Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 ECE VE,:: L :,C~~' MANAGER'S OF"' MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE November 15, 2002 TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY A'I-I'ORNEY ~ SUBJECT: MASSAGE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL This memo is to advise all interested persons that consideration by the Council Legislative and Litigation Committee of the proposed amendments to the City of Bakersfield's ordinance regulating massage establishments has been delayed until after January 1, 2003. You will be advised when the matter will be placed on the Committee's agenda. Also, prior to that meeting, you will be provided with a copy of the most recent revision of the amended ordinance, with alternative language for those portions for which a consensus between the industry and the Bakersfield Police Department was not attained. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Also, if you know of an interested person who may have inadvertently been omitted from the Distribution List, please inform them of this change. BJT:dll cc: Legislative & Litigation Committee Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Alan Tandy, City Manager Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst S:WOLICEhM EM OS~vlassageOrdA mdPropM mo.dot ~* ~ ° Massage Ordinance Amendment Proposal.~. ~- November 15, 2002 Page 2 Distribution List: Eric Mattock, Chief of Police Jess Molinar, Lieutenant, Police Dept. Christian Fredericksen Margaret Hust Irene Rodriguez Patricia Trujillo Kevin Taylor Chris Gibson Mary Stroud Marsha Magnuson Vanessa Rueda Karen A. Foley Bob Hurst Knute Berry Datila Frei Marilyn McKinley Marsha Bidwell Sharon A. Riggan Jesus Carpio Noemi Fuentes Renee Nelson Andrew Ridenour Sharon Anyan Donna Henderson D~I~¢~B~ a~ rd Toni Solano Judith Koch S 5POLIC E\M EM OS~4assageOrdAmdPropM mo.dot *? *,~ · ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER :,=10 S,I:I39¥N¥1AI/d.13, ~ C!9AI3~)3~1 MEMORANDUM CITY A'n'ORNEY'S OFFICE II'BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND FAX 852-2000 PHONE 326-3721 IIATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT November 15, 2002 IIPRIVlLEGES TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'I-rEE SUE BENHAM, Chair DAVID COUCH JACQUIE SULLIVAN By: ROBERT M. SHERFY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: JOHNNY M. BERUMEN VS. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL i NOV I 5 KCSC Case No. 2458-8-RJA DEFENSE VERDICT FOR THE CITY C? MANAGER'S OF'* The City Attorney's Office is pleased to inform the Legislative and Litigation Committee that Andrew Thomson of this office obtained a verdict in favor of the City in a jury trial in the above-entitled case. The trial concluded last week. This is another of the police misconduct cases filed by the Faulkner attorneys. In this case, the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle without front license plates. An Officer of the Police Department attempted to initiate a traffic stop. After the vehicle stopped, the Plaintiff got out of the vehicle and ran away. The Officer requested assistance. The Officer who had initiated the stop determined that the vehicle the Plaintiff was driving was stolen. Approximately 15 minutes later, the Plaintiff was located on the top of the AC Electric business building yelling, "1 don't want to go to jail." Plaintiff, after the incident, reported that he thought that he thought he' had a warrant for his arrest out of Oregon for failure to appear for sentencing for grand theft. Shortly after the Plaintiff was located on the business building, Officers Hale-and Cox arrived at the scene. Officer Hale, a K-9 Officer, removed his dog from his vehicle and he and Officer Cox approached the building. The Plaintiff was ordered to get off of the building and did. As Officer Cox approached him, the Plaintiff hit the Officer, turned and ran. At that point, because of the felony grand theft auto and the assault on the Police Officer, Officer Hale, in an attempt to prevent the Plaintiff from escaping, released his dog. The dog bit the Plaintiff on the left forearm and held him until the Officers could take him into custody. It should be noted that in this case the Plaintiff had made written settlement demand of $15,000.00. The demand was communicated to City Attorney Bart Thiltgen and was not accepted. As a result the matter went to trial and the City prevailed thanks to the testimony of Officer Hale and others, as well as the fine work by Andrew Thomson. RMS:dll cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Alan Tandy, City Manager Patrick Flaherty, Risk Manager Anita Heard, AIMS Debbie Lund, Acting Administrative Assistant S:g-it~Closing MMOs~,CT~Be rumenMmo.doc BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager September 23, 2002 Mr. Jerry Bamnowski Jerry's Pizza 1817 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Baranowski: Legislative and Litigation Committee Chair Sue Benham asked that I return the enclosed photographs to you. Thank you for sharing your insights with us at the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting. Sincerely, Trudy Slater Administrative Analyst III L&L\L0209231 Attachments City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: July 31, 2002 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM: 8. e. