Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Correspondence - Ad HocMulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Ad Hoc City Council Committee From: Devyn Hartnett <devynhartnett92@gmai1.com> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:32 PM To: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Ad Hoc City Council Committee [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Council member Diane Dixon, My name is Devyn Hartnett and I've been a resident of Newport Beach for over 27 years. I am emailing you about the Ad Hoc City Council meeting that will be determined this Tuesday. I am requesting that Rod Sudbeck, the previous owner of Frys Market, be placed on that committee. I believe Mr. Sudbeck is a well respected and professional figure in the Newport Beach community and he will represent the city well as he served on the Central Newport Beach Community Association for a few years. I have faith that Mr. Sudbeck will well in continuing to serve the Newport Beach community. I also would like to be of any possible service to this committee. I have a Masters Degree in Communication and I would love to help in any way I can if needed. Thank you for your time and for considering Rod Sudbeck for the Ad Hoc committee. Warm regards, Devyn Hartnett April 28, 2020, Council Special Meeting Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( limmosher(o),yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1b. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-40, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Address Commercial Re -Opening and Business Advancement in Response to COVID-19 Closures However well-intentioned this may seem, I oppose the creation of still more shadowy three- member ad hoc committees that meet privately with unknown people and based on information hidden from the public, and not available for rebuttal, privately formulate recommendations that require only one additional vote on the Council to become law. If the Council feels it needs this committee, I believe it should require it to conduct all its meetings, interviews and deliberations in public. Beyond that, I have these comments about this specific proposal: 1. First, action on this item appears to require a waiver of City Council Policy A-1, something that is not mentioned on the agenda or in the staff report. Under Policy A-1, placing a Council -member -initiated item on the agenda requires the request to be heard on the agenda of a separate meeting under "Matters Which Council Members Have Asked to be Placed on a Future Agenda" and agreed to be at least three members. Such a vote was noticed under Item XII on the April 28 regular evening agenda, but that vote will not have taken place before the present item is heard and it is evidently being superseded by this, with staff having chosen to ignore the policy. Since Council policies are publicly adopted by resolution, one would assume they cannot be lightly cast aside unless they, themselves, include a provision for waiving them. At a minimum, I think the special meeting agenda notice for this item should have mentioned the Council will be considering waiving Policy A-1, thereby blessing staff's action taken in contradiction of it. 2. Second, and more importantly, as the Council is well aware, it already has a three-member Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement, established by Resolution No. 2019- 53 on June 11, 2019, updated via Resolution 2019-71 on July 23, 2019, and with term extended to June 30, 2020, by Resolution 2019-99 on November 19, 2019. The Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement is tasked with making recommendations to the Council about City financial support of business groups. Yet, despite the passage of 10 months, the public (and presumably the Council members not on it) have yet to hear anything from this existing committee, two of whose members differ from those on the proposed new committee (to which Resolution No. 2020-40 seems to give no name other than "Ad Hoc Committee"), and which has never met in public (reinforcing my concern about the work of such committees). April 28, 2020, City Council special meeting comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 The staff report and the title of the present item make it appear the purpose of the new Ad Hoc Committee is to make recommendations not solely to ensure businesses reopen safely (in the medical sense), but to help them "stabilize" and "advance." — something that could well involve recommendations for financial assistance or incentives. Before formulating any such recommendations, the new Ad Hoc Committee will surely want to understand the conclusions of the existing Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement, but since that creates a discussion involving five Council members, it is a preliminary discussion that needs to take place in public, at a full Council meeting. 3. The preceding observation raises concern about the statement at the end of Section 3 of the proposed Resolution No. 2020-40 (agenda packet page 1-8): "This Ad Hoc Committee supersedes any existing Ad Hoc Committee concerning the scope of responsibility set forth in this Resolution." Does this mean that if the new Ad Hoc Committee makes recommendations about financial assistance to business organizations to assist in their reopening and advancement, those will nullify anything that may have been formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement, and the public will never hear from the latter -- much as the new Housing Element Update Advisory Committee superseded the General Plan Update Advisory Committee, which vanished without reaching any conclusions or making any final recommendations? 4. Finally, I notice the proposed Resolution No. 2020-40 refers consistently to concern about "commercial businesses" rather than simply "businesses." Does this mean there are "non- commercial businesses" in Newport Beach that will be outside the Ad Hoc Committee's concern? What would be examples of those?