service terms for task forces and limiting members of a
Council-appointed advisory group to serve in one group at a time to allow other citizens to participate in local government. After a review of Council meeting procedures, staff recommends Council adopt a
resolution modifying the Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of
Meetings to: revise Public Testimony rules to deny late requests to donate speaking time and requests to donate time for Public Input (Agenda Item 14); and require disclosure of off-record contacts regarding quasi-judicial items.
Staff’s final recommendation is to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 11.04
Elections of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to: 1) amend filing deadlines for
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2 of 11
proponents of referenda in response to a 12-Item Request to Place an Item on the Council Agenda to ensure faster reporting time for referenda and account for deadlines
falling on City Hall’s closed-Fridays; 2) require mandatory electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements to streamline the filing electronic publishing process, and increase election transparency; and 3) delete sections 11.04.170 (Acceptance of
Petition) and Exhibits to Chapter 11.04 to reduce liability exposure to the City and parallel State law regarding petition formats.
Discussion
Policies for City Boards, Commissions and Regional Advisory Boards
On October 7, 2005, the Governor signed Assembly Bill Number 1234 (AB 1234)
requiring that if a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to,
or reimburses the expenses of a member of its ‘legislative body’, that local agency’s
officials must receive training in ethics. While only members of the City Council and
Planning Commission, the City’s representative on the County Metropolitan Water
District Board and County West Vector Control District Board receive monetary
compensation per meeting, all board and commission members are eligible for
reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their public duties per
Resolution Number 6751 (CCS). The City Clerk and City Attorney provide biennial
Ethics Training Workshops to ensure that the City complies with AB 1234. Despite
providing City-training and free online training from the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC), an average of 25 members of the City’s 175 board and
commission members apparently fail to comply with AB 1234 training. The Government
Code does not have penalties for failing to complete the required training.
Staff recommends that the Council charge the City Clerk to provide a list of members in
compliance with ethics training during the Annual Appointments process, and make
ethics training a required condition of members’ requests for re-appointment to ensure
full compliance. Should the Council disagree with the recommendation, staff would
continue with current practice and provide a list of complying officials as requested by
the public.
Alternative techniques to encourage compliance are to: 1) create a financial penalty
where officials who have not complied with AB 1234 training would not receive
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3 of 11
compensation or have expenses reimbursed until the completion of training; or 2) make
compliance a condition of agency service where non-compliant officials would be
rescinded of their appointment.
The second group of revisions would establish two-year terms for task force members;
and expand the policy of allowing membership on one board or commission to Council-
appointed task forces and committees. By establishing two-year terms for task force
members, current/new members can commit to a defined term instead of an unknown
period, and staff can work around upcoming vacancies instead of rearranging meetings
due to unexpected resignations. Members wishing to extend their service would be
allowed to serve an indefinite number of two-year terms lasting until a task force's
objective is complete. The current policy prohibiting double membership only applies to
City boards and commissions, boards of non-profits and regional advisory boards. By
limiting Council-appointed members to serve in no more than one advisory group at a
time, membership to the City's 24 groups can be opened up to other citizens who may
bring fresh perspectives and ideas, and the rule would be applied to more Council-
appointed members. Should a member's expertise be needed by more than one
board/commission, Council may make an exception, with a super majority vote. The
exception for the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commission would remain, because of the
Commission's infrequent meeting schedule.
Staff recommends that the Council set two-year terms and no terms limits for task force
members; prohibit double membership for all Council-appointed members, except for
members of the Building & Fire-Life Safety Commissions; and allow any members
currently serving on more than one group to complete their terms. Should the Council
disagree with staff recommendation, no service terms would be set for established task
forces; future task forces may set terms as they are created; and members of task
forces and committees may continue to serve on more than one advisory group.
Other minor changes to the resolution consist of: updating the resolution with names of
newly formed boards, commissions, task force and committees; deleting references to
boards that no longer exist; incorporating established term limits for certain groups;
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
4 of 11
revising the City Clerk’s procedures on reviewing minutes and providing regular
attendance records, and clarifying the procedure for a board or commission to request
to remove members for non-attendance to meetings. The update for the City Clerk to
provide attendance reports from twice to once a year reflects current practice when
reports are provided to Council during the Annual Appointments process. The update to
change the review of agendas and minutes from bi-annual to biennial also reflects
current practice as all agendas submitted to the City Clerk’s Office for posting are
reviewed prior to posting and minutes are reviewed biennially with the goal to achieve
uniformity in content and format with the Council’s minutes.
Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Meetings
At the January 14, 2014 Council meeting, Council amended the Rules of Order and
Procedure for the Conduct of Meetings to allow the public to donate an additional two
minutes of their speaking time to a designated speaker. After implementing the new
rule for over a year, staff encountered instances when requests to donate time were
submitted late and/or requests to donate time were submitted for Public Input, and the
current rules did not provide sufficient direction on how to proceed. At a recent Council
meeting, a request to donate time was submitted late and the Council approved to hear
the speakers, but the designated speaker was given all four minutes whereas late and
single speakers are generally given one minute as a penalty. There also have been
several occasions when a member of the public donates time to another speaker for
general Public Input and takes advantage of the time donation rule by raising subject
matters that have previously been addressed by Council or that are not within the
Council’s jurisdiction.
Staff considers the maximum time limit of two minutes to be sufficient for the public to
address the Council on matters not listed on the agenda as the Council can always
exercise their power to give the speaker additional time to finish comments or answer
follow-up questions, or agendize the item for further discussion and public comment at a
future meeting. Additionally, members of the public are always welcome to contact the
Council on matters pertaining to the City outside of a meeting by mail, email, telephone
or in person. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council revise the rules denying all
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
5 of 11
late requests to donate time and all requests to donate time for general Public Input.
Should the Council disagree with the recommendations, staff would continue current
practice and accept late requests to donate time for one minute only and requests to
donate time for Public Input.
The second revision that staff recommends is to add a rule that the Council disclose off-
record contacts relating to quasi-judicial matters before voting on the matter. This
change would help ensure fairness and a complete record.
Other updates to the resolution are: changing the delivery date of the meeting packet
from the Wednesday before a Council meeting to Tuesday, revising the physical
agenda posting location of agendas from the Clerk’s Office to the City Hall Lobby,
revising the list of Categories and Order of Business by deleting Inspiration and revising
Special Ceremonial Agenda Items (Agenda item 2) to include brief updates from the
City Manager, and adding new boards and task forces to those that may report under
Reports of Boards & Commissions (Agenda Item 10).
Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 11.04 Elections
Disclosure Requirements During Signature Gathering Period for Referenda
At the July 10, 2001 Council meeting, staff proposed two methods ensuring the integrity
of the initiative process and one method was to adopt new regulation relating to
financial disclosure. At the July 24, 2001 Council meeting, Council added section
11.04.165 creating additional disclosure filing requirements for committees supporting
and opposing ballot measures as the Political Reform Act only requires semi-annual or
quarterly reporting. It was also during this time when the Council first considered
electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements.
On January 7, 2015, the City Clerk’s Office received the attached 12-Item form
(Attachment 4) requesting to place an item on the City Council agenda to amend
section 11.04.165(c) by revising the last two filing deadlines for committees raising or
spending funds to support or oppose a referendum and adding a fourth filing deadline.
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
6 of 11
As with petitions for initiatives, referenda and recalls, the signature gathering period is
30 days and the current filing deadlines for referenda are:
Number of Filing Periods Days of Filing Period Filing Deadlines
1 1-5 10th day of period
2 6-20 25th day of period
3 21-30 60th day after end of period
The author of the 12-item form proposed to change the second deadline from the 25th
day of the signature gathering period to the 24th day, as the 25th day falls on a Saturday
due to ordinances being adopted on Tuesdays which extends the deadline to Mondays.
The 24th day would fall on Fridays but if Council is concerned with the deadline falling
on an alternate Friday when the City Clerk’s Office is closed, then it was suggested to
change the deadline to the 23rd day. The author also proposed to shorten the third filing
period from 60 days after the end of the gathering period to 7 days so that disclosure
statements are available to the Council and voters at an earlier time and that the
deadline will fall on Thursdays when the City Clerk’s Office is open. The last proposal
was to add a new filing requirement to record financial activity after the 30 day gathering
period.
A summary of the proposed changes are listed in the chart below:
Number of Filing Periods Days of Filing Period Filing Deadlines
1 1-5 10th day of period
2 6-20 25th 24th or 23rd
day of period
3 21-30 60th 7th day after end of
period
4 Day after end of period
+14 days
No later than 1 week before
the public hearing
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
7 of 11
Staff finds the proposals reasonable and recommends that the Council amend section
11.04.165(c) to change the second filing deadline to the 24th day, the third deadline to
seven days after the end of the 30 day gathering period, and create a fourth filing
deadline covering 14 days after the 30 day period and setting the deadline to 19 days
after the end of the gathering period, or five days later, and regardless of when petitions
are submitted. Although the second filing deadline may fall on a closed-Friday, filers
may meet this deadline by filing early or filing electronically if the Council mandates e-
filing of campaign statements.
Electronic Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements
At the June 19, 2007 Council meeting, Council authorized staff to purchase NetFile, an
electronic filing system for campaign disclosure statements, to improve the City’s
electoral process. On January 1, 2013, Government Code Section 84615 went into
effect allowing local government agencies to require elected officers, candidates,
committees and other persons required to file campaign statements and other
documents to file online or electronically with a local filing officer. Since 2013, over 20
California cities, including Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and
Pasadena have passed paperless filing ordinances. On September 30, 2015, Assembly
Bill 594 was passed to amend the Political Reform Act and revise the definition of
“committee” by increasing the qualifying monetary threshold to $2,000 for contributions
received by a person or combination of persons.
Prior to using NetFile, City Clerk staff posted scanned portable document formats
(PDFs) of typed or handwritten campaign disclosure statements online making them
free and available to the public. As the number of candidates and issues vary per
election, the number of campaign committees varies as well. However, the majority of
campaign committees use the electronic filing system and file electronically while the
rest file printed or handwritten hard copies with the Clerk’s Office. One reason that a
number of committees do not file electronically is that committees are still required to file
hard copies with candidates and treasurer’s wet signatures under the current law,
despite filing online. The only way to make hard copy statements available on the
website is for Clerk staff to continue to post PDFs.
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
8 of 11
Other reasons why committees do not file electronically are: a preference for paper
forms over other software or NetFile; little to no financial activity; and, although difficult
to prove, to reduce transparency. Although the City’s filing system assists with filing
and posting statements online, permitting a combination of filing methods allows
candidates and committees to provide different levels of transparency. For example,
the average voter could spend a longer time searching for particular contributors or
expenditures through handwritten or typed statements that went through the optical
character recognition (OCR) process than they would with an electronically filed
statement. Also, handwritten or typed statements would not easily retain and track
information from previous statements such as multiple donations from a contributor who
may reach the City’s contribution limit. In addition, current law does not prohibit
committees from filing electronically for one period and then filing a paper copy for the
next period which may cause information to be harder to track.
Advantages to electronic filing for the candidate, treasurer, and proponents/opponents
for measures, are that: access is free online so that candidates do not have to incur
costs for accounting software and services; information from most accounting software
is compatible with the system; information from previous statements are retained,
saving time on filing new statements; the software helps reduce data entry errors; and
statements are automatically posted online. For the voters advantages include: copies
of statements can be downloaded free of charge; information can be exported to
spreadsheet software or the City’s new Open Data Program for analysis; and
statements are immediately available during evenings and weekend and do not require
waiting for Clerk staff to upload statements by the next business day. Advantages to
mandatory e-filing are that: deadlines can be met if they fall on closed Fridays; only one
statements needs to be filed preventing two different versions from being mistakenly
filed by paper and electronically; and paper, time and postage would be saved by filing
electronically as opposed to hard copies.
The NetFile system meets the requirements of GC Section 84615 by accepting filings in
a standardize record format developed by the Secretary of State; ensures the integrity of
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1161 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
9 of 11
data transmitted, including safeguards to alter data; redacts confidential information
such as addresses; sends filers electronic confirmations that statements were received,
with the date and time, and a copy of the statement; permits electronic signatures on
statements; provides data to the public in an easily understood format; and allows the
Clerk to maintain information for at least 10 years. GC 84615 also exempts smaller
campaigns that do not raise $2,000 or more or spend $1,000 or more from filing
electronically and may continue to file paper statements. To prevent any hardship, the
Clerk's Office offers a public computer for NetFile, will provide training, and implement
e-filing on January 1, 2016, to allow time for information to be disseminated and filers to
have sufficient trainings. This would make the January – June 2016 semi-annual
statements the first statements to be filed electronically.
Transparency and helping voters make informed decisions were the original goals of
purchasing the electronic filing system. Limiting the filing method to one method and
using the full functionality of the software would bring all candidates, committees and
proponents/opponents of measures up to a level playing field and move the City closer
to transparency goals. Therefore, staff recommends that Council amend the election
code regarding disclosure requirements for referendums as proposed by the originator
of the 12-Item Form, and mandate electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements.
Should Council disagree with mandatory e-filing, staff recommends approving
recommendations from the 12-Item Form and set the second filing deadline to the 23rd
day of the period so that all deadlines fall on a business day. Alternatives to this
recommendation are to maintain the current filing schedule and practice of accepting
non-electronic and electronic campaign statements.
Acceptance of Petitions and Samples
At the April 10, 1990 meeting Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance requiring
the City to provide sample formats for initiative petitions that would help clarify legal
requirements that must be met in preparing a petition for an initiative, referendum or
amendment to the City Charter. At the February 4, 1992 meeting Council adopted an
ordinance adding exhibits of initiative petitions to the election code and charging the
City Clerk to review petitions prior to circulation and upon the request of circulators.
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
10 of 11
Current law requires the City Clerk to review the petitions within seven days, and if the
Clerk fails to reject the petitions during this time, then the format is presumed to be in
compliance. The intent of the law was apparently to streamline the petition process.
Experience indicates that the City Clerk review does not streamline the process.
Moreover this section appears to create potential liability to the City as the City Clerk
may be viewed as not impartial to the process. The City of Berkeley provided sample
petitions in its Municipal Code, but does not require staff to review as to form. The City
of Beverly Hills reviews petitions but does not advise proponents on how to correct
petitions. Most California benchmark cities surveyed follow the State’s Election Code,
which is silent on the topic, and advise proponents to secure an elections attorney (see
Attachment E). Therefore staff recommends that the Council delete sections 11.04.170
Acceptance of Petition and Exhibits to Chapter 11.04 of the City’s Elections Code to
reflect State Code.
Additional Amendments
Other proposed changes to the election code consist of: 1) amending section 11.04.010
Nomination of Candidates for the City Clerk to collect the filing fee at the time of filing
nomination papers rather than the time of issuing; and 2) amending section 11.04.090
Family Contributions to include contributions from same-sex spouses as separate and
not aggregated contributions. Staff recommends amending these sections to reflect the
State Election Code and account for same-sex marriages.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended actions. Funds for NetFile software maintenance in the amount of
$10,000 are included in the FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget in the Records and Election
Services Department at account 01212.555010. Future year funding is contingent on
Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1163 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
11 of 11
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Proposed resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica establishing
policies for city boards, commissions and regional advisory boards and repealing
Resolution Number 10690 (CCS)
B. Proposed resolution of the City Council on the City of Santa Monica amending
the rules of order and procedure for the conduct of the City Council meetings and
repealing Resolution Number 10794 (CCS)
C. Proposed amendments on Chapter 11.04 Elections
D. 12-Item Form received on January 7, 2015
E. California Government Code Section 84615
F. AB-594 Political Reform Act of 1974: Campaign Statements
G. Survey Regarding 11.04.170 Acceptance of Petitions
H. January 14, 2014 Staff Report (Weblink)
I. July 10, 2001 Staff Report (Weblink)
J. July 24, 2001 Staff Report (Weblink)
K. June 19, 2007 Staff Report (Weblink)
L. April 10, 1990 Minutes (Weblink)
M. February 4, 1992 Staff Report (Weblink)
8.B.c
Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Attachment C (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: April 18, 2017
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Policies for City Boards, Commissions, Committees, Task Forces and
Regional Advisory Boards
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution modifying the policies for City
Boards, Commissions, Committees, Task Forces and Regional Advisory Boards and
repealing Resolution Numbers 6751 (CCS), 9088 (CCS), and 10920 (CCS).
Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica values public input and, therefore, has established boards,
commissions, committees and task forces to provide recommendations to the City
Council. Comprehensive, clear guidelines will assist the volunteers in adequately
representing the City. The policies and procedures for the City's boards, commissions,
committees and task forces are contained in various City Council resolutions. In an
effort to create a comprehensive set of guidelines, staff recommends the City Council
adopt the proposed resolution.
Background
Santa Monica residents are committed to participating in local government and the
democratic process. Public participation in the City's boards, commissions, committees
and task forces ensures thorough representation and input. The 171 members on the
City’s 24 active boards, commissions, committees and task forces provide advice and
recommendations on the following topics: Airport, Architectural Review, Arts, Audit,
Building and Fire-Life Safety, Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax, Disabilities,
Downtown Santa Monica, Environment, Housing, Landmarks, Library, Personnel,
Planning, Recreation and Parks, Redevelopment, Santa Monica Pier, Santa Monica
Travel and Tourism, Senior Community, Social Services, Status of Women, and Urban
Forest.
8.B.d
Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Attachment D (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2 of 4
The process and policies surrounding the City's boards, commissions, committees and
task forces are currently contained in three different resolutions - Resolution Numbers
6751 (CCS), 9088 (CCS) and 10920 (CCS).
The Council established provisions for reimbursements of expenses of members of
boards and commissioners when it adopted Resolution No. 6751 (CCS) on September
20, 1983. Additionally, Resolution No. 9088 (CCS), adopted September 25, 1996, sets
forth procedures for making appointments to City boards and commissions.
The policies for City boards, commissions, task forces, committees and regional
advisory boards were most recently updated on October 27, 2015. Resolution No.
10920 (CCS) reiterated the existing policies and effectuated ethics training
requirements, established term limits, and extended the rule of limiting membership to
one board/commission at any given time.
Discussion
After review of the existing regulations related to boards, commissions, committees and
task forces, and based on current practices, staff recommends the Council adopt one
consolidating resolution that would contain the existing regulations regarding term limits,
membership limitations on one body, biennial review of agendas and minutes, annual
dinner, written communications, conduct of meetings, attendance, reimbursement of
expenses and ethics training.
In addition to consolidating the three resolutions, minor modifications to reflect current
practices are proposed. The proposed resolution outlines the application process for
appointments. In the past, concerns were raised to Council over the boards,
commissions, committees and task forces, reviewing, deliberating and providing
recommendations to the City Council regarding applicants. Based on Council direction,
staff recommends the addition of Section 1.D., indicating that the City Council will not
accept recommendations regarding appointees for board, commission, committee, or
task force vacancies. Section 1.F. adds information on the City's process for complying
with Government Code Section 59472 (commonly known as the Maddy Act), related to
8.B.d
Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Attachment D (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3 of 4
noticing requirements for Local Appointments.
In order to clarify allowable uses for City funds, a new Section 5 is proposed indicating
such funds are restricted to the following: Participation or sponsorship fees for local
events, dues/memberships to other organizations that align with board, commission,
committee, and task force goals, conferences/training that aligns with board,
commission, committee, or task force goals, costs related to commission materials,
including printing of materials, business cards, postage, giveaways for events of minor/
nominal value, supplies for City-sponsored events, food for City retreats, and
accommodation services such as signing and closed captioning.
Policies regarding written communications are contained within Section 8 of the
resolution. In an effort to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and transact City
business through City email, additional language is proposed to require all City-
appointed board, commission, committee, and task force members to utilize their City-
issued email address for City business. An additional provision was added as Section
10.B. to allow prolonged absences to be excused upon approval of the board,
commission, committee or task force and Section 10.D. was modified to have the City
Clerk report attendance to the City Council on a bi-annual basis.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
8.B.d
Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Attachment D (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
4 of 4
Prepared By: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Resolution Number 6751
C. Resolution Number 10920
D. Resolution Number 9088
E. Written Comments
8.B.d
Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Attachment D (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Date: 2/4/2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Records and Election Services Department
Subject: Boards and Commissions Community Working Group Update
Introduction
This information item will cover the establishment of the Community Working Group
for Boards and Commissions (“CWG”), the selection of the CWG members, an update
and timeline for the CWG’s work, and when we plan to return to Council with the
CWG’s recommendations.
Discussion
At its December 17, 2019 meeting, City Council directed the City Clerk, in consultation
with the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office, to establish the Community
Working Group for Boards and Commissions (“CWG”). As the CWG is not appointed
by Council or any legislative body, they are not subject to the Brown Act. The
selection criteria for members of the CWG, as directed by Council, included selecting
one active board/commission member and one staff member to provide an
explanation into what is involved in participating on and staffing a board/commission.
The City Clerk was also directed to select an outside consultant to facilitate the work
of the CWG.
An RFQ for an Organizational Consultant was issued on February 7, 2020 with a
deadline of February 21, 2020. No responses were received, and a second RFQ was
Information Item
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
issued on March 3, 2020 with a deadline of March 19, 2020. Four responses were
received. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the project was put on an
indefinite hold. At the July 14, 2020 Council meeting, the City Clerk brought an
Administrative Item before Council recommending a ballot measure to transfer those
boards and commissions enumerated in the City Charter to the Municipal Code.
While Council voted against the recommendation, they directed the City Clerk to
continue with the board and commission review process. On August 25, 2020 a third
RFQ was issued for an Organizational Consultant with a deadline of September 4,
2020. This time five responses were received. But, due to the financial impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic and associated budget cuts, the decision was made to not hire
an outside consultant and for the City Clerk staff to facilitate the CWG.
The application to become a member of the CWG was posted on the City Clerk’s
website on February 11, 2020, with a deadline for applications of February 25, 2020.
Outreach was conducted through social media and an ad published in the Santa
Monica Daily Press. An email was also sent to community leaders asking for
assistance in identifying possible applicants. On March 10, 2020, Deputy City
Manager Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Attorney Brandon Ward, City Clerk Denise
Anderson-Warren, and Assistant City Clerk Nikima Newsome met to evaluate the 16
applications received. Criteria used in evaluating the applications included but were
not limited to residency, community involvement, commitment to the process, and
cultivating a diverse and inclusive group. Based on the applied criteria the following
members were selected:
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
*Selected as alternates.
**Ms. Tatimatla relocated outside of Santa Monica and was replaced with Phyllis Thomas Miller on
November 12, 2020.
Member Occupation Selection Criteria
Jennifer Tatimatla** Attorney A newer resident to Santa Monica who is
interested in getting involved in the community
and learning about local governance. Co-
founded a non-profit devoted to promoting the
economic independence of financially
disadvantaged women.
Rebecca Lantry Retired Served on boards/commissions in the past as
well as other community groups and activities.
Nicholas Rolston Marketer Involved in community organizations and
stated professional experience with strategic
planning and developing operating
procedures.
Marilyn Shirk Retired
Registered Nurse
Served on board/commission in the past and
community volunteer. Stated understanding
of the need for reflection, evaluation and
collaboration to improve efficiency and
achieve desired outcomes.
Matthew Stevens Assistant Vice
President,
Marketing and
Commercial
Affairs
Younger resident of the city who stated a
desire to add that perspective to the group.
Pam O’Connor Preservation
Planner
Former Councilmember and
board/commission member
Abby Arnold Grant Writer and
Project Manager
Served on boards/commissions in the past
and specifically stated the need to review the
community involvement system in Santa
Monica.
Albin Gielicz Board/Commission Representative
recommended by the Director of Community
Services
Setareh Yavari Staff Representative recommended by the
Director of Community Services
Phyllis Thomas Miller* Artist Has a military background and has
participated in planning the annual Virginia
Avenue Park Juneteenth celebration
Zina Josephs* Retired Teacher Former board/commission member and
community volunteer
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
The CWG held its first meeting, on October 19, 2020 and has been meeting on the
third Monday of every month. The CWG has been tasked with making
recommendations on the following:
• Determining differences between boards, commissions, and task forces, to then
appropriately categorize each current body;
• Revisiting and updating all board and commission (including a possible Mobility
group) bylaws to establish uniform rules of order consistent with City Council
direction;
• Establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of board, commission, and task
force members;
• Reviewing existing boards, commissions, and task forces to see if there is an
overlap among their responsibilities and, if so, considering consolidation that
could benefit all represented constituents and better align with the City’s
Framework priorities;
• Reviewing term limits and whether those limits should differ between different
boards and commissions, as well as considering increasing the time limit
between serving on the same board or commission;
• Considering possible different methods for Council to make appointments;
• Establishing consistent policies regarding absences and attendance;
• Establishing roles, expectations, and budgets for department staff and liaisons
that would be consistent across all boards and commissions; and
• Proposing a periodic comprehensive review of all advisory bodies to occur every
five to six years (non-election years).
A self-assessment survey drafted by City Clerk staff and reviewed by the CWG was
distributed to all board and commission members to solicit their input on topics such
as: how to make the application process more efficient, term limits, and whether the
boards/commission enumerated in the Charter should be consolidated into the
Municipal Code. We received a response rate of 58% and the responses are
attached.
The CWG will hold its final meeting as a deliberative body on February 16, 2021.
The CWG will also hold a meeting on March 15, 2021, at which meeting they will
invite members of the public to provide their input on the CWG’s recommendations.
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
The City Clerk will bring a report with recommendations to City Council at its April 13,
2021 meeting.
Attachments:
December 17, 2019 Staff Report
CWG Applicants List
Prepared By: Nikima S. Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
First Name Middle Name Last Name Public Address Address Line Email Reside in
Santa
Monica?
If Yes,
Number of
Years
Why do you wish to serve on the Boards, Commissions & Task
Forces Community Working Group and what do you plan to
contribute?
Specify any prior service on City Boards/Commissions/Task
Forces:
List community activities in which
you are involved and your role:
Describe your qualifications, experience, and
education relative to the duties of the Boards,
Commissions & Task Forces Community Working
Group.
Personal qualities identified in the criteria include
leadership, creativity, and innovation as well as the ability
to work effectively in a group setting and an ability to
balance competing needs. Provide examples of how you
have demonstrated those qualities:
How will your participation on the working group
fulfill the City’s effort to create a diverse and inclusive
collaborative effort?
Participation on the Boards, Commissions &
Task Forces Community Working Group
requires attendance at one meeting per
month until the completion of the
comprehensive review.
Can you commit the necessary time to
perform your duties if appointed to the
Working Group?
Occupation
Zina Josephs zinajosephs@aol.com Yes 50 years I would like to see them function as effectively as possible. I've
attended meetings of the Airport, Arts, Housing, Planning, Recreation
& Parks, and Social Services Commissions, as well as the Task Force
on the Environment, and I have a few suggestions for improvement.
Arts Commission, 1998-2002 Friends of Sunset Park, city-recognized
neighborhood organization -- Board
member since 2003
Santa Monica Neighborhood Council --
FOSP representative since 2005
SMMUSD District Advisory Committee
on the Visual & Performing Arts --
member since 1997, serving as Chair
and Secretary
Having been involved in PTA, FOSP. and the SMMUSD
VAPA DAC, I've received Brown Act training multiple times
and have observed how Robert's Rules of Order are
followed in those organizations. I've also attended many
meetings of the SMMUSD Board of Education and the
Santa Monica City Council and observed how those
meetings are run.
I'm a good listener, I try to treat other people with respect, and I
work well with others.
Depending on how you're defining diverse and inclusive,
I'm female, over 65, and a Santa Monica resident. If
gender, age, residency are three of the categories, that's
where I would fit in.
Yes retired teacher
Pam O'Connor 906 9th Street pam.oconnor.samo1@gmailYes 32 While the Boards and Commissions process has served the City well,
in this dynamic era of change and communication, it is worthwhile to
examine the current structure and processes of the City’s
Boards/Commissions. I would participate with the Working Group and
City staff to identify best practices from the Boards/Commissions,
identify areas for improvement, and learn and integrate best practices,
innovation, and effective methods of communication from external
sources into the Board and Commission structure.
I will bring my knowledge and experience of over the past 30 years of
the operations of governmental Boards and Commissions (local,
countywide, regional and state) to the Working Group. I have
participated on, observed, and appointed people to the Boards and
Commissions of the City. Over this period, I have seen methods of
communication between the Boards/Commissions and the City
Council and City management and the public evolve.
I have served on the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission,
Planning Commission and City Council and have served as Chair on
each of those bodies. I represented the City of Santa Monica on the
Exposition Light Rail Construction Authority and served as Chair. I
represented the City of Santa Monica and 20+ other cities on the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and served as
Chair. I represented the City of Santa Monica and the Westside Cities on
the SCAG Regional Council and served as Chair.
In Santa Monica, I serve on the Board
of Directors of Santa Monica Forward
and the Santa Monica Chamber of
Commerce.
I have over 30 years of experience participating in a wide
range of Boards and Commissions and have served as the
Chair of the Board of several.
In addition to the boards I described in a previous answer, I
have served on state and regional boards and on the
boards of non-profit organizations. I currently serve on the
Metrolink Board of Directors as an Alternate Direction. I am
an alternate on the Clean Power Alliance Board
(representing Santa Monica). I am a member of the Board
of ICLEI USA and currently serve as Chair of that Board. I
was recently elected to the Executive Committee of the
California Transit Association. And I am a member of the
State of California Road Charge Technical Advisory
Committee (to the California Transportation Commission).
I have served as an alternate Commissioner on the
California Coastal Commission I have served on the
Board of Directors of the California Association of Councils
of Governments--CALCOG (and as Board Chair), on the
Local Government Commission Board (and as Board
Chair). I served on the Boards of the National Association
of Regional Councils and National League of Cities and on
NLC’s Transportation Committee (as Chair of the
Transportation Committee).
I understand the various types of group processes and
meetings from highly formal public hearings which adhere to
the Brown Act to more participatory, less formal working group
sessions that still must adhere to the Brown Act. I have
successfully chaired meetings which have had controversial
subject matters and emotional participants in a fair and
equitable manner. As the President of SCAG, I chaired joint
meetings of the Policy Committees (over 60 participants in a
Brown Act meeting) and ensured that all members had a
chance to participate—and achieved a unanimous approval of
the region’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. I have been chosen to Chair the Board
of a wide range of organizations.
I also have a strong record of working well with staff of the
various organizations.
As a community “elder,” I bring a combination of
institutional memory, significant experience on public
agency boards, a positive record as a group participant
and an open mind to the Working Group.
Yes Preservation Planner
Matthew Stevens mastevens0131@gmail.comYes 7 Santa Monica is a wonderful city to live in. I plan to soon raise a family
here and want to ensure it will continue to be a model city in the years
to come.
However, recent trends worry me. Climate change is accelerating,
our housing affordability crisis is worse than it has ever been, small
businesses and retail are struggling, and our city budget is becoming
increasingly strained. I can't help but think we will need to make many
difficult decisions in the years to come.
Too often, these difficult decisions do not consider the needs of our
entire community. Young people, people of color, people who are
economically disadvantaged, etc. are often excluded from the
conversation. If selected to serve on this working group, I plan to
contribute my perspective as a young resident who soon plans to
raise a family. Additionally, I will work to ensure the voices of other
groups who are not well represented are heard and considered also.
None Abundant Housing LA, Santa Monica
Leader
HOA President
UCLA Political Science Major, Public Affairs Minor (Class
of 2012)
UCLA Anderson MBA (Class of 2020)
In my full-time job, I do business development and sales while
leading teams of 3-5 employees in pursuit of the company's
objectives. My clients are primarily international companies
which has given me the ability to work with and learn from
numerous cultures from around the world. Additionally, my job
has given me substantive skills in dispute resolution, contract
negotiation, financial analysis, and bridging needs across
numerous parties who often have differing goals and
objectives. These will be invaluable resources when working
with others from the community.
I regularly attend City Council meetings, Commission
meetings, and community workshops. In my experience,
young people are not well represented. This is a real loss
for our community because the decisions we make today
will impact young people for a longer amount of time than
any other demographic. Too often, we think about only the
next 5-10 years. We need to think about the next 50-100
years as well.
If I am selected to participate in this working group, I will
seek to make sure young voices are included. Our
government should represent all people including those
that do not have the time or ability to show up at
community meetings.