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED /-% FROM: Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ DATE: July 18, 2002 CITY A'n'ORNEY ~ CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: Taxi Driver's Permit Appeal Process RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to the Legislative and Litigation Committee. BACKGROUND: The current section 5.50.300 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code provides for a revocation or suspension of a taxi driver's permit under certain specified circumstances, together with an appeal process to the City Council in the event such a suspension or revocation is ordered by the Chief of Police. In an effort to streamline the meetings of the City Council, combined with a perceived need to amend the Code to provide more direction to the Chief of Police, a draft ordinance has been prepared. Staff recommends Council refer this issue to the Legislative and Litigation Committee for review. BJT:las JU31CA2.CC July 18, 2002, 10:07am ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5,50.300 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TAXI'DRIVER PERMITS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1~ Section 5.50.300 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.50.300. Driver's permit - Revocation or suspension - Appeal - Hearing. A. 1. The chief of police may summarily revoke or suspend any driver's permit issued under the provisions of this chapter; provided that the chief has knowledge that the holder thereof, either before or after issuance of the driver's permit, made misrepresentations on the application, has been convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter, or the applicant has been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the business for which the application is made, including, but not limited to, a violation of the Controlled Substance Act, or of assault, battery,, pandering, prostitution, pimping, theft, driving vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics, reckless driving, or a.violation of any law involving moral turpitude. 2. It is unlawful for anyperson to drive, operate or be in charge of any vehicle governed or affected by this chapter during the time that the driver's permit has been suspended or after the same has been revoked. B. Any driver who may be aggrieved by the action of the chief of police in suspending or revoking the driver's permit or temporary driver's permit, or any applicant who may be aggrieved by the permit denial by the chief of police, may within ten days from such denial, suspension or revocation, make written objection to the City Manager stating the grounds for grievance, whereupon the City Mar~ager shall fix a date for hearing such objections, giving written notice thereof to such applicant, and upon such hearing may sustain, suspend or overrule the decision of the chief of police, which decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive. Such order of suspension or revocation by the chief of police shall remain in full force and effect unless and until acted upon and reversed or modified by the City Manager. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... 000 .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: ' AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, Cou~H, HANSON, SULLiVAN, SALVAGGiO NOES: COUNCIl_MEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: HARVEY L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: ALAN D. DANIEL Deputy City Attorney ADD:isc S:",COUNCIL\Ords\TaxiPermits. Amend5.50.3OO.wpd ' Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.50.300 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TAXI DRIVER PERMITS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.50.300 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.50,300, Driver's permit - Revocation or suspension - Appeal - Hearing. A. 1. The chief of police may summarily revoke or suspend any driver's permit issued under the provisions of this chapter; provided thathe the chief has knowledge that the holder thereof, either before or after issuance of ,his the driver's permit, made misrepresentations on the application, has been convicted of violating any of the provisions ofthischa er, or,,~o,.,~,,~.v,,,,,,..,~,~,_,,,:,,~,~,,~,,_,, ,,,~,,,,.,,~,,,.,,,,.,,,~ny ,,,~ u, prOViSiOF~S -~ '~' ' "' .... ^'--~--"~ De the applicant has been convicted of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the business for which the application is made, including, but not limited to, a violation of the Controlled Substance Act, or of assaUlt, battery, pandering, prostitution, pimping, theft, driving vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants or narcotics, reckless driving, or any' ct,her violation of any law involving moral turpitude. 2. It is unlawful for any person to drive, operate or be in charge of any vehicle governed or affected by this chapter during the time that his the driver's permit has been suspended or after the same has been revoked. B. Any driver who may be aggrieved by the action of the chief of police in suspending or revoking h:,s the driver's permit or temporary driver's permit, or any applicant who may be aggrieved by the permit denial by the chief of police of ,his app',",cat:,o,~, may within ten days from such denial, suspension or revocation, make written objection to the -: ......... :' City Manager ~ stating the grounds for grievance whereupon the ~,,~IL,)' ~,,~t,,~l Ik,~ll , count?, City Manager shall fix a date for hearing such objections, giving written notice thereof to such applicant, and upon such hearing may sustain, suspend or overrule the decision of the chief of police, which such decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive. Such order of suspension or revocation by the chief of police, shall remain in full force and effect unless and until acted upon and re'versed or modified by the dry cou,ncll City Manager. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with the provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... 000 .