Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-27 CRC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING F THE CITY F CH U LA V1 STA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION F brua[y 27, 2006 City Attorney's Conference Room 4.02 p. rn. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harriet Acton, Cheryl Cox, Humberto P ra a, Jr." William Richter, Norma Toothman MEMBERS ABSENT: Armida Martin del Campo STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth !Wagner Hull 1. Roll Call. The roll was called and members were noted as present or absent as indicated above 2. Airal of Minutes. Member Cox suggested a wording change on Page 4, so that the last sentence of Paragraph 3 should read: "She explained that in the case of the most recent appointment, due to the holidays and other commitments the Council did the appointment in less time." It was MSUC Co /Para a to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2006 meeting as amended above. 3. Further Consideration of Referral from City Council Regarding Section 300 of the City Charter Related to Council Vacancies Member Cox referred to the memo prepared by Assistant City Attorney Hull regarding proposed modifications to the Charter to clarify the Council appointment process, and asked Attorney Hull to walk the Commission through the items delineated. Attorney Hull explained that the strikeoutlunderline draft of the language prohibiting an appointed Coun ilmer ber from running as n incumbent in the next election adds wording to the effect that the appointee may not seek nomination and election to said office until a period of one year from the termination of the appointed term has elapsed. Discussion ensued regarding whether the ono -year period was a necessary stipulation. For instance, if the appointee's term ended in January, and there was an election for that same seat or a different Council seat in June or November, the former appointee would not be running as an incumbent, but the election would be less than a year from the termination of his /her appointed term. Members question if the restriction should only apply to the seat the appointee is filling} or to any seat that comes up for an election. It was Member Co ' feeling that the Council ultimately has to make the decision on whether or not an appointee can run as an incumbent, and this decision is not the Board's purview. However, she felt the Commission could come up with language for two scenarios that Council could use in their determination, one stipulating that appointees rust remain out of office for a certain period of time after the termination of their appointment, and one stating that there would be no barriers to an appointee running for a Council seat that became vacant upon or -after the termination of the appointment. After reviewing the language in the current Section 300$ and discussing variations on the language presented by the Attorney, Member Cox suggested offering the Council the following two components to Section D. Charter Review Commission I February 27, 2006 No person shall be eligible for nomination and election to the office of City Councilmember or Mayor for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Council office for a period of two consecutive terms or the office of Mayor for two 2 consecutive terms, may again seek nomination and election to said offices of Council or Mayor respectively until a period of one year from the termination of the second terra for councilmember or Mayor has elapsed; provided however, that any person who is appointed by the council to fill the office of Council or Mayor may not seek nomination and election to said offices of council or Mayor until a period of one year from the termination of the appointed term has elapsed. Said appointee shall be eligible to seek nomination and election for two (2) gull terns thereafter. Any person elected in a special election for the balance of a regular term of Mayor and/or council for a period of two years or less may seek nomination and election for.tro full terms thereafter. (2) No person shall be eligible for nomination and election to the office of City Councilm tuber or Mayor for more than two 2 consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Council office for a period of two consecutive terns or the office of Mayor for two 2 consecutive terms} may again seek nomination and election to said offices of council or Mayo r respectively until a period of one I year from the termination of the second terra for council member or mayor has elapsed; provided,, however, that any person who is appointed by the council to fill the office of Council or Mayor shall be eligible to seek nomination and election for r 2 full ,eras thereafter, Any person elected in a special election for the balance of a regular term of Mayor and /or Council for a period of two 2 years or less may seek nomination and election for two (2) full terms thereafter. Commission members discussed the obvious advantage of name recognition that an incumbent has when running for the seat to which he was appointed. The flip side of that, however, is that if an appointee is doing an excellent job and has spent several months becoming knowledgeable about City operations} he /she is precluded from continuing on in that position. Attorney Full will prepare strikeout/underline language reflecting today's discussion for the Board's consideration at the net meeting. At this point, Attorney Hull suggested that before further discussions continued, members of the public who did not wish to stay for the entire meeting right grant to present their comments. Chair Acton aid if anyone present would like to speak. Peter 1l atr -- Mr. li atry presented a packet of information to the Board members, including letter he had written to members of the City council in October 2005 regarding the vacancy of Patty Davis' seat} a response from councilman undone indicating his agreement that an appointee should not run in upcoming elections as an incumbent, councilman Ctneda' similar comments, and a letter from Mr. W try to La Pren a regarding the appointment process of December 16. He reiterated earlier comments he had crude about incumbents in Chula Vista nearer having lost an election since 1968 and expressed his displeasure with the failure of the Council to be open about the appointment process they used in December. He felt it was wrong for an incumbent appointee to be able to run for that scat and that the public should have been able to vote for someone who walked the precincts and was elected on their credentials. H advocated that the Board develop language precluding an