Yes Assistant Vice President,
Marketing and Commercial
Affairs
Ruthann Shanley 1441 21st St. #611 ruthann6shanley@yahoo.coYes 42 I have gone to many, and some don't seem to be working for ALL of
that specific group
(Ex:) seniors, disabled, women.
I would like to initate something to enforce some new rules and
enforcement for our
diversity of transportation. We supposedly got 20 new officers, but
not much ENFORCEMENT on scooters, bikes, and other smaller
vehicles being enforced.
Too many seniors feeling uncomfortable.
Police do not respond. Not enough help. Lowest resonse on their
totum pole.
No specific board, etc. but worked for 3 yrs. with BOBBY SOX and city to
get GIRLS involved in use of SNACK BAR at Memorial Park. Use to be
only the boys got to use the snack bar, and ALL proceeds (which many
of our girls supported by buying items) got none of that revenue. We
finally got our turn and we shared.
Calling and giving ideas to Lindsey,
police, and whomever will listen.
42 yrs. resident.
taught Sunday school
taught SMMUSD PE education
Referee and umpire for sports
ran (myself) snack bar for boys LL
kept records for LL and Bobby Sox (girls)
MADE all yearbooks by hand by myself
Referee and umpire in SM Bay area, LA area, other school
districts, 25yrs. @ PacificPalisades coaching and referring
baseball.
Taught volleyball to elementary and middle school and
basketball.
Live with seniors in senior bldg.
Participated in sr. programs and lunch program
Making sure ALL citizens are safe and protected.
Yes RETIRED ref. and umpire
Stacy Dalgleish 1437 24th St Yes Santa Monica Santa Monica Yes
Robert James Callahan 2211 4th Street Apt 206 binokakak@yahoo.com Yes 11 years As a former coach of 27 years, a veteran, served in the United States
Marine(USMC).and a concerned citizen, to motivate and to inspire our
country's youth, I want to share and ti gives my exp, for their growth.
Through sports for youth and young adults, I can offer wisdom and
guidance to ensure a positive path.
I was a youth coach, for the Pittsburgh city of Farrell, Pa, as a counselor
through my coaching position. Recently, I am on the planning committee
at the Virginia Park, Santa Monica, to ensure an annual positive and
festive event, known as Juneteenth. Serving community veteran
organization, on helping veterans to become mentors to youths within the
community of West Los Angeles, and our community within Santa
Monica.
Currently, a sitting member, my role, to
implement my experience of
mentorship to the generation youths,
through sports.
A veteran served in logistics, land surveyor and field
artillery for the United States Marine (USMC), Vietnam,
Head Coach, from assistant coach, spanning for 27 years
within the sports field of Football, basketball, track, and
baseball, to age groups from Pee-Wee, Midget football,
Pop Warner, Little league and young track and field to high
school age. As a once police officer for the City of Sharon,
Pennsylvania in the mid-eighties, I enjoyed the connection
with the community youths and young adults through
interaction, in coordinated sports events and venues, to
establish and had strengthened good relationships
between young law enforcement.
27 years of coaching and being veteran aid the coordinated
efforts to empower through the young generation. I appreciate
opportunities, tasks, and projects through sports programs,
where the young generation is reached and inspired.
Through sports activities, and positive competition toward
development among the young generations, children,
teens, young adults, greater diverse projects are met.
Sporting events and venues, tend to galvanize the whole
community, where the young generations are moved by
the support.
Yes Retired (USMC) Veteran,
Coach Exp.
Marilyn Jean Shirk 2216 4th Street, Unit 2 marilynjs@roadrunner.com Yes 27+ years I would like to serve on the Boards, Commissions & Task Forces
Community Working Group because I understand the complexities of
organizations and the need for reflection, evaluation and collaboration
to improve efficiency and achieve desired outcomes. I am proud to
live in Santa Monica. I fell in love with the city as an undergraduate in
the 1970s. I am an experienced professional nurse, facilitator and
consultant, having worked over 40 years in healthcare. I have
experience with performance/quality improvement processes and am
a skilled communicator.
1994-1995
Commissioner, City of Santa Monica Social Services
Commission
Volunteer, The People Concern Access
Center; assist at triage and other duties
as needed; Aug. 2019- present
Cedars-Sinai Bioethics Executive
Committee; 1997- present, serving as a
community member since 2018;
providing my nursing perspective and
an historical context from my 30 years
as a Bioethics Committee member.
Cedars-Sinai Clinical Pastoral
Education-Professional Advisory
Group, 2013- present; a community
member since 2018 after retirement;
my role is to support the program by
giving input on program development
and facilitating exit interviews with
chaplain interns
I have a Masters in Nursing from UCLA (1979) specializing
in Psychiatric/Community Mental Health Nursing. I worked
at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for over 37 years. I was the
Nursing Liaison from September 1984 to my retirement in
January 2018. In that role I provided mental health
consultation to nurses, other caregiver staff and
managers/administrators. My contributions focused on
interpersonal communication, stress management, team
building, ethical decision-making and advocacy. I liaised
with multiple departments including: administration,
organization development/H.R., employee assistance,
security, volunteer services, spiritual care and healthcare
ethics. I contributed to organizational initiates related to
improving both customer and employee satisfaction and
engagement.
I created my role as Nursing Liaison at Cedars-Sinai. My
personal experience as an RN and my graduate education
inspired me to propose a position that would address the need
for staff support to help mitigate the stress and trauma of
working with acutely ill or dying people and their families. The
ultimate aim was to ensure provision of safe, quality humanistic
care.
I am passionate about my profession and have committed
myself to advocating for healthy work environments to support
ethical practice. I was one of the first nurses to serve on the
medical staff bioethics committee (1985) and helped write the
charter. I established and led nursing ethics forum and
coordinated nursing ethics champions to promote nurses'
confidence and competence to address ethical issues in their
practices.
My role effectiveness hinged on my ability to walk the line
between staff and administration, advocating for respectful
direct communication, constructive feedback, recognition, self-
care, clear limit-setting and follow through.
I was trusted to keep confidences. My rapport with a members
of a diverse workforce allowed me to encourage, coach and
advise others about ways to problem-solve work-related
concerns, create and sustain positive work relationships with
peers, supervisors and subordinates. My contributions were
recognized with outstanding performance evaluations and
honors.
I have been an active member of my professional nursing
associations serving on two boards and various committees
I am white, over 65 and female. I have been successful
working with people from our diverse Los Angeles County
community for four decades. I am sensitive to social,
economic, racial, gender, and other inequities. I am an
advocate for social justice and inclusion, mindful of the
need to seek out/amplify those whose voices may be
missing/muted in the conversation.
My maturity, values, commitment, interpersonal skills,
sense of humor and extensive positive experience
working with people of all ages, backgrounds and
positions will contribute to the working groups's mission to
create a diverse and inclusive collaborative effort.
Yes Retired, Registered Nurse,
Mental Health Clinical
Nurse Specialist
Nicholas Rolston nicholaswrolston@gmail.comYes 7 currently; 25
total
I am passionate about Santa Monica & our community- our history &
our future. I am excited about being a part of what continues to make
Santa Monica great- including the structure & purpose of our Boards,
Commissions & Task Forces.
I plan to contribute the perspective of not only a long-time resident,
but the perspective of a SMMUSD Alumni, a frequent beach go-er, a
visitor of local retail & parks and an active member of the
community.
Additionally, I believe our Boards, Commissions & Task Forces do
some great work, but I also feel we are missing an emphasis on
Diversity , as well as on Residential Continuity. I will look to determine
how those areas can be addressed.
N/A Ocean Park Association: Board
Member/VP
Santa Monica Boys & Girls Club:
Community Council
One of the major responsibilities in my professional life is
developing Operating Procedures for Marketing
Organizations & Campaigns. I develop & review not only
the processes but also the roles & responsibilities of each
team member and department to limit duplication, strategic
resource management and ensure coverage of vital
operations.
This skill set, coupled with my work on Strategic
Development, allows me the ability to review existing
frameworks and recommend updates for improved output.
I am a Strategic Thinker. I work hard to emphasis objective &
goal building to help guide process, while incorporating various
perspectives, needs, personalities & desires.
In my current professional life, it is my responsibility to manage
the perspectives of various departments, ranging from
Production to PR to Social and beyond, to create unified
campaigns & execution plans on behalf of clients.
I understand "Big Picture", and will work to maintain our
focus on the greater good, while working through details &
tactics. I will make sure that each existing Board,
Commission & Task Force is respected for the work it
currently does, but look for areas of opportunity.
Yes Marketer
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Phyllis Thomas Miller 2211 4th street Apt#206 phyl2meroeart@yahoo.com Yes 11 years As a concerned citizen, resident, and veteran, (served in the US
Navy/Vietnam), I offer insight in regards to activities for seniors and
the young adults, as per creative endeavors to empower through art. I
also would like to engage more events where both the communities of
the veterans and civilians are a concern. Each community offers a
form of wisdom and guidance by way of events and venues.
Since 2018, I have served the Virginia Park for the Juneteenth
community celebration and honors.
I am active each year of planning the contents and getting the
organizations to involve, as well as bring in the veteran community to
participate.
The Juneteenth annual Honor Venue at
Virginia Avenue Park, Santa Monica.
This year will be our 28th year.
Host several therapeutic "Paint &
Snack, for veterans within the
community of Santa Monica, and West
Los Angeles (West LA VA Medical
center
Artisan, a veteran, and exhibit curator, to bring the arts, as
a healing and empowerment mission to the community.
Public Relations Officer, for the Philips Chapel of Santa
Monica, 201 4th Street, Santa Monica, for the past four
years.
The Veterans Affairs has sponsored me to coordinate and
to host several therapeutic "Paint & Snack" sessions for the
past six years.
My art experience has given me the ability to curate and to
host various venues, ranging from art exhibits to outdoor
venues, guidance and mentoring to young and old, as well
as a community session of gathering community interest.
Guidance within the employment arena, helping with
research and coaching as per the employment endeavors
of those who are unemployed.
I have, since 2009, served several communities of the
veterans, seniors and young adults, and last but not least,
children to teens, where I have curated exhibits and venues,
where the objective was of empowerment and self-
development for each participant. I have collaborated with
extended groups and organizations, to enhance as well to
ensure the success of the venues and events. I have been
entrusted by organizations, including , The Veterans affairs,
Challenge America, the Annenberg Foundation and
Universities, ranging from UC, at Sacramento, Universist of the
Desert, Palm Desert, private galleries and public city
community centers. etc. My website gallery address on line is,
www.meroegallery.com
I am so excited to add to the core of the mission, to
inspire many residents, who feel, there is nothing for
them, or for residents, specifically the veteran community
of Santa Monica, to end the feeling of isolation, where
veterans have so much to offer and at the same time, feel
empowered by being needed and appreciated. For the
young generation, I find myself the need to be a part of a
community effort to combat the current commercial trend
that tend to capture our youth in a world of
disappointments, where actual older generation can be
inspired and offer guidance and care, far more powerful
than the commercial artificial media that tend to lose sight
of family and community unity.
Yes Artist
Craig Walter 1920 6th st #327 walter_craig@smc.edu Yes 21 Because I feel that voices of color are not adequately recognized and
respected in making decisions that are influencing not just mine but
other(s) qualities of life.
To the 2nd question
A thoughtful approach in how institutions as well as how policy is
constructed.
Committee for Racial Justice
NAACP
Candidates forum{a}
In Los Angeles I was a part of a group that acted as
consultants on racial sensitivity issues in the film industry.
I’ve worked with at risk youth and youths who fell below the
mean in testing scores.
As well as a resource who serves as a guide for individuals
who are unfamiliar with the process
I produced a film short that was screened at the PAFF.
I’ve also done numerous theater and film projects as well
produced informational brochures.
I believe as someone who has been in the city and seen
how policies not just in Santa Monica but in the outer lying
areas of LA, have affected the lives of people especially
African Americans I feel that there’s not much intro or
retrospection
Yes Parking Enforcement
Rebecca Lantry 2019 5th Street #109 becky_L55@yahoo.com Yes 40 years 3
months
I think that community input (from me) helps the system to work
properly.
COSW Co-Chair SMC GAB
SMC Executive GAB
WAVA
FAMERDC
MLK Executive Committee
Santa Monica/Venice NAACP
As co-chair of COSW when i traveled to the omen's
conventions i always brought back material that our city
could use. My other groups help me to interact with other
groups.
As part of the Executive committee for MLK we take
recommendations and make decisions together. We take 11
months to plan our next years event.
I have found that input is very important in order to reach
a solution.
Yes Retired
Rene Jean Buchanan 1901 Main Street Suite B mttsrul@icloud.com Yes 18 years I wish to be on this Working Group because I believe our already
robust system needs to updated and brought more in sync with the
City’s core values.
I believe that the City Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces could
be structured to better represent the various neighborhoods in Santa
Monica. I also believe the communication between these entities
could be improved.
The selection process of members needs to be reviewed, especially
each Board’s, Commission’s, and Task Force’s involvement in that
process. That the Housing Commission no longer makes candidate
recommendations to the City Council could be problematic.
I also believe that the positions of chair and vice chair need to be
limited to a maximum of two consecutive one-year terms. Plus, their
exact roles need to be specified. How important is Robert’s Rules of
Order in their roles? Are they facilitators? Or are they to drive the
discussions based on their personal agendas?
I think there needs to be a discussion about all forms of diversity,
including but not limited to ethnicity, lived experience, gender, age,
and formal education. Certain Boards, Commissions, and Task
Forces seem to place too much emphasis on whether a person’s job
experience is pertinent, precluding it from equitably representing the
entire City. For example, it is my opinion that not all Planning
Commissioners need to be somehow involved with development to
qualify
Currently - Santa Monica Housing Commission
Previous - Santa Monica Homelessness Task Force
I am a volunteer for Perfect Pet
Rescue, a 25-year-old rescue which
finds homes for dogs that would
otherwise perish in shelters. We hold
mobile adoption events every Saturday
and Sunday at the corner of 15th and
Montana in front of Citibank. Besides
finding forever homes for countless
pups, we have many Santa Monica
middle school and high school students
who volunteer for us on the
weekends.
I am a member of the Altar Guild at The
Parish of St. Matthew in Pacific
Palisades. I am in charge of the
vestments and certain special Altar
Guild activities. I regularly serve at
weddings and funerals and assist in the
aesthetic maintenance of the
Columbarium. I am a Lay Eucharistic
Minister and a Home Eucharistic
Minister. St. Matthew’s is a community
partner with certain City social service
agencies.
I volunteer at The St. Matthew’s Thrift
Shop on Main Street
I am in my fifth term (9th year) as a Santa Monica Housing
Commissioner. I previously served on the Santa Monica
Homelessness Task Force and the Jewish Federation’s Tel
Aviv/Los Angeles Poverty/Homelessness Task Force.
Being part of the latter task force afforded me the
opportunity to travel to Israel where we exchanged ideas
and best practices regarding ending homelessness. For
several years, I served on two federal work groups, the
PATH Administrative Workgroup and the PATH Consumer-
Provider Network. I was the Chair of the latter group.
Responsibilities included monthly conference call meetings
and regular attendance at federally-funded conferences on
homelessness and housing. At five of those conferences, I
was a presenter.
After receiving services at OPCC and living in its Daybreak
Women’s Shelter for 15 months, I began volunteering at
Daybreak in March 2003. Within a few months, I was hired
by OPCC and worked there for several years. As a
consumer provider, I had to navigate newly charted waters:
being a colleague of those who had previously been my
service providers. I refined my leadership skills, especially
those involving negotiation, self-advocacy, flexibility,
communication, and compromise.
I believe I have strong leadership skills as evidenced by the
fact that, while working at OPCC Daybreak, I grew their
volunteer program from approximately 20 to over 600
volunteers.
I also chaired the PATH Consumer-Provider Network and
oversaw its transition to a network which included consumers
from all federal housing grant programs.
I was previously the Directress of the Altar Guild of the Parish
of St. Matthew, streamlining and organizing things to increase
efficiency. I succeeded in maintaining the group’s
cohesiveness even as we lost members to illness and death.
As someone living with a disability, I have become quite
proficient at balancing my needs with the needs of the activities
in which I am involved because I realize how important balance
is.