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: ' AYES: COUNCILMEMBER C~,RSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: By: HARVEY L, HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By: ALAN D. DANIEL Deputy City Attorney ADD:!sc S:\COU NCIL\Ords' TzxiPermits.Amend5.50.300Rdln.wpd Page 2 of 2 C. Review, discussion and recommendations regarding the request from the Kern County Homeless Collaborative to support Proposition 46 on the November 2002 Ballot CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-  CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES MEMORANDUM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE May 9, 2002 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Sue Benham - Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney ~ SUBJECT: SCA 7 At the April 15, 2002 meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee, the issue of the proposed amendment to the California Constitution related to Access to Government Information (SCA 7) was discussed. During this discussion, I informed the Committee it was my understanding the measure had already passed and was scheduled to be on the November 2002 ballot. This past week, while attending the League of California Cities City Attorney Spring Conference, I learned I had been misinformed, and based upon such misinformation, had incorrectly advised the Committee. SCA 7 has not been passed by the Legislature and, in fact, was recently pulled from the Senate Governmental Organization calendar and is pending a policy committee hearing. Attached to this memo is a copy of a letter sent by the League to Senator John Burton, the author of SCA 7. The League has taken the position of "Oppose Unless Amended." The letter provides the reasons for the League's opposition, and some proposed amendments. As you will note, some of the League's stated reasons coincide with what has earlier been provided to the Committee for consideration. BJT:lsc Attachment S:\COU NCIL\M EMOS\SCA7.GovAccess. Leg&Lit.doc April 17, 2002 senator John Burton Room 205, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SCA 7 (Burton) Access to Government Information.. Notice of Oppose Unless Amended Position Dear Senator Burton: I am writing on behalf of Jthe League of California Cities to regrettably inform you that we have taken an oppose unless amended position on your Senate Constitutional Amendment 7. We are hopeful that by continuing our discussions with your staff and the sponsors of the measure, that we may arrive at a mutually a~eeable Sunshine Act that will encourage and preserve access to government information, while protecting the public's trust and security. The most monumental challenge that we have had to face since SCA 7 was introduced is to determine the impacts that SCA 7 has on existing Public Records and Brown Act provisions. The stated intent of the measure is clear, and one. that the League supports: Access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of ever person in this State. The people have a right to attend, observe, and be heard in the meetings of elected'and appointed public bodies, and to inspect and copy records made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, agency, officer, or employee, or anyone acting on their behalf The League also supports the unmasking of political corruption that sometimes exists behind the veil of current access exemptions. However, we believe that the provisions set forth in SCA 7 would jeopardize cities' ability to make sound determinations about disclosure in light of public protection. The sponsors argue that the broad language of SCA 7 will not endanger existing open session exceptions and public records act exemptions. On the contrary, we believe that SCA 7 would make fundamental changes in both Acts based on new standards and findings. SCA 7, Burton Pa§e 2 of 7 What exemptions are affected by SCA 7? These new standards are much higher than existing requirements, both in terms of new limits placed on the le~slature's power to adopt legislation providing for closed sessions or disclosure exemptions, and in terms of findings local agencies must make in order to legitimately apply any such exemption to a particular case. For instance, SCA 7 appears to nullify those closed sessions relating to litigation that do not involve "preserving public funds and resources," "protecting public safety", "ens.uring the fair and effective administration of justice" or "protecting private property." In addition, SCA 7 would nullify those closed sessions relating to personnel matters unless a (1) "private individual" includes an employee of a local agency, or (2) an individual's constitutional right to privacy (Art I, 3 (a)) requires holding a closed session when evaluating or considering the discipline of a government emploYee. Certain exceptions outlined in the Public Records Act that do not fall within those four categories would also be affected. For example: · SCA 7 as proposed would eliminate or narrow the preliminary drafts exemption in Government code section 6254(a) that is intended to protect the quality of official decision making. · SCA 7 would limit section 6254 (b) which limits closed sessions on in pending litigation to only apply to "preserving public funds and resources", "protecting public safety", "ensuring the fair and effective administration of justice" or "protecting private property". Any pending litigation that is construed to fall outside of this scope will be subject to discussion in open session. · SCA 7 also eliminates the exemptions that apply to personnel records relating to "fitness" and qualifications of a variety of public 'qfficers who are city employees. This would include psycholo~cal examinations, physical fitness tests, evaluation of performance, disciplinary actions, physical or psychological limitations, and any other information that is related to fitness for duty. This means that the personnel files for the Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and any other city employee who has been designated an "officer" by local law, or who exercises the duties of a public officer as those duties have been defined by the courts · SCA 7 would not allow for Closed session discussions regarding performance evaluations for public, officers. · SCA 7 would limit Section 6254(k) which recognizes limits on disclosure in other federal or state laws, including the attorney-client SCA 7, Burton Page 3 of 7 privilege and the official information privilege to only apply to "preserving public funds and resources," "protecting public safety," "ensuring the fair and effective administration of