September 18, 2012 – Council Meeting

September 18, 2012 – Council Meeting

SUMMARY FROM THE GALLERY:

Vote to establish a Business Tourism Improvement District that would include an additional 1% fee to all hotels.

All modifications were accepted as proposed by the ACLU with the exception of ICE detainers.  Modifications to that agreement will be reviewed at the next meeting and will comply with ACLU recommendations.  All UASI grants will be reviewed by council prior to proceeding with application.

Item 9 ESTABLISH THE BERKELEY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Need to look at collaboration between University and the Golden Gate and the potential of 10,00 new visitors to bring about an environment that will foster tourism and a function of how the city is laid out over the next 100 years.

Accept supplemental report for change of start date

STAFF REPORT

Tourism BID that is the same model for a business district but this only relates to those entities that charge transient occupancy tax.  This will double their budget which is approx $350K currently.   Purpose of the fund would double the funds to promote Berkeley and increase hotel usage.  Currently not enough staff for marketing.  Is a November 1 start date.  Funds will be held in a separate account and spend.   Promotion will be handled by Visit Berkeley

Protests only were 8% so the protest is out.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

Maio:  People at home don’t know what we are doing.  We are proposing an additional 1% tax directly from the hotels not through the transient occupancy tax.  Most hotels support this.  The protests totaled only represent 8% of the funds.  Move establishment of TBID for 5 years and will access annually and contract with Visit Berkeley.

Wozniak:  Support the resolution but it is also good for the city because as  hotel use increases the income to the city from transient occupancy tax increases.

VOTE:

Unanimous
Item 10. MUTUAL AID MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

STAFF REPORT

UASI:  Civil liberties must apply to Berkeley policies.  Berkeley police will operate only under Berkeley leadership and by Berkeley standards even if more strict than other operations.  Training must be transparent to the public.  All grant applications must be made public as well as any training.

ICE:  Santa Clara policy was incorporated into Berkeley.  Only serious or violent crimes are

ICE agents will not have access to Berkeley prisoners.  Will only honor holds for serious or violent felons.

NICRIC:  Follow federal guidelines.  NICRIC be reduced to writing would not apply for non-civil disobedience.  Every SARS must be approved by captain.   Photography and recruiting are not considered suspicious activity.  Non-violent civil disobedience will not be subject to surveilance.

MUTUAL AID:  Public disclosure and community involvement must be included in any mutual aid agreement.

UCPD: Consistency of adoption on coordinated activities – especially towing.

ACLU has offered a letter of suggested modifications which has been adopted by BPD.  (new letter – public has not seen):  Confidentiality of information gathered by suspicious activity.  Department must adhere to privacy laws.

Bates:  This will be held over so the public has had a chance to review the document from the ACLU and the modifications that will be adopted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS

  • ACLU – Glad to hear the city is in agreement.  NICRIC suggested changes will close some ambiguity holes.  Categories of suspicious activities that were not necessarily criminal had some redundancy.  Stick with 4th amendment standard of true suspicious activity.  Detainers:  stick with convictions, don’t enforce if juvenile. Grants need to be transparent have council oversight and additional public awareness of the equipment being purchased under Urban Warfare.
  • Will there be anything that would not be available to the public in a PDR?
  • Concerned that BPD will still have some interaction with ICE representatives.
  • Cut ties with NICRIC and UASI  we don’t need it  Total II
  • Agree with ACLU and no detainer policy and no collaboration with ICE.  If someone has done their time in jail then they should not be detained by ICE – it is double jeopardy
  • Human Rights Ordinance of 1990 states that Berkeley will promote universal civil rights and these agreements do mention the ordinance in any manner.
  • National Lawyers Guild – Jail detainer should follow Santa Clara at a maximum and but would prefer it follow the ACLU of no detainers.  There are an average of 2 ICE holds a month in Berkeley.
  • Sever ties with NICRIC and UASI or you are supporting a secret police state.  Do not support UASI.
  • What is considered “criminal”  how do you identify non-violent if it is woven into violent behavior.
  • We are a sanctuary city – the ICE detainers do not follow that philosophy
  • Unclear a mention that we are changing the policy of detaining juveniles.   Total 3
  • Transparency will be most important in any future execution.  Undercover police should not be doing traffic stops unless we know who is ordering them.  SARS should also have two civilians review the reports before they are submitted.
  • Need to minimize the effects of mutual cooperation and consistently apply the City of Refuge mandate.
  • Concern about floor of any grant without council approval (currently $50,000).
  • Police cannot be used to quiet the public voice
  • Program 1033 has provided equipment to the BPD – curious as to what has been provided to BPD through this program.  Not part of any of these agreements and not transparent.
  • Berkeley Police do a good job but they do selectively enforce the law biggest criminals are developers and drug dealers
  • Facial recognition programs and trap wire are being regularly used through the NSA so the hand off of an investigation to an “agency” does not have the same security to the individual and how the information is used by other agencies.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