I am a creative thinker with a practical side. I see the macro
and micro of situations and work to achieve a solution which
will provide the maximum benefit for all. I am fair-minded,
passionate, persistent, and hardworking.
I am a 61-year-old woman who lives with a mental health
disability. As a result, I have spent a great deal of time in
hospitals and institutions, the last time being in December
2001. I have been homeless three times in my life: as a
teenager, for about a year in 1997/1998, and from
December 19, 2001 to March 5, 2003. Recently, I
celebrated 28 years of sobriety. I advocate for homeless
folks and those living with mental health issues both
locally and nationally. All of this, I believe, gives me a
unique perspective and an ability to see issues from
various angles.
Yes Disabled
Michele Wittig Yes 49 Municipal government serves local needs best when it acts in
accord with the values articulated in our nation’s founding documents,
uses all the relevant evidence that’s available, harnesses its financial
and cultural resources for the common good, and brings diverse
voices to bear on the decision-making.
In Santa Monica’s Council-Manager system, our City Boards,
Commissions and Task Forces (BCTFs) are an important avenue for
widening and deepening responsive and responsible civic
participation.
The formation of The BCTF Community Working Group presents a
rare opportunity to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of these
advisory bodies at a moment in our civic history which is
characterized by fiscal distress, political polarization and unresolved
election litigation.
I am applying for service on this Working Group because I’m
invested in finding ways for the BCTFs to serve our community better,
at equal or less cost than at present. I have relevant knowledge,
experience and demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with
diverse others to advance that goal.
My predisposition is to interpret the Working Group’s mandate
somewhat expansively, with an eye to eliminating redundancy,
increasing inclusiveness and identifying unmet needs that BCTFs can
fill.
My experiences as a City Commissioner, Task Force Member and
Working Group Member in the 1990’s provide historical perspective.
1) Commission on the Status of Women 1990-1995: chaired the
Commission; assisted in evaluating social service agency grant
applications.
2) Task Force on Homelessness 1991-1992: helped draft the Action
Plan adopted by City Council.
3) Telecommunications Working Group 1997 helped draft the Action
Plan adopted by City Council.
1) Civic Engagement
As a member of the Board of the Santa
Monica Bay Area Human Relations
Council, I support inclusive community
dialogue. After assessing the priorities
and needs of Santa Monica's
neighborhood groups, I was
instrumental in re-establishing Mid-City
Neighbors, which had been dormant for
a decade. To do this, we launched
"Kids with Cameras," which engaged
Family YMCA, PAL and Boys and Girls
Club youth in exploring the Mid-City
neighborhood's culture wealth and civic
life through photography and adult-
youth dialogues.
2) Equity and Inclusion in Education
and Employment
For over 30 years, I’ve worked with the
Santa Monica-Venice NAACP, of which
I am a Life Member. I serve on an
SMMUSD District Advisory Committee
that is charged with monitoring
progress on narrowing achievement
gaps. In this capacity, I interview
school principals, collate relevant
statistics and assist in writing reports to
the SMMUSD Board After a term as
My formal training in biology and in experimental
psychology (PhD, University of Illinois, 1971) gave me a
working knowledge of interviews, surveys and experimental
methods, as well as of statistical inference, which has
informed my university teaching and research as well as
my community service.
In my research on pay equity, I developed a method for
aligning wages across historically segregated jobs (e.g.,
male vs. female dominated; East vs. West Germany). In my
work on intergroup relations, I developed and implemented
programs to reduce stereotyping, prejudice and
discrimination between groups.
Most recently, I developed and launched school-based
interventions that teach racial-ethnic minority, immigrant
and first-generation American adolescents how to harness
their cultural wealth and overcome stereotype threat to
increase academic achievement
(http://wittig.socialpsychology.org).
For over 15 years, I chaired CSUN’s Psychology
Department Personnel Committee, which conducted
evaluations and made recommendations concerning faculty
recruitment, retention and promotion, in accord with
applicable law.
I have applied my analytic skills as an expert witness on
employment discrimination in Superior Court; as a
consultant to the International Committee of the Red Cross
on diversifying their Geneva staff; and as a consultant to
the British Red Cross on promoting civic volunteerism
For over five decades, I have collaborated with diverse others
to create consensus in meeting community needs. In 1970, I
convened a committee of faculty, students and administrators
that established the CSUN Children’s Center, which has
provided day care to children of CSUN students since 1973.
As Co-Chair of Santa Monica’s Public Electronic Network
Action Group (1989-1994), I co-led the successful effort to gain
the support of City Council to launch SHWASHLOCK, a
program that has provided showers, laundry facilities and
lockers to the homeless in Santa Monica for over 25 years.
During multiple terms as a member of the LAUSD Commission
on Human Relations, Diversity and Equity and of the Los
Angeles Anti-Defamation League’s Education Advisory Board, I
advocated for ethnic studies courses and inclusive, non-
discriminatory text materials in public schools. I served on
SMMUSD’s Parcel Tax Committees in 2002 and 2003. I am
certified by the State of California as a dispute resolution
mediator and have successfully mediated neighbor-to-
neighbor, business-to-customer and faculty-student disputes.
My completion of Santa Monica’s Community Police Academy,
Community Emergency Response Team training, and the City
Manager’s People’s Academy have acquainted me with law
enforcement procedures, emergency response strategies and
municipal government policies and practice. In summary, my
educational background, research and teaching in large public
universities add valuable expertise and I bring over five
decades of demonstrated skill in organizing diverse voices and
working collaboratively at the grassroots of civic involvement
My service on the Working Group is not likely to enhance
the racial-ethnic diversity or economic status inclusion of
the Working Group. However, I have demonstrated skill
in working successfully with diverse others who bring
competing interests and perspectives.
Yes Professor Emerita
Abby Arnold abby@abbyarnold.com Yes 36 Santa Monica is an older city and has many layers of involvement. I
think it is a good time to take a look at our community involvement
system and see if realignments are appropriate, and if so, where. This
starts with considering the goals of the civic involvement system,
which I believe should focus on leadership development, broad
community participation, and achieving something close to community
consensus when possible. There are likely to be other goals as well;
these are a starting point. Do our structures support these goals? Do
our outreach, application, and appointment processes support these
goals? Are appointed members clear about their responsibilities and
missions? Are all organizations in compliance with their policies,
procedures, and bylaws, and if so, do those rules need to change, or
does accountability need to be supported?
Served on the Santa Monica Pier Commission 1995-2002 and again
2016-2020.
Served on the District Elections Task Force in 1990.
California Physicians Alliance board
member
Unitarian Universalist Community
Church of Santa Monica board
member
Santa Monica Forward steering
committee member
I work with many nonprofit organizations and cities, and
follow nonprofit and municipal management best practices
as part of my work. At UCSB in the 1970s, I was part of a
team that wrote an incorporation proposal to create a new
city adjacent to the campus. My professional career started
as a Senate Fellow assigned to the California Senate Local
Government Committee, and I went on to work for the
County Supervisors Association and several public health
organizations. I was the Director of the Santa Monica
Neighborhood Support Center from 1988-1991. I am now a
consultant to nonprofit organizations and cities, securing
funding for services and infrastructure, conducting needs
assessments, and designing programs. I've served on
many nonprofit boards, including President of Santa
Monica PONY Baseball League!
I believe in asking fundamental questions such as: What is our
goal? To whom are we accountable? Why do we exist? Who
do we serve?
As a leader in a group I go back to our mission and operating
procedures, and strongly encourage a process that ensures
that every voice is heard, that no one voice dominates, and that
participants feel safe to express their views. I believe in
reminding ourselves of these at the beginning of a meeting,
and checking in on how we did at the conclusion, when
possible.
Leadership development is very important to the growth and
sustainability of all organizations. Democracy means that we
nurture participation and leadership in an ever-expanding
inclusive circle, that we step aside when new leadership
emerges, and that we support new leaders.
I am proud of my leadership on the Pier Corporation over the
past two years, and note that I did not apply for a second term
but instead worked to develop and engage new board
members.
When I work on a community involvement project in a City, I
start by doing an inventory of all the ways that people are
involved with each other in that community, and build an
outreach plan based on those social networks. Using this
strategy I led a team that wrote plans to address
I am an older cisgender straight white female, so I do not
represent an underrepresented group. I am deeply aware
of the lack of diversity in our community participation
process, and I am involved in an ongoing process learning
to work in an anti-racist and anti-oppressive framework
actively challenging racism, oppression, and white
supremacy. Through that work I have learned to leave
judgement and perfectionism behind, and to use new
ways of listening and achieving consensus. I hope these
skills help support leadership by people who expand our
diversity and commitment to inclusive collaboration.
Yes Grant Writer and Project
Manager
Jennifer Tatimatla 1299 Ocean Ave., #300 jennifer.tatimatla@gmail.comYes 2 I am hoping to learn more about local governance and issues
affecting residents, as well as contribute service to the community.
None. I am a local attorney with experience in general business
matters. Outside of my work, I co-founded a nonprofit
organization devoted to promoting the economic
independence of financially disadvantaged women. I have
a strong passion for community development and social
awareness issues.
In my role as a co-founder of a non-profit organization in my
previous hometown, I led an effort to give a voice to
disadvantaged women in my local community. That effort
constantly required balancing efficiency with passion, which
were not always aligned. Pushing forward with building the
organization demanded teamwork internally, as well as
collaboration with local governmental agencies, private entities,
and other nonprofit organizations. To date, the nonprofit
organization continues to succeed and has helped more than
500 women in reaching financial independence.
As a female minority who has worked with an almost
exclusively minority population of women for years in my
nonprofit experience, I am consistently aware of the need
for inclusivity and continually strive towards that goal.
Yes Attorney
Lin cjasonlin@gmail.com Yes 5 I love this see and want to have a voice and better understand the
inner workings. I want to see Santa Monica continue to be an
inclusive and wonderful place for residents and visitors
None University of California alumni
interviewer
University of Pennsylvania alumni
interviewer
Board member of nonprofit
Involvement in university alumni community
HOA board member
I am a film producer which is a role that balances art and
commerce, requiring problem solving, leadership and
communication skills to efficiently and effectively drive towards
the final product. It is a role that requires hands on attention
and ability to compromise and work with others to create a
good working environment.
I have spent 8 years living abroad as an expat across
cities in China. I have perspectives from living abroad and
also growing up in immigrant communities in various parts
of California. Santa Monica is a very special place I am
happy to call home.
Yes Entertainment
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: December 17, 2019
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Boards and Commissions Discussion
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Review and comment on staff recommendation to change the status of the
Environmental Task Force to a permanent commission with the same term limits
as other boards and commissions.
2) Review and comment on staff recommendations for changes to the general
policies and procedures governing boards, commissions and task forces to:
shorten the required time to complete ethics training for newly appointed
members; not allow members to serve on multiple boards, commissions or task
forces simultaneously; require boards, commissions and task forces to utilize the
same Agenda and Minutes templates as those used for the City Council; and
provide direction for the City Clerk and City Attorney to establish required training
for commission and advisory board members and chairs, as well as establishing
consistent training guidelines for staff liaisons in order to better understand their
roles and responsibilities.
3) Provide direction to the City Clerk to take the necessary steps to establish a
Community Working Group to provide a comprehensive review of all boards and
commissions in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, and come
back to Council with recommendations and suggestions for best practices,
including consideration of consolidation for boards and commissions with
duplicate or similar purviews.
4) Discuss and direct the City Clerk to work with the City Manager and City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance and/or resolution for a ballot measure to remove from
the City Charter and add to the Municipal Code, all provisions authorizing certain
boards and commissions that are currently in the City Charter, thereby making it
easier to make future changes to the enabling provisions for these bodies.
5) Adopt the attached resolution incorporating the proposed changes referenced
above to the general policies and procedures governing boards, commissions
and task forces.
Executive Summary
Our boards and commissions represent diverse community viewpoints made of
members with subject matter expertise. As our Council grapples with complex policy
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2 of 9
issues and looks to make our government do more with less, now is the ideal time to
undertake a review of our boards and commissions to ensure they can be effective in
engaging our community and developing policy recommendations for Council’s
consideration. To do this, staff proposes making a handful of immediate changes as
well as convening a community working group to look at longer-term structural changes
that would help draw more people to participate, define the mission of each board and
commission, and ensure our boards and commissions operate ethically and
transparently.
As initial steps, staff recommends that the City Council: (1) change the status of the
Task Force on the Environment, converting it to a formal commission named the
“Commission on Sustainability and the Environment”; (2) adopt a Resolution
implementing certain changes to the general policies and procedures governing boards,
commissions and task forces that are intended to provide greater consistency in
membership, training and meeting policies and procedures; (3) direct the City Clerk to
create a Community Working Group, in consultation with the City Manager and City
Attorney, to perform a comprehensive review of all boards, commissions, and task
forces; and (4) direct the City Clerk to work with the City Manager and the City Attorney
to prepare a ballot initiative to move from the City Charter to the Municipal Code the
authorizations for five boards and commissions whose authorizations are currently
found in the City Charter.
Background
There are currently 16 boards and commissions, two task forces, three non-profit
boards, and two district boards that the City Council appoints. Over the past 20 years,
the number of boards, commissions, and task forces has increased, with the largest
number added under the Human Services Division of the Community and Cultural
Services Department. Because there has not been a comprehensive review or
oversight of the boards and commissions, a significant amount of overlap has
developed in the roles, goals, and purviews of several of these bodies. This overlap
has caused some bodies to lack specific goals, therefore potentially reducing their
effectiveness as formal advisory bodies to the City Council. In January 2019, the City
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3 of 9
Council reaffirmed the established Framework for a Sustainable City Wellbeing, and
articulated six Framework priorities around which to focus allocation of resources and
measurement of progress. A comprehensive review of the boards, commissions and
task forces would create an opportunity to align the advisory bodies with the Framework
priorities. Below is a complete list of all of the boards, commissions, and task forces
that the City Council appoints:
Bodies established by Charter
• Airport Commission
• Planning Commission
• Recreation and Parks Commission
• Personnel Board
• Santa Monica Library Board
Bodies established by Ordinance
• Arts Commission
• Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission
• Commission for the Senior Community
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Disabilities Commission
• Housing Commission
• Landmarks Commission
• Social Services Commission
• Architectural Review Board
• Audit Subcommittee
• Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Task Forces
• Task Force on the Environment
• Urban Forest Task Force
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
4 of 9
Boards of Non-profits
• Santa Monica Travel & Tourism
• Downtown Santa Monica, Incorporated
• Santa Monica Pier Corporation
District Boards – Membership Only
• LA County West Vector Control District
• Metropolitan Water District
Discussion
Convert the Task Force on the Environment to a Formal Commission
Staff recommends that the status of the Task Force on the Environment be changed
from a task force to a formal commission. The Task Force on the Environment was
established in 1991 by the Santa Monica City Council to advise City Council on
environmental programs and policy issues as a result of the development of the
Sustainable City Plan. Over the past 25 years, Santa Monica has become one of the
cities prominently known for their sustainability efforts, and the task force has never
been deactivated. Considering the City’s dedication to setting environmental policy and
decisions, in accordance with the guiding principles, goals and objectives of the
Sustainable City Plan, staff recommends that the status of this task force be changed to
a formal Commission on Sustainability and the Environment. The Commission would
remain intact with its current membership until the next annual appointments in July
2020. After that, appointees to the Commission would be subject to the same term
limits as all other advisory boards and commissions. Because this Commission will
continue to have special requirements for membership (retaining the current
requirement that each member have significant expertise in one or more areas of
environmental policy), staff recommends that the Office of Sustainability and the
Environment review applications and provide recommendations to Council as part of the
appointment process. Staff reached out to the Office of Sustainability on this matter,
and if Council agrees, staff would return with a resolution or ordinance to convert the
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
5 of 9
Task Force to a Commission, and the Commission would update its bylaws to reflect
the modified appointment process.
Amend Resolution Regarding General Policies and Procedures
General policies and procedures for boards, commissions and task forces are set forth
in Resolution No. 11034 (CCS), which was adopted by the Council on April 18, 2017.
Staff is recommending the adoption of a new resolution to implement a few immediate
changes to these general policies and procedures that will increase consistency
regarding training of members and the conduct of board, commission, and task force
meetings.