justice" or "protecting private property." Any other privileges that are construed to fall outside of this scope will'be subject to disclosure. · SCA 7 would eliminate the balancing test set forth in Section 6255 which allows a city to identify unique situations that have not been identified in the law, in which the need to withhold information outweighs the public's interest in disclosure of that information. Under SCA 7 as proposed, statutory authority that cities have used to conduct the public's business while balancing public rights of access, privacy concerns and their fiduciary obligations may be limited or eliminated or remain available only at the risk of costly litigation. The Practical Application Problems with SCA 7 The burden on cities will be significant due to the new requirement under SCA 7 which compels cities to arrive at "particularized findings" demonstrating a substantial probability of serious harm to the public interest that the denial will avert. Under the Brown Act, the required particularized findings cannot be made before a closed session without either disclosing the subject matter of the closed session or pre- supposing the contents of the discussion in closed session. For example, consider a city that wishes to hold a closed session to discuss whether or not litigation should be initiated. SCA 7 requires the city to make findings demonstrating the substantial probability of serious harm that will occur if the discussion occurs as part of an open public meeting. How is it possible to make this finding without disclosing (1) the facts and circumstances that are the basis of the city's cause of action against the potential defendant; (2) the identity of the defendant; and (3) the nature of the threat to the public safety, or to the preservation of public funds and resources that the litigation seeks to avert? Further, how is it possible for a city employee to determine whether or not there is a substantial probability of serious harm to the public interest until the city council discussion occurs? The city council may determine not to initiate the litigation because there is no serious harm to the public interest. Under the Public Records Act, cities will be required to cite the exemption and make particularized findings in demonstrating the justification for nondisclosure. SCA 7 does not explain how a city could make the additional findings, and if those findings will be sufficient to justify withholding the information. SCA 7, Burton Page 4 of 7 The language of SCA 7 does not clearly authorize limitations on the public's right to attend, observe, and be heard at public meetings. · First, section 3('0)(3) authorizes the Legislature to provide for limitations on the right of public access "to governmental information." Information would seem to include records but not include meetings. o. Then, section 3Co)(3) provides that any application of one of the limitations "to deny rights specified in paragraph (1)" requires certain findings. The fights specified in paragraph (1) are the fight of access to government records and the right to attend, observe and be heard at public meetings. This part of section 3(b)(3) §eems to conflict with the first part. · Finally, section 3(b)(3) requires that particularized findings be made demonstrating a substantial probability of serious harm that the "denial" will avert. A "denial" seems to most lo$cally refer to denial of access to records. Section 3(b)(3) is not a clear exPression of the intent to allow application of the limitations to deny access to records and to hold closed sessions. SCA 7 does not contain any guidance about the nature of the "serious harm to the public interest" that a denial requires. SCA 7 seems to provide that disclosure of records relating to the fair and efficient administration of justice, for example, sometimes is in the public interest, sometimes may cause moderate harm to the public interest, and sometimes may cause serious harm to the public interest. However, neither anything in SCA 7, nor existing law, provides standards for how to determine the level of harm caused to the public by the disclosure. This is, along with the general terms of limitations set forth in section 3, are an invitation to litigation. In addition to practically applying particularized findings, cities would 15ave to cite why the serious harm cannot be averted by reasonable alternatives. What would be a reasonable alternative to denying access to records pertaining to a criminal investigation? What would be a reasonable alternative to holding a closed session to discuss the existing facts and circumstances that may result in litigation against a city? SCA 7 sets up a three-part test: The record or the meeting must relate to one of the identified areas (protect public safety or private property, etc.). Denial of that recordl or the holding of that meeting in closed session, must be based on the substantial probability of serious harm to the public interest. Finally, the serious harm cannot be averted by reasonable alternatives. By the time the custodian of records-reaches the third part of the test, s/he has determined that the record relates to one of the identified areas; and that there is a substantial probability of serious harm to the ~' .. SCA 7, Burton Page 5 of 7 public interest if the record is disclosed. What is a reasonable alternative to denying access other than disclosure? The Affects on the Deliberative Process The core of the deliberative process privilege should be retained. The courts in at least two cases that the sponsors cite to support SCA 7(California First Amendment Coalition v. Wilson and Wilson v. Los Angeles Times) denied access to pre-decisional factual material, citing the deliberative process privilege. Each of these cases acknowledges that the privilege protects candid consideration of alternatives; allows public officials to "think out loud," to test policy positions without concern that the rejected ideas will become the focus of public debate; and protects