Arreguin:  The ACLU summarized all my issues so I feel we should adopt these recommended changes and move forward.

Wozniak:  I support the changes but have a comment.

Maio:  I still have some questions

Anderson:  I want some discussion.

Capitelli:  I am comfortable moving forward but don’t know why we need to cooperate with ICE at all.

Worthington:  I don’t know why we need to move forward without discussion

Bates:  So I guess we will have a discussion.

Arreguin:  We can establish a separate policy for grant funding for UASI and we should have all these grants come to council for approval.  Our policy should not mirror the states but should be limited to “current” convictions.  Juvenile inmates should adopt the Santa Clara model if we don’t get rid of it in total.  Juveniles should be dealt with separately.  Berkeley will be a front runner in adopting these policies throughout the entire country.

Wozniak:  I agree with the ACLU suggestions and the fact that the staff has agreed to incorporate these.  I want to recommend around the grant applications I would make a distinction between a grant application and a grant similar to the way we put a project out for bid for any item under $50K.  Public notice would be required with a grant application is submitted.

Anderson:  We became alarmed last November after the Oakland debaucle.  All these “gifts” from the government come with strings attached that we might not be able to see right away.  I think the work that has been done by ALL parties has been remarkable.  Large agencies control information that they deem “sensitive”.   I am concerned about the “secrecy” around these agreements with these agencies.  I want some degree of assurances that we will not be surprised by any form of secrecy in the future.

Capitelli:  Is it practical for the city to apply for these grants without our approval and then have us say no?  My other issue is our cooperation with ICE.  We are establishing two different systems – whether or not you are a citizen?  So non-citizens don’t have the same rights?  Santa Clara does not enforce any ICE detainers because ICE does not reimburse.  I am not ready to vote on this tonight.  I don’t like the policy of two different standards for people.

Bates:  What is the different standard for distinction of citizens or non-citizens?

Maio:  A citizen would not be subjected to an ICE hold and deportation.  How much of a muzzle would we have if we sign a MOU agreement – how much transparency will the public have.  Will be have as many ICE referrals if we go to this new policy?  The MOUs will all be on-line, yes?  I support having all proposed grant applications as an information before moving foward.  Would there be any reason we would not be able to speak as a result of these agreements and be held to a secrecy pledge.  I don’t know why we would make a different standard for juveniles.

Bates:  I have come full circle so I am ready to vote.  So if a juvenile does a violent crime what are we going to do with that person?

City Attorney:  Actually we are not adopting the ACLU recommendations.

ACLU:  I was following until now but you have confused me.

Bates:  You have convinced me.  We need to hold this over.

City Manager:  We can approve everything except the ICE detainer provisions.

 

Motion and VOTE:

Council will get a list of all proposed grants less than $50K and that if we request something come to council it can do so.

Move all the modifications to everything else except ICE.

Unanimous – Worthington absent