First, in keeping with the City’s values on Ethics, staff is recommending that Section 11
of Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be amended to require all new appointees to boards,
commissions and task forces to complete the state’s two-hour online ethics training
within the first 30 days after being sworn in. With the AB1234 training available online,
everyone can complete the state training in this time frame. The City would also create
in-person training covering additional City ethical requirements. This supplemental
training would be approximately one hour and would also be required to be completed
within the first 30 days after being sworn in.
Second, staff recommends that no one be permitted to serve simultaneously on more
than one board, commission, or task force. Currently, Section 3 of Resolution No.
11034 (CCS), Membership on One Board, Commission, Committee, Task Force, and
the Boards of Certain Non-profits, reads, “With the exception of the Building and Fire-
Life Safety Commission, no person shall serve simultaneously on more than one board,
commission, committee or task force, including the Santa Monica Pier Corporation,
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., the Santa Monica Convention and Visitors Bureau (now
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism), and the regional advisory boards, except with a
super majority vote of the Council.” In order to allow an equal opportunity for all
members of the public to participate in the board and commission appointment process
fairly, staff is recommending amendment of this section of the resolution to remove all
exceptions and to no longer allow any board, commission, committee, or task force
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
6 of 9
member to serve simultaneously on more than one appointed body. Again, this change
would not take place until the annual appointments in July 2020.
Third, as a result of our biennial review of minutes and agendas and in an effort to bring
about consistency and transparency in formatting and delivery of information to the
public, staff is recommending that Section 6 of Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be
amended to require all appointed bodies to use the same minutes and agenda
templates as the City Council. The templates would allow some flexibility in categories
depending on whether a board or commission is acting as an advisory body or a quasi-
judicial body.
Fourth, after consulting with Department Heads and Staff Liaisons and in response to
the current lack of uniform onboarding training for members and chairs, staff
recommends that Resolution No. 11034 (CCS) be amended to add new Section 12
directing the City Clerk and City Attorney’s Office to work together to create and
implement on-boarding training for new members and annual trainings for members and
chairs, and Staff Liaison training. This would include Brown Act training and general on-
boarding training for all new members, and training on how to effectively run a meeting
for all chairs.
Finally, staff is proposing certain additional changes, including no longer permitting City
funds to be used for the purchase of individual business cards in Section 5, and the
reporting of any prolonged member absences to the City Clerk in Section 10.
Comprehensive Review
With the priorities and goals of the City changing, now is a perfect opportunity for the
Council to direct the City Clerk to work with an outside consultant or firm to create a
Community Working Group to perform a comprehensive review of all advisory bodies in
Santa Monica, excluding Boards of Non-profits and District Boards. The Community
Working Group would consist of residents, active community members and former
board/commission and task force members. An outside consultant or firm would be
retained to appoint Working Group members, assist with establishing a scope of work,
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
7 of 9
perform a board self-assessment survey, develop basic board responsibilities, evaluate
board structure and effectiveness, review governance best practices (committee
charters, policies, letter of commitment, expectations of board members, etc.), and work
with the Community Working Group to arrive at recommendations designed to
strategically strengthen effective governance. The City Attorney would be consulted to
ensure compliance with all legal requirements and provide assistance in drafting
ordinances, resolutions, or other implementing actions for presentation to the Council
for consideration.
After consulting with Department Heads, Staff Liaisons and meeting with Community
and Cultural Services Commissions, items for the Community Working Group and
consultant to consider as part of the comprehensive review include, but are not limited
to the following:
• Defining the differences between commissions, advisory boards and task forces,
and determining into which category each current body most appropriately falls;
• Revisiting and updating all board and commission bylaws to establish uniform
rules of order consistent with City Council direction;
• Establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of board, commission, and task
force members;
• Reviewing existing boards, commissions and task forces to see if there is an
overlap among their responsibilities and, if so, considering consolidation that
could benefit all represented constituents and better align with the City’s
Framework priorities;
• Reviewing term limits and whether those limits should differ between different
boards and commissions, as well as considering increasing the time limit
between serving on the same board or commission;
• Considering possible different methods for Council to make appointments;
• Establishing consistent policies regarding absences and attendance;
• Establishing roles, expectations and budgets for department staff and liaisons
that would be consistent across all boards and commissions
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
8 of 9
• Proposing a periodic comprehensive review of all advisory bodies to occur every
five to six years (non-election years)
The goal would be to have this Community Working Group report back to Council with
recommendations and results from the comprehensive review by spring 2020, in order
to adopt any changes prior to the June 2020 annual appointments.
Charter Amendment
In an effort to be consistent and create greater efficiency if it is determined in the future
that it is necessary to make changes to board, commission and task force policies and
procedures, staff is proposing that the City Council direct the City Clerk to work with the
City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a ballot initiative to be placed on the ballot at
the next General Election to modify the City Charter to move the authorizations for
those boards and commissions whose authorizations currently are in the City Charter to
the Municipal Code. Those bodies whose authorizations currently are in the City
Charter are the Planning Commission, Library Board, Personnel Board, Recreation and
Parks Commission, and Airport Commission.
Possible Financial Impacts in the Future
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action. Existing budget will cover the cost for consulting fees or services
and the comprehensive review that will be conducted by the Consultant will present the
financial impacts on Department and Board/Commissions budgets and staff time.
Prepared By: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
9 of 9
Attachments:
a Clerk - Resolution - Boards and Commissions - 12.17.2019
b Social Services Commission resolution
c Written Comments
d PowerPoint Presentation
8.B.e
Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Attachment E (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
From:Andrew Wilder
To:Council Mailbox
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra;
Oscar de la Torre; Stelios Makrides; Diana Hernandez; Ivan Campbell; Clerk Mailbox; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Airport Commission Feedback on Boards and Commissions CWG Recommendations
Date:Monday, March 22, 2021 7:39:38 PM
Attachments:Recommendations from CWG.docxAirport Commission feedback on for CWG recommendations 03-22-2021.doc
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro-Tem McCown, and Council Members,
At this afternoon's Airport Commission meeting we reviewed and discussed the Boards and
Commissions Community Working Group's Final Recommendations. These are scheduled to
come before you in late April (due to the timing this was our best opportunity to provide
input).
We unanimously agreed upon the attached feedback (and have also sent this to the City
Clerk's office, per their request).
As always, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much!
Best,
Andrew
Chair, Airport Commission
From: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:55 PM
Subject: CWG Final Recommendations
Hello,
Attached are the final recommendations approved last night by the Boards and
Commissions Community Working Group (CWG). If you plan on having a meeting soon,
please consider agendizing this item to review, discuss and provide any comments to the
City Clerk’s office no later than April 15, 2021. Comments should be emailed to
clerk@smgov.net. The boards and commission report is scheduled to go before the City
Council on April 27, 2021.
Thank you,
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
The Airport Commission reviewed the Recommendations from the Community Working Group. Overall, we agree that the recommendations to standardize logistics among the various boards and commissions is a good goal. However, we have some specific
concerns:
• Although we favor increasing diversity, we oppose the requirement to add an 18-29 year-old:
o The age range appears to be arbitrary.
o It could constrain boards' and commissions' ability to operate effectively if they cannot find qualified and/or interested candidates that meet the age requirement. o Adding an additional commissioner changes the number of members to an
even number, increasing the likelihood of a tie/deadlock
o The one-year term is insufficient. It takes time to "get up to speed" as a Commissioner, and high turnover rates would weaken institutional knowledge of each body. o Perhaps an internship or mentorship program would be more appropriate and
beneficial, and be a more flexible way to encourage participation by younger members of the community.
• Especially considering the 2020 voter pushback, we are concerned about the
recommendation of large, sweeping changes potentially happening in non-election
years.
• We recommend against the requirement for all Commissioners to rotate and serve as
Chairs. This could have negative, unintended consequences, such as:
o The skill set for Chairs is not the same as the skill set for Commissioners. Some great Commissioners would not make great Chairs. o Not all Commissioners want the added responsibility of being Chair. This could act as a deterrent to encouraging more qualified candidates to apply for
boards or commissions.
o For example, the Airport Commission believes we would operate less effectively if we were required to rotate the Chair position.
• We are concerned that combining the Social Services Commissions would have the
effect of reducing diversity, not increasing it.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1186 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Thania Montoya
Subject:RE: CWG Final Recommendations
From: Therese Kelly <Therese.Kelly@SMGOV.NET>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>; Nikima Newsome
<Nikima.Newsome@SMGOV.NET>; Matthew Stevens <mstevens901@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick Tighe <patrick@tighearchitecture.com>; Patrick Tighe <Patrick.Tighe@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Re: CWG Final Recommendations
Dear Ms. Anderson-Warren, Ms. Newsome, and Mr. Stevens,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recommendations from the Boards and Commissions
Community Working Group. We write as Chair and Vice Chair of the Architectural Review Board.
As the roles, responsibilities, and composition of the Architectural Review Board are already codified in the
City's code, we recognize that many of the recommendations are not applicable to quasi-judicial decision-
making bodies with frequent meetings such as ours or the Planning Commission or Landmarks Commission.
In particular, the recommendation to dedicate a seat for "a member between the ages of 18-29" seems in
conflict with the application requirements and high professional standards for our Board as designated in the
code. Very few design professionals would have completed their training, obtained licensure, and practical
work experience by this age. (A "young" architect is typically under 50). If an observational or intern role is
desired, this would need to be made clearly distinct from full-time voting members. However, our position is
that the addition of a non-qualified member would be confusing and unduly complicate the work of the Board.
Likewise, we do not support automatic resignation for unexcused absences. While attendance expectations
are important, our voting and quorum rules already anticipate absences from meetings. This is in recognition of
the time commitment required to provide pro bono project review while also balancing the responsibilities of
professional design work. It is important for the City to continue to be able to attract well-qualified professional
candidates to serve in this volunteer role and not to place an undue burden on their service. We also support
temporary attendance accommodations for medical or other special circumstances.
Finally, both the ARB and the Planning Commission have had discussions on additional streamlining to retain
the Architectural Review Board as a decision-making body, and this process is underway.
We are supportive of the CWG's mission to promote diverse, inclusive and equitable participation in City
boards and commissions. Thank you for your work on this important component of the City's democratic
process.
Sincerely,
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2
Therese Kelly, AIA
Chair, Santa Monica Architectural Review Board
Patrick Tighe, FAIA, FAAR
Vice Chair, Santa Monica Architectural Review Board
From: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:55 PM
To: Andrew Wilder <Andrew.Wilder@SMGOV.NET>; Therese Kelly <Therese.Kelly@SMGOV.NET>; Michael Masucci
<Michael.Masucci@SMGOV.NET>; Chuck Whitaker <Chuck.Whitaker@SMGOV.NET>; Benjamin Kay
<Benjamin.Kay@SMGOV.NET>; Elliot Goldberg <Elliot.Goldberg@SMGOV.NET>; Sylvia Ghazarian
<Sylvia.Ghazarian@SMGOV.NET>; June Hagen <June.Hagen@SMGOV.NET>; Michael Soloff
<Michael.Soloff@SMGOV.NET>; Roger Genser <Roger.Genser@SMGOV.NET>; Marcia Zimmer
<Marcia.Zimmer@SMGOV.NET>; Shawn Landres <Shawn.Landres@SMGOV.NET>; Lori Brown
<Lori.Brown@SMGOV.NET>; Lucien Plauzoles <Lucien.Plauzoles@SMGOV.NET>; Carter Rubin
<Carter.Rubin@SMGOV.NET>; Winifred Wechsler <Winifred.Wechsler@SMGOV.NET>; Dean Kubani
<Dean.Kubani@SMGOV.NET>; Grace Phillips <Grace.Phillips@SMGOV.NET>; Adriana Torres
<Adriana.Torres@SMGOV.NET>; Agnieszka Bierce <Agnieszka.Bierce@SMGOV.NET>; Aliya Buttar
<Aliya.Buttar@SMGOV.NET>; Amanda Grossman <Amanda.Grossman@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Ly <Amy.Ly@SMGOV.NET>;
Andy Agle <Andy.Agle@SMGOV.NET>; Ariel Socarras <Ariel.Socarras@SMGOV.NET>; Brian Mondragon
<Brian.Mondragon@SMGOV.NET>; Claudia Kompa <Claudia.Kompa@SMGOV.NET>; Curtis Castle
<Curtis.Castle@SMGOV.NET>; Danielle Noble <Danielle.Noble@SMGOV.NET>; Elizabeth Scharetg
<Elizabeth.Scharetg@SMGOV.NET>; Eric Binder <Eric.Binder@SMGOV.NET>; Gigi Decavalles
<Gigi.Decavalles@SMGOV.NET>; James Combs <James.Combs@SMGOV.NET>; James Kemper
<James.Kemper@SMGOV.NET>; Jennifer Simmons <Jennifer.Simmons@SMGOV.NET>; Jing Yeo
<Jing.Yeo@SMGOV.NET>; Leah Cornelius <Leah.Cornelius@SMGOV.NET>; Lori Gentles <Lori.Gentles@SMGOV.NET>;
Margaret Willis <Margaret.Willis@SMGOV.NET>; Matthew Wells <Matthew.Wells@SMGOV.NET>; Melinda Espinoza
<Melinda.Espinoza@SMGOV.NET>; Melissa Zak <Melissa.Zak@SMGOV.NET>; Miles Friesen
<Miles.Friesen@SMGOV.NET>; Peerawat Prasatcharoen <Peerawat.Prasatcharoen@SMGOV.NET>; Priscilla Bouvet
<Priscilla.Bouvet@smgov.net>; Rachel Foyt <Rachel.Foyt@SMGOV.NET>; Regina Szilak <Regina.Szilak@SMGOV.NET>;
Sasha Sargent <Sasha.Sargent@SMGOV.NET>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@SMGOV.NET>; Shannon Daut
<Shannon.Daut@SMGOV.NET>; Stelios Makrides <Stelios.Makrides@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich
<Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET>; Wendy Radwan <Wendy.Radwan@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>; Nikima Newsome
<Nikima.Newsome@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: CWG Final Recommendations
Hello,
Attached are the final recommendations approved last night by the Boards and Commissions Community
Working Group (CWG). If you plan on having a meeting soon, please consider agendizing this item to review,
discuss and provide any comments to the City Clerk’s office no later than April 15, 2021. Comments should be
emailed to clerk@smgov.net. The boards and commission report is scheduled to go before the City Council on
April 27, 2021.
Thank you,
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8701 • dc@smgov.net smgov.net/portals/accessiblesm/ • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
Disabilities Commission
April 13, 2021
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Proposed City Taskforces, Boards and Commissions Restructuring
Dear Honorable Mayor Sue Himmelrich & Santa Monica City Council:
The Disabilities Commission resumed meeting on April 5, 2021 after a COVID-19 imposed
hiatus since April 2020. The present correspondence references current recommendations
proposed by the Boards, Commissions & Taskforces Community Working Group combining
several social services commissions and boards into a singular commission named the
Human Services and Equity Commission.
The Santa Monica Disabilities Commission recommends Council consider the importance of
the Disabilities Commission to residents with disabilities before deciding to change the
current structure of the Disabilities Commission.
First, the Disabilities Commission represents a range of complex human variation within a
diverse community essential to accurately define the Commission’s scope. Each person
reflects a set of skills, experiences and specific issues that would be lost should the
Commission be combined with another. For example, the Deaf community and wheelchair
users have distinct life experiences and define their access needs differently.
Since the Disabilities Commission was created, the Commission has helped improve access
for residents with disabilities with implementation of universal design features first in Ocean
View Park, then others. Universal design became City policy in the ongoing development of
new parks as a result of the Disabilities Commission’s advocacy. The Commission has
successfully advocated for and implemented accessible beach pathways, Big Blue Bus
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8701 • dc@smgov.net smgov.net/portals/accessiblesm/ • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
access, talking crosswalks to enhance pedestrian safety, and root abatement to support
accessible City pathways. The Commission’s distinct contribution thus supports the
implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and has taken the City to the
next level of accessibility by serving as a model to other cities worldwide.
The Commission continues to oppose discrimination and eliminate barriers by contributing
to City policy impacting housing, public accommodations, employment, transportation,
public safety, communication, recreation, voting, and access to public services from cradle
to grave.