the integrity of decision-making by confirming that officials should be judged by what they decide, not what they considered before making up their minds. There is a difference between pre-decisional facts and the process of reaching a decision. It is not necessary to eliminate the entire deliberative process privilege 'in order to eliminate the exemption for pre-decisional facts. Proposed Amendments The League is encouraged by our lengthy discussions with the sponsors of the measure that we may arrive at a mutually acceptable constitutional amendment. Toward that end, the following is a list of possible amendments to address the concerns outlined in this letter. Protection of privacy interests (Section 3(b)(2)) 1. SCA 7 provides that the Le~slature may afford the protection of information about private individuals submitted to or obtained by the government. AMENDMENT: Change "private individuals" to "individuals" o¥ other phrase that clarifies that the le~slation may apply to government officers and employees. 2. SCA 7 provides that the Legislature may not afford for the protection of information relating to the qualifications or fitness of a person for any elective or appointive office. AMENDMENT: Change to state that the Legislature may not provide for the protection of information relating to the qualifications or fitness of a person for any elective office or any appointment to a board or commission. 3. SCA 7 relies solely on the constitutional right of privacy (Art. I, § 1) to protect confidential information submitted to, obtained, or generated, by local SCA 7, Burton Page 6 of 7 government. The constitutional right of privacy does not protect certain types of information that should remain confidential. Further, the government may not shield confidential information from the public based upon an individual's right to privacy regarding that information. AMENDMENT: Clarify that in order to protect information about an individual from public disclosure, le~slation must permit government to maintain the confidentiality of that information. Denial of Access to Public Records and Closed Sessions (Section 3Co)(3)) 1. Section 3 Co)(3) of SCA 7 is intended to cover access to public records and access to public meetings. The intent is not clearly set forth in the language of the section. AMENDMENT: Change "information" (line 2) to "records made or received in connection with the official business of government and the public's fight to attend, observe, and be heard at public meetings..." 2. Section 3 (b)(3) of SCA 7 provides that the Legislature can limit access to records and the right to attend public meetings only as necessary to protect public safety or private property; to ensure the fair and effective administration of justice; or to prov'ide for the preservation of public funds and resources. AMENDMENT: Authorize the Legislature to limit access to records and the right to attend public meetings "only as necessary to prevent serious harm to the following public interests: protection of public safety, public health, or private property; fair and effective administration of justice; preservation of public funds, policies, and resources." Add other categories if necessary to encompass existing exemptions from disclosure of public records. 3. Section 3 (b)(3) of SCA 7 provides that when a local government relies on one of the limiting statutes (see no. 2), to deny access to a public record or to conduct a closed session meeting, particularized findings must be made demonstrating the substantial probability of serious harm to the public interest if the record is disclosed or the meeting is held in public; and that this harm cannot be averted by reasonable alternatives. AMENDM]ENT: Replace the requirement to make particularized findings with a requirement (a) to identify the relevant public interest (listed above); (b) to explain why denying access to the record, or holding the closed session is essential to preserving the relevant public interest; and (c) to state that there SCA 7, Burton Page 7 of 7 are no reasonable alternatives to denying the record or holding a closed . sessions that adequately protect the identified public interest. In general,' remove requirement to make "findings" of any kind; require a connection to be made between the listed categories and the subject matter of the public record or the closed session.] 4. Section 3 Co)(3) of SCA 7 provides that the decision to deny access to a public record or hold a closed session may not be "broader in scope or longer in duration than necessary to avert the identified harm." AMENDMENT: Change this limitation so denial of access to a public record or holding a closed session "is narrowly tailored to safeguard the identified public interest." POSSIBLE AMENDMENT: Limit the application of this provision to access to public records. In light of the complexities of SCA 7, the League requests that you and the sponsors of the measure remain open to further discussion and suggestions. We look forward to future discussions and are hopeful that with additional amendments we will arrive at a mutually a~eeable measure. Thank you for working with us. If you have any questions, please call Amy Brown at 916-658-8279. Respectfully~ Amy Brown Legislative Representative cc: Chair and Members, Senate Governmental Organization Committ~. Arthur Terzakis, Senate Governmental Organization Committee Rodger Dillon, Office of Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton Tom Newton, General Counsel, California Newspaper Publishers' Association Terry Francke, General Counsel, California First Amendment Coalition From: Trudy Slater To: Kunz, Donna; Matlock, Eric; Thiltgen, Bart Date: 3/13/02 3:44PM Subject: Rescheduled Leg. & Lit. meeting At Councilmember Benham's request, and with committee member concurrence, the Leg. & Lit. meeting scheduled for March 18 is cancelled. It has been rescheduled for April 15, 2002, at 1:00 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room.. CC: Parks, Jean; Tandy, Alan