Committee weighs exempting task force from elements of Open Meetings Act

Resolution passes allowing closed-door meetings for group members making policy, public safety recommendations

A conversation on how to guide the city’s community health and safety service infrastructure — while at the same time protecting the personal stories of those who use that system — spilled into the city’s Public Safety Committee meeting Monday.

During last week’s Quality of Life Committee meeting, City Councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal introduced a resolution extending the Community Health and Safety Task Force through 2021 and updating its terms, one of which would allow some meetings to be exempt from portions of the Open Meetings Act.

That has prompted debate by council members. Rivera, who chairs the task force with Villarreal, said there are concerns about the sensitive nature of some of the stories being heard at the meetings, with some voicing a preference to have those meetings in private.

“As far as having the ability to have some closed meetings, I think it is important to the group,” Rivera said last week. “That is the only way we are going to be able to dive

into those real-life situations. Some of those are very real and could be happening as we speak.”

The Open Meetings Act specifically addresses policymaking bodies. The Community Health and Safety Task Force only makes recommendations. The City Council, however, did pass a resolution that required all task forces to adhere to the act. The council could waive that requirement by passing a resolution.

The Community Health and Safety Task Force was created by Mayor Alan Webber amid nationwide discussion on police reform and how to amend emergency response protocols. Members of the task force at times talk about their interactions with the city’s public safety agencies to help inform potential policy changes.

Villarreal said two members of the task force have already resigned, while others have noted they didn’t feel comfortable being 100 percent truthful about their experiences due to the public nature of the meeting.

She added the recommendation to exclude the meeting from the requirements came from members of the task force, not from Rivera and herself.

“We forget that many of our community committees — they’re people are doing this on their own time, not paid,” Villarreal said. “So frankly, why would you put yourself in harm’s way or feeling like you are unsafe ... it’s not worth it for some people.”

Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth introduced an amendment last week that would allow for community engagement meetings and a series of focus groups to learn how city policies could be improved. She also proposed and amendment to increase the task force’s budget. Currently, it sits at $10,000.

The amendment, which she said was modeled of the Municipal Drug Policy Task Force, also removed a line in the resolution that would allow for some of the meetings to be held behind closed doors. Romero-Wirth suggested working in subcommittees or subgroups of the task force to gather the stories and figure out themes before discussing those larger overarching subjects in a public setting.

Villarreal said members of the task force were on board with having community meetings but did not agree with taking away language to allow for private meetings. The resolution was moved to the Public Works Committee to further discuss the amendments and provide more specificity over when a task force meeting could be closed.

On Monday, City Councilors and Public Works Committee members Signe Lindell and JoAnne Vigil Coppler both said while they were sympathetic to the sensitive nature of the dialogue in the task force meetings, they were concerned about holding the meetings in private. They also questioned whether another group could take testimony and relay it to the task force.

Romero-Wirth on Monday said she is concerned there is no specific language outlining when the meetings can be closed.

“I think if this is going to go forward in this way with the ability to close them, then somebody needs to outline when they are supposed to be closed and when they are not,” she said.

The resolution ultimately passed without Romero-Wirth’s amendment and was moved to Wednesday’s council meeting. Rivera said he would contact Romero-Wirth to nail down the language of when the meetings could be held in private.

Lindell and Councilor Michael Garcia abstained from the vote until they could get written confirmation from the city’s legal department that the resolution did not violate the Open Meetings Act.