That is why, in the best interest of City resources, the Commission would like Council to
consider, if the Disabilities Commission cannot remain as is, potentially merging the
Commission with the Commission on the Senior Community to become the “Disabilities and
Senior Commission.” This is a reasonable outcome because our Commission considers a
range of issues throughout a lifespan that mutually impact our respective communities.
The Commission further recommends keeping the proposed alternative commission
membership at 11 members and assigning at least 5 members to be people with disabilities, 4
members be over 60 years of age and 2 members at large.
The Commission would like to thank the Council and City staff for always keeping the
interests of people with disabilities in mind during planning and execution of City projects
and objectives. We believe that all residents of the City of Santa Monica should have full and
equal access and a voice in City decision making, which promotes belonging and equity in
our community. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alex Elliott
Chair
Santa Monica Disabilities Commission
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
Recommendations from the Community Working Group
Based on the Goals and Objectives established by the City Council, the purpose of the
Boards, Commissions & Task Forces Community Working Group (CWG) was to provide
a comprehensive review of all boards, commissions and task forces in consultation with
the City Clerk, City Manager and City Attorney, and bring back to Council
recommendations and suggestions for best practices, including but not limited to the
consolidation of boards and commissions with duplicate or similar purviews,
establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of members and drafting consistent
bylaws and policies across all boards and commissions.
The overarching goal of the CWG was to promote participation in the City’s boards and
commissions based on inclusion, diversity and equity. The CWG supports good
governance and believes participation in boards/commissions provides members the
opportunity to develop leadership skills.
Our Goals were as follows:
Goal 1: Self-Assessment Survey of Current Board, Commission and Task Force
Members
Submit a survey to current members and perform an analysis of the results to assist in
the evaluation and formulation of recommendations.
Goal 2: Evaluate Board Structure, Effectiveness, and Best Practices
Evaluate the City’s current board, commission, and task force structure, effectiveness,
and best practices and provides recommendations and suggestions.
Goal 3: CWG Report
Create a report on all recommendations and suggestions from the CWG on the structure,
effectiveness and best practices for City boards, commissions, and task forces. Items for
recommendation in the CWG report must contain, but are not limited to, the following:
• Determining differences between boards, commissions, and task forces, to then
appropriately categorize each current body;
• Revisiting and updating all board and commission bylaws to establish uniform rules
of order consistent with City Council direction;
• Establishing guidelines as to the roles and duties of board, commission, and task
force members;
• Reviewing existing boards, commissions and task forces to see if there is an
overlap among their responsibilities and, if so, considering consolidation that could
benefit all represented constituents and better align with the City’s Framework
priorities;
• Reviewing term limits and whether those limits should differ between different
boards and commissions, as well as considering increasing the time limit between
serving on the same board or commission;
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
• Considering possible different methods for Council to make appointments;
• Establishing consistent policies regarding absences and attendance;
• Establishing roles, expectations and budgets for department staff and liaisons that
would be consistent across all boards and commissions; and
• Proposing a periodic comprehensive review of all advisory bodies to occur every
five to six years (non-election years).
Based on the established criteria, below are the Recommendations from the Community
Working Group.
Every City Board, Commission, and Task Force should have consistent
bylaws established by resolution, which includes the following:
1) Officers should rotate and should serve a one-year term as Chair, in order to
promote diversity and provide a leadership opportunity for more members of the
community.
• Personnel Board does not want to force rotation of officers and believes
that a two-year term for Chair is more appropriate.
2) Election of officers shall take place in July after the annual appointments.
• Personnel Board has no opinion or preference.
3) Year-end appointments in December shall be moved to June to align with the
annual appointments.
• Personnel Board has no opinion or preference.
4) A rule should be added to include that all bodies produce an annual board and
commission workplan to set priorities for the year and should align with the City
department’s workplan.
• Personnel Board believes that this particular recommendation should not
be applicable to it because the Board’s work is very specific as defined
under the Municipal Code, however if this recommendation is applied
Citywide to other boards and commissions then the Board’s annual
workplan would be a short and concise statement that would not differ
much from year to year.
5) Required trainings for the year should happen immediately after the
appointments in July.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
• Personnel Board believes that consideration should be given to peoples’
vacation schedules.
6) All Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces should adopt the same order of
business on their agendas. If a rule does not apply to a Board, Commission, or Task
Force, it should be noted in the agenda.
• Personnel Board generally agrees with this recommendation however
boards and commissions should have flexibility and discretion to depart
from the order of business as necessary.
7) Attendance requirements should be included in the bylaws, they should be
consistent, and clarify the rules for what is considered an excused and an
unexcused absence.
• Personnel Board has no concerns.
8) The latest start time for any meeting should be 7:00 p.m.
• Personnel Board has no concerns.
9) Accommodation language should be included in the bylaws template after
consultation from the Disabilities Commission.
• Personnel Board has no concerns.
10) The Task Force on the Environment should have term limits since there are now
more people with environmental expertise as opposed to when the task force was
originally created. The status of the Task Force on the Environment should change
to a permanent commission with the same term limits as other boards and
commissions.
• Personnel Board has no concerns.
11) All existing Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces should review their current
bylaws to remove outdated information and/or procedures and utilize the bylaws
template to be consistent with the City Council format.
• Personnel Board has no concerns.
Consolidate the commissions relating to social services (Commission on the Senior
Community, Commission on the Status of Women, Disabilities Commission, and the
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
Social Services Commission), into a singular commission named the Human
Services and Equity Commission. Creation of subcommittees or ad hoc committees
would alleviate the issue of time constraints, as well as allow more diversity, equity
and inclusion of the community to participate in more specific topics.
Does not apply to the Personnel Board.
Consider possibly combining the Task Force on the Environment and the Urban
Forest Task Force.
Does not apply to the Personnel Board.
Term limits shall remain the same allowing members to serve two consecutive terms
and may request a third term from the City Council. However, members who term
out must wait two years before applying to another board or commission.
Personnel Board has no concerns about term limits remaining the same and
allowing for members to request a 3rd term.
Personnel Board disagrees with preventing termed out members from applying to
other boards and commissions given the difficulty that some boards and
commissions have in getting prospective members to apply. The Board also
believes that the Council should retain the discretion to determine whether an
applicant should be appointed to a board or commission.
Members who have two unexcused absences out of six consecutive meetings shall
automatically resign. An absence is considered unexcused when a member does
not communicate their absence to the Chair or liaison of the body prior to the
scheduled meeting. If a member has more than two excused absences, they will
receive a warning from the Chair. If another two meetings are missed, then the
liaison shall inform the City Clerk’s office, who will then inform the City Council.
Special meeting shall not count towards unexcused absences.
Personnel Board supports this recommendation as to unexcused absences, but
for excused absences the Board prefers its current Bylaws.
Staff liaisons are expected to do the administrative work for Boards and Commission
and not intensive research. Instead staff research should be limited to information
that the department uniquely has access to and should align with the department’s
workplan.
Personnel Board believes that admin work for staff liaisons should align with their
Department’s workload and with the respective mandate of that particular board
or commission under the Charter and Municipal Code.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
Budgets for Boards and Commission shall come out of the department’s budget.
Personnel Board has no concerns.
A seat shall be added, or if necessary dedicated, to every board and commission for
a member between the ages of 18-29, with a one-year term and the possibility of
reappointment.
Personal Board believes that outreach should be made to individuals in this age
group and their participation should be encouraged, however any additional
member needs to have a full term and not have it limited to one year. The
Personnel Board also does not agree with the concept of having a dedicated seat
for a particular demographic.
The Personnel Board also has an adjudicative role of deciding administrative
personnel hearings and therefore requires the current odd number of Board
members in order to reach a decision. Moreover, this important function of
deciding personnel hearings requires having board members with more than a
one-year limited term.
Explore all means to enhance diverse representation that reflects the Santa Monica
community that includes:
1) Increase the use of social media to reach and encourage community members to
get involved.
a. Personnel Board agrees with this recommendation.
2) Consider involvement at fairs or booths at festivals, such as COAST, for
interested applicants to meet active board and commission members and City
Council members to learn more about each board and commission and have an
opportunity to build connections.
a. Personnel Board agrees with this recommendation.
A comprehensive review of all advisory bodies should occur every five years.
Personnel Board has no concerns
Consider updating board and commission applications every five years.
Personnel Board requires more information before expressing an opinion.
Consider training sessions on running meetings, participation during meetings,
parliamentary procedure, and other trainings. Such trainings would be for
Commissioners but could also be open to general public (members of community
groups, non-profit boards, etc).
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Feedback from the Personnel Board
Personnel Board agrees with this recommendation.
Other items of discussion but no recommendations made:
Definition and differences between Board, Commission and Task Forces.
Consider combining the Urban Forest Task Force with the Task Force on the
Environment or creating it as a subcommittee under the Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Consider the Architectural Review Board becoming an advisory body of the Planning
Commission.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8341 • planning@smgov.net
santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
Planning Commission
April 12, 2021
Ms. Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Ms. Nikima Newsome, Assistant City Clerk
Mr. Matthew Stevens, Chair, Community Working Group
via email
Dear Ms. Anderson-Warren, Ms. Newsome, and Mr. Stevens,
The Planning Commission thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Clerk’s review of City boards,
commissions, and task forces, and in particular on the recommendations of the Community Working Group
(CWG). We appreciate Mr. Stevens taking the time to present the CWG’s discussions and recommendations and
to answer questions from commissioners during our nearly two-hour discussion on April 7, 2021.
The comments below represent the Commission’s response to the CWG’s proposals as well as additional
recommendations for the Clerk’s considerations. To the extent possible, they are aligned with the numbering
within the CWG report. Alternatives to CWG recommendations are in bold italics. New recommendations are
marked with “NEW Æ”.
CWG recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 8 are consistent with current Planning Commission practice. The Commission
supports CWG recommendation 9.
CWG 4. The annual workplan obligation is not directly relevant to the Planning Commission nor to any other
body whose priorities are set by law, ordinance, or frequent Council direction. However, it is valuable to allow
periodically for individual commissioners to present items of concern and request further
inquiry/discussion as time and resources may permit.
CWG 5. The Commission supports the training deadlines, especially for new commissioners, and agree that the
initial deadline and annual renewal be set at July 31. More specifically, the Commission recommends that for
anyone who has not previously served on a Brown Act body and/or has not had Brown Act training, such
training should be mandatory within their first two meetings as a commissioner.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8341 • planning@smgov.net
santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
NEW Æ The Commission believes that a barrier to participation in quasi-judicial commissions is the level of expert
knowledge required for effective service. To that end, the Commission encourages the City to provide
substantive training opportunities in the subject matter of quasi-judicial commissions. Access to such
training may increase interest among potential applicants.
NEW Æ The Commission further supports required training in implicit bias for all serving commissioners, and
optional training regarding the Oaks Initiative for commissions covered by Oaks.
CWG 6. The Commission does not support the uniform standardization of by-laws and procedures for all
commissions, boards, and task forces regardless of type and legal role. Rather, the Commission recommends
standardization for quasi-judicial bodies, on the one hand, and advisory bodies, on the other.
NEW Æ The Commission believes that public comment, and material submission rules should be
standardized across the Council and all commissions to provide certainty to the public as well as to
participants in quasi-judicial hearings. As needed, these rules could be standardized separately for quasi-
judicial bodies, on the one hand, and for advisory bodies, on the other.
NEW Æ The Commission seeks to eliminate any rules requiring commenters (whether in person or remote)
to sign up prior to the time at which the given item is heard. The principle should be to maximize participation
and reduce barriers to entry.
CWG 7 and discussion notes. The Commission does not support automatic resignation for unexcused absences
nor warnings from individual presiding officers.
NEW Æ Due to the frequency of its regular meetings as well as additional special meetings, the Commission
recommends a cumulative percentage attendance standard of 80% of regular meetings, not counting
special meetings or recusals.
NEW Æ The Commission wishes to retain discretion to waive attendance requirements temporarily for
commissioners with family, medical, or other special circumstances (this should be up to the Commission
as a whole, not the Chair).
CWG 10 & discussion notes. The Commission believes the Urban Forest Task Force should continue as an
independent body given its unique duties and functions, especially insofar as they may intersect with land-use
issues related to public and private trees.
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1685 Main Street, Mail Stop 28, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8341 • planning@smgov.net
santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity
CWG 11. The Commission supports regular review and updating of bylaws and procedures but, again,
recommends that a distinction be made between quasi-judicial and advisory bodies.
CWG و. The Commission does not support the CWG’s blanket recommendation that commissioners who have
termed out not be eligible for appointment for two years, as this may deny the community the benefit of
experience and expertise.
NEW Æ However, to help ensure a regular flow of new volunteers, the Commission recommends that a Council
supermajority be required for an immediate post-term-limit appointment, paralleling the requirement for a
3rd-term reappointment.
CWG و. While the Commission welcomes, as always, commissioners from diverse backgrounds, including age,
the Commission requests further study of the appropriateness of the one-year young person seat for quasi-
judicial commissions. One alternative might be to provide for non-voting membership.
NEW Æ The Commission misses the social connections that were provided by less formally programmed Boards
and Commissions annual events and encourages City leadership to find new ways to introduce diverse
commissioners and commission leaders to one another. One commissioner suggested a regular formal
meeting for officers of all commissions with City leadership in order to keep communication lines open.
Thank you for your work on this important component of our City’s vibrant culture of participatory democracy.
Please do not hesitate to contact us or the Commission if we can be of further service.
Sincerely,
Shawn Landres Elisa Paster
Chair Vice Chair
Planning Commission Planning Commission
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
To:Nikima Newsome; Thania Montoya
Subject:FW: Urban Forest Task Force
Date:Monday, April 12, 2021 10:04:35 AM
Attachments:image002.png
Thania, I don’t know if this has already been forwarded to you.
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk
(310) 458-8211
clerk@smgov.net
From: Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 10:02 AM
To: Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@SMGOV.NET>; Anuj Gupta
<Anuj.Gupta@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: FW: Urban Forest Task Force
FYI
From: Thomas Cleys <tcleys2@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>, Susan Cline
<Susan.Cline@SMGOV.NET>, "mathew.wells@smgov.net" <mathew.wells@smgov.net>, Peter
James <Peter.James@SMGOV.NET>, Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Urban Forest Task Force
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro-Tem McCowan, and Council Members,
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
I understand that a proposal has been made to fold the work of the Urban Forest Task Force into the
Task Force on the Environment.
I would like to encourage you not to do this for the reasons outlined below.
* The Task Force was formed out of controversy over the City's handling of the ficus trees downtown
and their overall management of the program by prior staff. The Task Force plays an important role
for the community both monitoring and working along side staff as well as acting as an interface for
the community with the City. Please don't forget why this body was formed to begin with.
* We hear appeals at most all of our meetings prior to mothballing the Task Force. This is a critical
role for the Task Force.
* Several members of the Task Force have special expertise in the industry that is needed to work
with staff in a) managing an urban forest program that is award winning, b) providing advice to staff,
c) hearing appeals, and d) serving the community at large. Combining these groups is apt to water
down the impact of both bodies.
* The Task Force has been award winning because of both the work of the Task Force and staff. Do
not make this group less effective.
* As it is, we are only meeting every other month as it is so it would seem, the Urban Forest Task
Force is already not a major burden on the City and staff.
* Finally, a key task we were working on before the mothballing of our work, was the study and
consideration of a private tree ordinance. Hopefully that work will be resurrected. The expertise of
the current Task Force both within the industry and the experience of myself and Grace Phillips on
the Task Force since its inception are invaluable in helping craft a proposed ordinance. Now is not
the time to eliminate this Task Force if for no other reason than this important work.
In summary, the experience and special knowledge of the Task Force are critical in doing its job for
the community and City. We were formed as a separate body from inception was for a reason. By
combining the Task Force with the Task Force on the Environment, you will lose or water down that
experience and make the Task Force much less effective for the City and community alike.
Please keep the Urban Forest Task Force as an independent body.