incumbent appointee from seeking election for any seat for a period of sic months or a year. The net item of discussion was information regarding the appointment process in other jurisdictions. Attorney Hull indicated that the agenda packets included information from the California Government code and a chart of Charter cities' Policies on filling unanticipated city hart r evie Commission n 2 February 27, 2006 Council vacancies from the Cities of Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Modesto, San Diego, San Francisco, San .dose, Sacramento and Santa Clara. Ms. lull referred to several other items which had been included in the agenda packets: a copy of the checklist used for the recent Council appointment and a copy of the application for that vacancy, as all as a copy of the application for Boards and Commissions vacancies, and a draft Council policy regarding Appointment and Interview Procedures to Fill Unanticipated Council Vacancies. The Commission then discussed the draft Policy 1 g - 1 and reviewed the process detailed within, proposing the following wording changes: Page 2, Item 3, regarding the application for City Council, the Commission concurred that there was no necessity for the applicant to provide 2 letters of recommendation. Page 2, Item , the first sentence to read: "The Council shall schedule a council meeting within days at which each applicant shall have three minutes to speak in open session to the Council." Page 3, Item 7, to read: "The Council may then continue meeting in open session or reconvene within 7 days to continua the interview process." Page 3, item 8, to read; "Those applicants receiving two or more votes will be given 30 minutes to address the Council, including a presentation and questions and answers. 1k Page 3, Item 9} to read: "The Council will then vote in successive public ballots until a candidate is unanimously selected.'" Attorney Hull referred to a mock calendar showing the steps in the process. Member mber Cox asked if this procedure had been in effect wh an the recent vacancy was filled, could the timeframe have been met due to the holidays involved. Attorney Hull responded that she believed it could have, and referred to Section 2 in the draft Council policy, which allows for the application period to be extended if the 1 Oth day falls on a weekend or legal holiday. Member Cox questioned whether r this policy could be changed when a future vacancy occurred or is the Council bound to follow the procedures adopted in the resolution approving the policy. Attorney Hull explained that the Council can amend any Council policy by a 315ths vote, but that the resolution would have to be agendi ed, and it would be considered at a public meeting. It was her belief that the Council would like to have a policy in place rather than having to craft one during each vacancy (as recently occurred). It became apparent that it would have. been helpful to have had something in writing to guide theca through the process. Attorney lull then reminded the Board that they had not given her clear direction on the issue of election versus appointment. Member Cox questioned ghat was in place currently. Attorney Hull responded that if there is n anticipated vacancy} the Council is supposed to make a good faith effort to appoint within 30 days. If that cannot be accomplished, a special election is supposed to be called unless there is loss than 9 months remaining on the term. The Beard discussed various "break points" where they felt it wouId be appropriate to have a special election rather than an appointment. The issue of the cost of having an election was raised by Member Cox, but Members P raza and Richter felt that, although it ,night be expensive, the public deserved the right to choose their representative on the Council. Members Toothrnan and Acton agreed, as ell as Member Cox. The Attorney was asked to draft language that if there was one year or more remaining on the terra, the Council shall call an election. The Board then considered the -day deadline for the Council to make an appointment, and discussed expanding this to possibly 45 days. It was decided to leave the 30 day time limit in place. Charter Review Commission 3 February 27, 2006 Member Cox requested Attorney Hull to bring back at the next meeting a list delineating the proposed changes by category, e.g., Council Policy changes, Charter changes, and ordinance changes. Ms. Hull thought this was an excellent suggestion and will provide this information at the ]March 27 meeting. Chair Acton returned to the published agenda. 4. New Business. — None. 5. Public Comments. Peter W trr — 11,1'lr. Watry called the Board's attention to Page 3, Item 9 of the proposed Council Policy states that "The Council will then vote in successive public ballots until a candidate is unanim selected." His concern was that a unanimous vote could be hard to attain and then an election ,night have to be held. He suggested changing the word `tunanimou ;? to it majority 1)1 thereby requiring only three affirmative votes to appoint. Attorney Hull explained that the process has been this way for the past 25 years. The voting keeps going on until the Council reaches an agreement. Also, if a candidate received a majority vote during the consideration process, it would preclude the rest of the candidates from being considered. She explained that the present process assures that all candidates have the same opportunity to be selected by making it a unanimous decision. After discussion among the members, the Board agreed that Ms. bull's clarification ,Wade the process understandable, and it was in fact probably better to leave the word It unanimous" In the proposed policy. Attorney Hull suggested that the Board could leave the existing language, but they could mull over the issue and if they want to revisit It at the next meeting, they can bring any new insights they right have at that time. Member Cox also felt it was important that the Council was aware that the issue of ii majority Z7 versus Uunanimous" had been discussed, and that perhaps two versions should be forwarded for their consideration, one indicating that "The Council will then vote in successive public ballots until a candidate is selected by at majority vote of the Council )I r, alternatively, "The Council will then vote in successive public ballots until a candidate is unanimously selected." 6. Members' Comments. Acne. 7. Adiournment. NEXT MEETING: ]MONDAY, MARCH 27 @ 4:00 P.M. in the Executive Conference Room MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5.10 p.m. Ann BarVeri Jecor ding Secretary Charter Review Commission 4 February 27, 2006