2026-03-09 - Minutes DRAFT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

including discussion of a new name that would be more āinaʻ-based. She also reported that Ashley’s primary focus was to identify what changes might be needed to the Charter and that follow-up meetings were expected to occur frequently in advance of the May 14 charter filing deadline. Cmr. Rosam stated that the intent appeared to be to keep the Charter language more general, with greater detail placed in the Code and Rules so changes could be made more easily in the future. She then raised questions about how commissioners could participate in those discussions given Sunshine Law limitations. DCC Campbell responded that commissioners act in two capacities, both as commissioners and as private individuals. She stated that, as private individuals, commissioners may hold opinions and participate personally, but that the Commission as a body could not readily develop an official position without holding additional public meetings. She explained that, if the Commission wanted to discuss a proposal and formulate a Commission position, it would need to do so through a properly noticed meeting process, and potentially through a Permitted Interaction Group if work outside a meeting were needed. She further cautioned commissioners to be mindful of Sunshine Law requirements and serial communications. In response to questions from Cmr. Markoff and Chr. Chang, DCC Campbell further explained the limitations on how many commissioners could gather outside a noticed meeting to discuss Commission business. She distinguished the summit itself, which qualified as a third-party event that commissioners could attend under an exception to the open meetings law, from later efforts by commissioners to work together on a position regarding Charter amendments, which would constitute Commission business and require a different process. Chr. Chang expressed concern that, if Charter or Code amendments result from the summit discussions, the Commission may have limited ability to ensure those changes improve rather than worsen the program. Cmr. Rosam responded that, absent a formal Commission position, the process would likely move forward based on broader community input rather than the Commission speaking as a body. Cmr. Markoff added that Ashley appeared to be conducting thorough research and would likely seek input from individuals in their personal capacities. DCC Campbell again cautioned commissioners to be careful about serial communications and advised that the agenda item was limited to reporting on the summit rather than discussing potential next steps. Chr. Chang then stated that she had responded to a Doodle poll circulated by Ashley regarding follow-up meetings, but later questioned whether doing so was advisable. Mr. Schapiro stated that, in his role with the Department of Finance, he intended to remain actively involved in the process to the extent his time and role allowed. He stated that he had also responded to the Doodle poll, planned to attend follow-up meetings, and expected to continue discussions with the relevant team. He further stated that, if Charter amendments were ultimately proposed, they would go to the ballot in November for public decision. Chr. Chang then stated that she would withdraw her Doodle response. Cmr. Markoff added that one item not yet mentioned was a commitment to explore the possibility of Zoom participation for meetings, which he supported. V. Chr. Britt stated that Zoom would be beneficial, but felt that, for meetings like the present one, commissioners should still attend in person. Mr. Schapiro clarified that he had only stated that the possibility of Zoom participation was being explored for a tentative future date. Chr. Chang noted that the discussion was moving DRAFT v.1 BS - Minutes of March 9, 2026 Page 21