Thank you,
Tom Cleys
Vice Chair, Urban Forest Task Force
8.B.f
Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Attachment F [Revision 1] (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
FY 20/21 FY 19/20 FY 18/19Airport Commission 34,676.10$ 29,277.66$ 46,417.00$ Architectural Review Board 278,400.00$ 278,400.00$ 278,400.00$ Arts Commission 20,223.42$ 45,502.70$ 60,670.26$ Audit Subcommittee 7,128.00$ 7,128.00$ 7,128.00$ Building and Fire‐Life Safety Commission 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$ ‐$ Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee 12,510.00$ 12,510.00$ 12,510.00$ Commission for the Senior Community ‐$ 33,159.21$ 42,400.29$ Commission on the Status of Women ‐$ 38,851.57$ 49,119.43$ Disabilities Commission ‐$ 44,354.21$ 53,595.29$ Housing Commission 12,888.86$ 33,363.57$ 43,631.43$ Landmarks Commission 104,400.00$ 104,400.00$ 104,400.00$ Personnel Board 17,752.00$ 18,149.00$ 18,149.00$ Planning Commission 259,200.00$ 259,200.00$ 259,200.00$ Recreation and Parks Commission 18,658.88$ 41,669.98$ 72,605.16$ Field Sports Advisory Committee 3,655.50$ 3,655.50$ 18,277.50$ Santa Monica Aquatics Advisory Committee 25,712.40$ 44,078.40$ 11,019.60$ Virginia Avenue Park Board ‐$ 20,390.14$ 26,550.86$ Santa Monica Library Board 11,379.96$ 14,727.56$ 14,774.04$ Santa Monica Pier Corporation 253,700.00$ 750,102.00$ 750,102.00$ Social Services Commission ‐$ 39,222.29$ 51,543.71$ Task Force on the Environment 8,300.00$ 8,300.00$ 8,300.00$ Urban Forest Task Force 3,800.00$ 19,600.00$ 18,930.00$ Boards and Commissions Budget and Expenditures8.B.gPacket Pg. 1202Attachment: Attachment G (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
City Department Board/Commission/Task Force Hours per Meeting
Public Works
Airport Commission 12
Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committee 10
Task Force on the Environment 13
Urban Forest Task Force 35
Community Services
Arts Commission 53
Commission for the Senior Community 45
Commission on the Status of Women 50
Disabilities Commission 45
Housing Commission 50
Social Services Commission 60
Recreation and Parks Commission 40
Community Development
Architectural Review Board 202
Building and Fire‐Life Safety Commission 12
Landmarks Commission 160
Planning Commission 195
Finance Audit Subcommittee 13
Human Resources Personnel Board 27
Library Santa Monica Library Board 16
Other Downtown Santa Monica N/A
Santa Monica Travel and Tourism N/A
Santa Monica Pier Corp. N/A
Staff Time Per Meeting
8.B.g
Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Attachment G (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Agency Methods to appoint BC Members Roles of Department Staff and Liaisons Budget Allocation for BCSBerkeley With the exception of a few commissions, each Councilmember makes one appointment to a commission. Generally, the appointment process begins when a Councilmember submits an appointment form and an Affidavit of Residency to the City Clerk. The City Clerk determines if the person is eligible to serve and processes the appointment. The Clerk then notifies the commission secretary that the appointment is valid. A commissioner may not serve at any commission meeting until the commission secretary receives approval from the City Clerk Department and the commissioner has taken the Oath of Office. Each commission is assigned a secretary, who is an employee designated by the City Manager. The secretary represents the City Manager and assists the commission in its functions and advises the commission of staff’s recommendations. Secretaries perform technical and basic administrative functions (including posting of agendas, packets and preparing minutes) and ensure the commission is apprised of laws and administrative processes. Other staff may assist the commission, but clerical staff are not assigned to attend meetings without the approval of the City Manager. Each department absorbs the cost for the commissions that they staff. Generally, this cost is limited to staff time. The cost varies greatly from department to department. PasadenaMayor or Councilmember makes nomination and, by vote of the full City Council, the nominee is approved.The recording secretary gathers information/reports, draft and finalizes Commission agendas/minutes, handles posting of the meeting agenda and related material, distributes all agenda material to the Commissioners or Board members, and performs other duties to assist the Commission/Board (as assigned). Budgets are handled by individual departments. Beverly HillsApplicants shall go through a commissioner selection and interview process. The interview panel shall consist of two City Council Liaisons and the Chair and Vice Chair of the same Commission in which the applicant has applied. After the appointee is selected, the Council will approve the appointment at a Council Study Session and subsequent Council Regular Meeting.Department staff liaisons are in charge of putting together Commission meeting agendas, minutes of meetings and conducting meetings.The departments have budget set aside for their Commissions. The City Clerk’s Office has budget set aside for advertising recruitments in the newspapers only.West HollywoodCommissions are 7 members. Each Councilmember selects one direct appointee and the Council as a whole makes two at-large appointments. Advisory Boards, with the exception of the Lesbian and Gay Advisory Board, are nine member boards. Each Councilmember selects one direct appointee and the Council as a whole selected four at-large appointees. The Lesbian and Gay Advisory Board is a 10 member board. It consists of five male appointees and 5 female appointees. Each Councilmember appoints one male and one female.Each Commission and Advisory Board has one liaison and one secretary. They are responsible for liaising between the Commissioners/Advisory Board members and the City and act as the “Clerk” in the meetings. The Secretary prepares the agenda and minutes and provides administrative support.Commission/Advisory Board budget is rolled into the department budget.TorranceThe City Clerk advertises for applications from residents who have completed Commission Certification class. The applications are verified for completion and for voter registration status prior to being forward to Mayor and Council for consideration. The applicant contacts the Mayor and Council office to be interviewed. Mayor and Council will interview in groups of two or three so it’s less than a quorum. The City Clerk brings an item to Mayor and Council at a regular Council meeting under Community Matters. The Mayor will call on the City Clerk to read the names and each applicant will stand up and wave, sometimes they come down to the public podium and say a few words. The Mayor will call for nominations from the Council. Then he will ask the City Clerk for a roll call vote. The City Clerk tabulates the votes and announces the appointment. After all commissions have been appointed, the City Clerk will do a group Oath for the Commissioners and pass out their commission packets.The department liaison maintains the commission email addresses, correspondence regarding the agenda, attends the meeting, etc. The Department Liaison calls the roll. A minutes secretary is contracted who attends the meeting and transcribes the minutes. The Commissions have small budgets, usually about $3,000 per year to pay for the minutes secretary and any conferences one or two of the commissioners are sent to. Planning Commission has a slightly larger budget because they meet twice a month.Laguna BeachLaguna Beach residents may submit an application to serve on a board, commission, or committee to the City Clerk's office. All applicants are interviewed and appointed at a public meeting by the City Council.Staff liaison creates/posts agendas, maintains the committee’s website info. Council liaison acts as the single-point-of-contact for the committee for Council-related questions.Not all commissions or committee's have budget. See budget break down.Redondo BeachThe members of each board and commission shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. Prior to the appointments, Councilmembers give their recommendations the Mayor. Liaisons manages meetings by creating agendas and running the meetings. Minutes are taken by recording secretaries which are city hourly employees chosen by the City Clerk's office or contracted secretaries from outside agencies.Departments do not have budgets for their Boards or Commissions. The City Clerk's office has a budget for recording secretaries. Boards and Commission Research8.B.hPacket Pg. 1204Attachment: Attachment H (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Palos AltosThey are interviewed by Council who then votes on who is appointed. The City Manager assigns a staff liaison to each BCC to provide support, coordination, and guidance. The Staff Liaison makes sure that required BCC meetings occur and, in conjunction with the Chair, prepares the monthly meeting agendas. The staff liaison is also responsible for the coordination, distribution, and posting of all committee agendas pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff liaisons will provide direction, guidance, and clerical, organizational, and administrative support to commissions on an as needed basis. The staff liaison also facilitates the transmission of BCC interests, concerns, and recommendations to the City Manager and City Council.Boards and Commissions do not have a budget.8.B.hPacket Pg. 1205Attachment: Attachment H (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Board/Commission FY 20/21 FY 19/20 FY 18/19Arts Commission 264,200.00$ 295,600.00$ 281,123.00$ Design Review Board ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Environmental Sustainability Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Emergency & Disaster Preparedness Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Heritage Committee ‐$ 1,000.00$ 700.00$ HIV Advisory Committee 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Housing & Human Services Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Audit Review and Measure LL Oversight Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Member Training ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Parking, Traffic, & Circulation Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Personnel Board ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Planning Commission ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Recreation Committee 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ ‐$ South Laguna Water / Sewer Advisory Committee: ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Urban Planning Corrdinating Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ View Restoration Committee ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Laguna Beach Budget Allocation8.B.hPacket Pg. 1206Attachment: Attachment H (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
Recreation and Parks Commission
April 26, 2021
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members:
Re: Item 8B Comprehensive Review of Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
The Recreation and Parks Commission held a special meeting to consider and
discuss the report of the Community Working Group Report on April 15, 2021. This
letter addresses the recommendations in that report as they concern the
Recreation and Parks Commission, and are keyed for reference to the Staff Report
Recommendations before Council for approval;
The Recreation and Parks Commission supports efforts to streamline policies and
procedures which apply to Board and Commissions, and to promote efficiency
with respect to staff responsibilities. The Recreation and Parks commission also
supports diversity of membership and is pleased to consistently have had broad
diversity among our members.
We are a commission that deals with matters concerning our entire community,
staff in multiple departments, and long range planning as well as current matters.
Our members devote considerable time to their work on the commission and
interact with the community frequently. We have a number of active advisory
boards, including the Field Space Advisory Committee and the Aquatics Advisory
Committee, both of which work to promote the optimum use of popular but limited
assets. We all share a passion for serving the community in which we live.
Set forth below, by Agenda Item 8 number, are the comments, suggestions, and in
some cases discussion relating Recommendations for Approval set forth in the
Staff Report dated April 22, 2021:
Item 8.B 04/27/21
1 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1207 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
BYLAWS
A.1. Officers term and selection:
Term: The Recreations and Parks Commission believes a one year term for chair
may be too short and suggests that there be an option for a second one year term.
Our current bylaws provide for this. There is an obvious learning curve involved in
chairing a complex commission and the opportunity to extend the value received
for another year should be Included. In addition to benefitting the chair and the
commission, the extra time, if chosen by the commission members, also assists
staff who would benefit from saving time training new chairs for several months of
each year.
Selection: The CWG recommendations use the term “rotate”. The Recreation and
Parks Commission strongly believes the chair should be elected by the members.
Annual elections and term limits provide for the opportunity for multiple members
to serve as chair over time, thus serving the goal of providing leadership
opportunities to many.
The Clerk Alternative Recommendation was not available to the Commission at
the time of our meeting. It provides for “election” and a requirement that a member
should serve as Vice Chair for at least one year before serving as chair. The Chair
and Vice Chair of our commission, signatories on this letter, strongly agree with the
Clerk Alternative Recommendation concerning election, Vice Chair term, and
request that council add the option for the Chair to be elected for an additional
one year term.
A.4. Workplan
The Clerk Alternative Recommendation with the words. “City and” incorporated
before “department’s workplans” since commissions which work with or across
multiple departments should coordinate with all of them, should be adopted.
A.5. Required Training:
The Clerk Alternative Recommendation for timing should be adopted.
Item 8.B 04/27/21
2 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1208 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
TERM LIMITS
B. The Recreation and Parks Commission objects to the CWG recommendation
that commission members who term out wait two years before applying to
another board or commission. If someone is the best qualified person for an
opening on a different board after terming out, why shouldn’t he or she be
considered? This provision looks like it is saying get lost regardless of your
commitment to public service and qualifications. Prohibiting someone from
serving on a different board after terming out on one is dismissive and
disrespectful to the person on top of not being in the best interests of the city by
denying that person’s service. Moreover, a two year enforced ban may well
dampen any future interest in public service by someone previously willing,
anxious, and qualified to serve. Council makes the decision on appointments and
this type of blanket prohibition interferes with Council’s responsibility to make
appropriate choices for open positions.
STAFF LIAISONS
The question here is what does “limited to information that the department
uniquely has access to” mean. Staff has access to both documents and personnel
that may not be generally available to a commission member or even its or their
existence known to commissions members and hence a literal interpretation of
this provision as “go find it yourself” could operate to the detriment of the work of a
commission. Some kind of reasonableness flexibility must exist. Commissions that
works with and across several departments might be able to find the information
they need, but not with the same speed and efficiency as staff. Who draws the
line? We are not suggesting staff be required to do extraneous intensive research,
but it should be considered a function of staff to assist commissions with
information sought.
MEMBERS AGES 18-29
The Recreation & Parks Commission strongly supports younger members serving
on all boards and commissions. However, this should be done by aggressive,
targeted communications and marketing to attract this demographic. Dedicating
or adding a one-year seat for someone in this age group looks more like an
internship than and participating membership and devalues the opinions and
possibility of meaningful contribution from this limited termer. What happens if you
can’t find someone for this special position? Is the commission out of compliance
and unable to function? Do you take a position away from a qualified “older”
Item 8.B 04/27/21
3 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
applicant to reserve this seat? If you add a seat what does that do to quorum
requirements and majority and/or supermajority requirements? Is it fair or does it
cause problems to hold a seat for the youth demographic without holding specific
position for other underrepresented groups which would serve improving
diversity? Council always has the option to consider the young adult demographic
when choosing among applicants.
Thank you for your continued support of our parks and recreation system.
Sincerely,
Lori Brown
Lori Brown
Chair
cc: Andy Agle, Director of Community Services
Recreation and Parks Commissioners
Maryanne La Guardia
Maryanne La Guardia
Vice Chair
Item 8.B 04/27/21
4 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Wilder
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:29 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Oscar
de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lane Dilg; George S. Cardona
Subject:Item 8B - Review of Boards/Commissions/Task Forces
Dear City Council Members,
I wish to reiterate the Airport Commission's concern about one of the recommendations made by the
Community Working Group ‐‐ Item H, the "Five‐Year Review."
The Clerk added a recommendation that the five‐year reviews should explicitly not occur in election years ‐‐
this is the exact opposite of the Airport Commission's feedback. The Airport Commission unanimously stated:
"Especially considering the 2020 voter pushback, we are concerned about the recommendation of large,
sweeping changes potentially happening in non‐election years."
We believe significant changes to the Boards and Commissions during non‐election years could lead to
decreased accountability to the public. Any policy changes should hold Council and Staff more accountable,
not less so.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Wilder
Chair, Airport Commission
Item 8.B 04/27/21
5 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1211 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Barry Rosenbaum <barryrosenbaum16@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:59 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue
Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Dolores Sloan; Roger Genser
Subject:April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting, Item 8-B. Comprehensive Review of Boards, Commissions, and
Task Forces
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Pro‐Tem McCowan and Council Members:
We request that Council continue its discussion of Item 8‐B to a future date, so that each board, commission and task
force that has not been given an opportunity to do so, will be able to provide its official response to the proposals of
the Civic Working Group and the City Clerk that are presented in the Staff Report on this item.
Appendix F to the Staff Report provides official responses to the proposals from five (5) groups—the Airports
Commission, Disabilities Commission, Personnel Board, Planning Commission, and Urban Forest Task Force. The
Landmarks Commission is not on this list because it was never notified that it had the opportunity to provide input, and
it was never agendized for discussion. We would anticipate that other bodies are in the same position. CWG and the
City Clerk’s proposed changes and reorganizations affect the roles and responsibilities in some way of most, if not all
boards, commissions and task forces. All should be given the opportunity to respond.
Thanks for your consideration to continue discussion on this Item to a future date, requesting that all boards,
commissions and task forces schedule discussion of the CWG proposals and provide information and insights for the
Council to weigh in their decision on this subject. We write as individual members of the Landmarks Commission and
not for the Commission as a whole since the Commission does not meet again until May 10, 2021.
Sincerely,
Roger Genser, Chair
Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore
Dolores Sloan, Commissioner and former Chair
Item 8.B 04/27/21
6 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1212 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Denise Anderson-Warren
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:21 AM
To:Vernice Hankins
Subject:FW: Board, Commissions & Task Forces Community Working Group
Please add this as an Add-to for 8.B.
Thank you.
Denise Anderson-Warren, CMC
City Clerk
(310) 458-8211
clerk@smgov.net
From: Matthew Stevens <mastevens0131@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:03 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis
<Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@smgov.net>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@SMGOV.NET>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@SMGOV.NET>; Christine Parra
<Christine.Parra@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Rebecca Lanty <becky_L55@yahoo.com>; Denise Anderson‐Warren <Denise.Anderson‐Warren@SMGOV.NET>;
Nikima Newsome <Nikima.Newsome@SMGOV.NET>; Thania Montoya <Thania.Montoya@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Board, Commissions & Task Forces Community Working Group
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and members of the City Council:
I write to you as the Chair of the Boards, Commissions & Task Forces Community Working Group. I unfortunately cannot
join you for tonight's discussion because I have a personal commitment I am unable to reschedule. I believe Vice Chair
Rebecca Lanty will be able to join and she can answer any questions about our group's work that you may have.
Since I cannot join tonight, I wanted to send a few thoughts for your consideration.
As the Staff report mentions, one of our primary goals was to increase diversity on our boards and commissions. The
Community Working Group believed our boards and commissions do not currently represent Santa Monica as a whole
particularly well and we wanted this review to be an opportunity to correct that.
One of the biggest issues is that there are only so many people who apply to serve on our various boards, commissions,
and task forces. Although we have 90,000 people in the city, a few hundred at most ever participate in our city's
Item 8.B 04/27/21
7 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1213 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2
government and those people aren't particularly representative of the city as a whole. That's a problem. We as a city
need to try much harder to bring new voices into the fray. It shouldn't be the same people over and over again.
One way we thought about addressing this was to implement a mandatory "cooling off" period between appointments.
If someone serves on a board or commision, reaches the term limit, and then wants to serve on another, we thought it
was important they be forced to wait for a period of time before Council can reappoint them. Truthfully, part of this is to
put guardrails around how you all make appointments. By implementing a mandatory cooling off period, it makes
Council look beyond the most well known people in the community. This helps bring out more voices because now you
may have to select someone new. Some currently serving board and commision members pushed back on this but I
think that is to be expected. It means someone new might be appointed instead of them. If our collective goal is to
promote new voices, that's a very good thing.
Another issue regarding diversity we wanted to address was the lack of almost any young people anywhere in city
government. A seat dedicated to young people would help address this. I noticed that some currently serving board and
commision members did not like this idea, worried about the "expertise" or "experiences" of young people. I think that's
another way of saying that young people may do things differently. Which is exactly what promoting diversity of
opinions is about.
The last issue I wanted to mention was the rotation of chairs. We had a lot of discussion about how some boards and
commissions in the city have had long‐serving chairs who can sometimes stifle views not aligned with their own. Some
chairs did not like this suggestion which I think highlights how important this recommendation is. If a currently serving
chair bristles at the idea of sharing power, I think that's a good sign that they have too much power and need to be told
to share. The politics of this for board and commision members can be tricky. If the currently serving chair is well
connected politically, which many of them are, it can be intimidating and uncomfortable for a board or commision
member to bring up the topic of power sharing. They need support from City Council, with a mandatory rotation, to
make the power sharing happen.
I hope the above helps you better understand our recommendations. I will be monitoring my e‐mail throughout the day
if you have any questions before meeting tonight.
Best regards,
Matt Stevens
Chair, Boards, Commissions & Task Forces Community Working Group
Item 8.B 04/27/21
8 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1214 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:39 PM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra;
Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Cc:Lane Dilg; Denise Anderson-Warren; Anuj Gupta; Susan Cline
Subject:City Council 4/27/21 - Item 8B - Comments on Review of Boards, Commissions and Task Forces
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and City Council Members,
In review of the staff report I have the following observations and comments:
As a member of the Audit Subcommittee, I participated in the oversight and feedback from a resident
subcommittee looking at City salaries and benefits and the unfunded pension liability. The report, with help
from an outside consultant, was very helpful but it was extremely difficult for this subcommittee to work
together because the Brown Act was applied to them. Are the restrictions of the Brown Act going to be applied
to the recommendation of resident driven subcommittees be used if commissions, boards or task forces are
consolidated? If so, this is a difficult hurdle to overcome with respect to residents working together to identify
observations, conclusions and recommendations to the goals and objectives they are being asked to
address. These are working groups with recommendations made to the oversight body and should be allowed
to do that i.e., work together without Brown Act restrictions to develop their recommendations
I strongly support the item J., to provide training sessions on running meetings, participating during meetings,
parliamentary procedure, and other training. This will provide a baseline understanding of how an effective
meeting is achieved.
What is the status of the Childcare Task Force? While never a Council appointed task force it received staff time
and resources.
I believe a key question that wasn't asked or answered is "How do recommendations from these boards,
commissions and task forces get communicated to the City Council or appropriate department?" The time and
resources focused in these meetings are extensive and should be appropriately made to the oversight entity in a
written format with impacted departments able to review and comment before submission.
Thank‐you,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Item 8.B 04/27/21
9 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1215 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 8:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Combining Task Forces
From: Susan McCarthy <susan.mccarthy67@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 11:33 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Combining Task Forces
EXTERNAL
Mayor and Council,
You face unenviable decisions in balancing community expectations, concerns and calls for action while adjusting
expenditures in a time of reduced revenues. As a long time resident, familiar with those challenges from my past service
to the City, I hope you will take the long view in decisions regarding the Urban Forest Task Force.
Our neighborhoods, commercial areas and public spaces have been well served by the work of the Task Force to
rationalize, diversify and enhance our urban forest. Their volunteer time commitment, brings both professional expertise
and community commitment to the development of plans and procedures that improve and sustain the forest. The Task
Force serves as an informed resource to field the questions and concerns of individuals and neighborhood groups
regarding public trees.
Decisions about public trees are made daily but will affect the look and feel of our community for many, many years to
come. That is worthy of your investment even in straitened times.
Sincerely,
Susan McCarthy
Item 8.B 04/27/21
10 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1216 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 8:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Urban Forest Task Force
From: Thomas Cleys <tcleys2@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Susan Cline <Susan.Cline@SMGOV.NET>;
mathew.wells@smgov.net; Peter James <Peter.James@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Urban Forest Task Force
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro‐Tem McCowan, and Council Members,
I understand that a proposal has been made to fold the work of the Urban Forest Task Force into the Task Force on the
Environment.
I would like to encourage you not to do this for the reasons outlined below.
* The Task Force was formed out of controversy over the City's handling of the ficus trees downtown and their overall
management of the program by prior staff. The Task Force plays an important role for the community both monitoring
and working along side staff as well as acting as an interface for the community with the City. Please don't forget why
this body was formed to begin with.
* We hear appeals at most all of our meetings prior to mothballing the Task Force. This is a critical role for the Task
Force.
* Several members of the Task Force have special expertise in the industry that is needed to work with staff in a)
managing an urban forest program that is award winning, b) providing advice to staff, c) hearing appeals, and d) serving
the community at large. Combining these groups is apt to water down the impact of both bodies.
* The Task Force has been award winning because of both the work of the Task Force and staff. Do not make this group
less effective.
* As it is, we are only meeting every other month as it is so it would seem, the Urban Forest Task Force is already not a
major burden on the City and staff.
* Finally, a key task we were working on before the mothballing of our work, was the study and consideration of a
private tree ordinance. Hopefully that work will be resurrected. The expertise of the current Task Force both within the
industry and the experience of myself and Grace Phillips on the Task Force since its inception are invaluable in helping
craft a proposed ordinance. Now is not the time to eliminate this Task Force if for no other reason than this important
work.
In summary, the experience and special knowledge of the Task Force are critical in doing its job for the community and
City. We were formed as a separate body from inception was for a reason. By combining the Task Force with the Task
Force on the Environment, you will lose or water down that experience and make the Task Force much less effective for
the City and community alike.
Please keep the Urban Forest Task Force as an independent body.
Item 8.B 04/27/21
11 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1217 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3
Thank you,
Tom Cleys
Vice Chair, Urban Forest Task Force
Item 8.B 04/27/21
12 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1218 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Please do not combine Task Forces
From: Grace Phillips <gracesadye@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Please do not combine Task Forces
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As you may know, I have served on the Urban Forest Task Force since late 2010. I want
to share my thoughts about the Recommendations from the Community Working Group
before you make any decisions about our Task Force.
Our Task Force has a very specific focus and role:
providing the managing framework for the +34,000 public trees of Santa
Monica.
We have had hundreds of residents attend our meetings over the years, and,
working with them and outside experts, produced a nationally-recognized Urban
Forest Master Plan * document that has been the basis for many other cities'
subsequent plans. As I write this, the City of Los Angeles is writing their own Master
Plan based on our exemplary work.
We are an ongoing sounding board for the public, and provide an important
connection between residents and city staff that was missing prior to our formation.
We bring significant arboricultural expertise to our partnership with city staff, all
in the belief that we have to work together to prepare for the climate changes that
are already wreaking havoc on urban forests everywhere.
We on the Task Force have helped pilot the city forestry program through a period
of significant staff upheaval, in which there was almost complete turnover in
management at the city level, and our institutional memory and guidance were
critical in maintaining and improving Santa Monica's tree management.
We loan our expertise to all specific area plans that come before us, guiding their
tree selection process to best fit the project goals;
We have worked with Matthew Wells to create an important tool for discouraging
illegal or unremunerated tree removal, the Tree Mitigation plan, which has resulted
in the City being provided with hundreds of new public trees at developers' expense;
Item 8.B 04/27/21
13 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1219 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
2
During our decade, many important tree species have succumbed to disease and
drought, and we have worked to incorporate the best and latest forestry
management practices to optimize our tree stock.
Our members worked to create a Heritage Tree program to educate the public
about the stellar species in our City, using public input to create a list of our most
unusual and valuable trees.
We worked with passionate software coders to create an open-source tree database
at https://publictreemap.org/;
It is a physical manifestation of our commitment to sustainability since trees sit
at the nexus of stormwater, heat island effects, walkability and way-finding, and
carbon sequestration -- and also the one that is most visible to residents. It literally
represents our commitment to becoming a model sustainable city, and shows that
the City funds its greatest living inventory.
We are constantly assessing and reassessing this living asset -- the only City
asset that appreciates in value over time - with new, realtime data in a true
partnership between staff and residents.
You might remember that we were created by Council after the outcry over the then-City
Forester single-handedly deciding to remove ficus trees on 2nd and 4th street -- and the
public realizing there was no formal avenue for their complaints other than coming to an
overworked Council. Almost every meeting includes residents coming to appeal
some aspect of trees in the built environment -- residents who don't want to see
developers remove beloved trees, developers who need guidance on how to work
with the urban trees on their property, staff presenting specific plans who need
guidance on selecting the most appropriate trees. Our meeting agendas are jam
packed.
We created the Urban Forest Master Plan because of public outcry, and have been
working for the last many years on responding to public outcry over the removal of
valuable private trees. To that end, we are hoping to finish crafting the Private Tree
Ordinance. This is an enormous effort, one which Council supported, and which we hope
to see through to its adoption.
I was disheartened to read that the Community Working group wrote: "Consider possibly
combining the Task Force on the Environment and the Urban Forest Task
Force." Beyond both being involved with environmental issues, our purviews have
almost zero overlap. The Task Force on the Environment doesn't have a specific,
outward-facing job like we do. Their work is important, but has little to no bearing on the
significant, day-to-day work of managing the Urban Forest.
When I move around Santa Monica, I see the physical results of our work:
new species planted in hundreds of tree wells that have been empty for years;
the introduction of tall lemon-scented gums between the smaller yew pines lining
Ocean Park;
Item 8.B 04/27/21
14 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1220 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
3
the Mexican sycamores on the Esplanade were a direct result of our advocating
against the non-native trees proposed by the designer;
the drought-tolerant replacements for the magnolia trees that are succumbing to
long-term drought stress;
the hardy replacements for the avenues of oleanders after they succumbed to
xylella;
the glorious julibrissin trees lining the Expo on Colorado Avenue;
the re-treeing of Lincoln Blvd as part of the Beautify Lincoln effort - which included
creating new tree wells to increase canopy along the boulevard;
native oaks flourishing as City street trees;
the end of aggressive canopy and root overpruning, which resulted in the massive
ficus tree deaths we have seen in the last decade;
a partnership with the Clean Beaches committee to plant our swales with pollution-
resistant trees;
a much more healthy, balanced, optimally managed urban forest.
Please do not combine our Task Forces. To do so would be a) insulting to everyone
involved in both task forces who have spent years working as volunteers; and b) result in
bodies that had neither expertise nor interest in half their work; and c) result in one body
that did neither job well. Our residents -- current and future -- deserve better.
Thank you,
Grace Phillips
Chair, Santa Monica Urban Forest Task Force
*https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Portals/UrbanForest/REVISED_UFMP_CH1_CH2_rotated.pdf
Item 8.B 04/27/21
15 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1221 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Please retain the Urban Forest Task Force as an independent body
From: lindap_a@verizon.net <lindap_a@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: gracesadye@gmail.com; tcleys2@gmail.com
Subject: Please retain the Urban Forest Task Force as an independent body
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As many of you know, I was honored to have served on the Urban Forest Task Force from its inception for two terms.
During my tenure I contributed to the Urban Forest Master Plan, researched information regarding other cities' private tree
ordinances, and advocated for our Task Force to expand our purview to discuss private trees, in addition to our existing
mandate of public trees. (Thank you, Councilmember Davis!)
Before the pandemic hit, I recall that a private tree protection ordinance was in the works and was assigned to the
Planning Commission as they have jurisdiction over trees on private property; but trees are not their primary mandate nor
priority. I do not think that Planning Commission members have within their ranks, nor are they expected to have,
expertise regarding aboriculture. Members of the Urban Forest Task Force do and this expertise needs to be respected.
Its members should be regarded as peers for consultation, not as a subcommittee whose recommendations on the private
tree ordinance and other matters can be overruled or endlessly tabled by the whole Planning Commission when items
come up for approval.
If the Urban Forest Task Force were to be re-assigned as a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, or any other
commission, as proposed, I am afraid that the long awaited private tree protection ordinance will get short shrift and the
many residents who have been clamoring for it for over a decade now will have been done a disservice. Other important
functions of the Task Force will also be diminished and overshadowed by the busy Planning Commission agendas or the
agendas of the other proposed assimilating commissions.
So, please retain the Urban Forest Task Force as its own body so the members may continue to serve the community and
the environment to their fullest capacity.
Thank you,
Linda Piera-Avila
Item 8.B 04/27/21
16 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1222 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))
1
Vernice Hankins
From:oz <zurawska@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Public input re City Boards and Commissions 4/27/21
EXTERNAL
Issues to consider re City Boards and Commissions:
1. Currently the boards snd Commissions are the extension of the system of power in the City of Santa Monica where a
small group of people has full political control of the way the City is governed. It’s basically an oligarchy, not a
democracy, those few people control most of the Council, which in turn makes the appointments to the boards snd
commissions. The result is that the people appointed see to it that the interests of the oligarchy, rather than those of the
larger community, are attended to. Therefore the community for the most part does not engage with the boards snd
commissions knowing that they are populated with yes people planted there for the oligarchy’s benefit. For the boards
snd commissions to contribute to the democracy rather than the oligarchy in the City, a different system of
appointments should be devised.
2. Conflict of interest ‐ there should be regular ongoing proactive screening against conflicts of interest of those on the
boards and commissions. Once appointed, the commissioners fill out the form 700 within 30 days and then only do it
once a year, often not disclosing fully their economic interests, but no‐one in the City seems to monitor that. There are
several cases of current commissioners where they obtained employment that constitutes a conflict of interest AFTER
being appointed to the city commissions, but they never updated their form 700 snd no‐one noticed that. There are
currently people on city commissions who per our local law must be registered as lobbyists, but they are not. There is a
chair of one of the commissions who is married to the Mayor, which constitutes at least an appearance of a conflict of
interest. Why is the Clerk and/or City Attorney allowing this?
3. Mandatory onboarding training in the Brown Act and Robert’s’ Rules of Order needs to be given to new
commissioners immediately after they assume office.
4. The Social Services Commission, Disabilities Commission and the Commission for the Senior Community need to be
merged as currently they barely bring anything to the table while functioning as separate commissions.
5. The Commission on the Status of Women is a joke and should be dissolved immediately. My experiences with this
commission were that they had no interest in reports of sexual harassment and endangerment of women in city funded
programs but were very interested in discussing their Thanksgiving plans.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 8.B 04/27/21
17 of 17 Item 8.B 04/27/21
8.B.i
Packet Pg. 1223 Attachment: Written Comments (4349 : Boards and Commission Report and Discussion (180 mins))