Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-27 CRC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR LA MEETING of THE CITY of CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION March 27, 2006 City Attorney's Conference Room 4.05 p. m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harriet Acton, Cheryl Cox, Humberto Pera a, Jr., William Richter, hter, forma Toothrnan MEMBERS ABSENT: Armida Martin del Campo STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Wagner Hull 1. Doll Cell. The roll was called and members were noted as present or absent as indicated above. 2. Approval of Minutes. It was MS Co /Per a to approve the minutes of the February 27, 2006 meeting as presented. 3. Further Consideration of Referral from City Council Regarding Section 300 of the City Charter Related to Filing ounoil Vacancies Chair Acton opened the item for discussion. Nick Aguilar expressed his desire to comment on Attachment 2 regarding revisions to Section 303. He referred to option A} item 4, Minimal Remaining Tern, where it states, "If the Council is unable to make an appointment, the Council's power to appoint within 30 days of declaration ,of vacancy is hereby extended for the duration of such minimal regaining term until filled." He was concerned that this wording does not clarify ghat constitutes a minimal term. Attorney Hull responded that that would be determined by what is approved under Section Soo, in Attachment 1, vhere two options are presented, one of which requires a one -year hiatus. Attorney Hull referred to Attachment I , which deals. with whether an appointee to a vacant Council seat should be required to take a one -gear hiatus after the appointed terra expires, or if they may seek election without any hiatus. Attachment 1 presents 3 variations for Section : the existing language, wording for a one -year hiatus, and wording for no hiatus. Discussion ensued regarding the risks of limiting the pool of good candidates by requiring e hiatus, the responsibility the Council has to choose the best person for the position, and the possibility of the Council deciding the appointment process on a case -by -case basis depending on the qualifications of the candidates. Peter lltrr voiced his opinion that the appointment process is not about who is the best candidate but rather who is going to decide that — the electorate or the 4 remaining Councilrner ber . He also Mentioned that he had checked with the Registrar's office and even If an incumbent appointed Coun ilper on was barred from running for that seat when the appointment expired, he or she could run for another Council seat and refer to themselves on the ballot as an appointed Coun ilmernber. He expressed his support for Option 1. Charter Review Commission March 27, 2006 The Members discussed whether both options should be forwarded to the City Council to decide between on a case -by -case basis. Nick A -guilar questioned whether the individual who is appointed should be given the advantage of using his /her incumbency in the election. when a special election is held, the electorate is able to express their choice of candidate. The incumbent always has a strong advantage over other candidates who may be more qualified than the appointee. He urged the Board to take this into consideration when making their recommendations to the City Council. The members discussed whether to recommend that the Council adopt option 1 since the public perception regarding the advantage of incumbency was a very strong argument. They also discussed that option 2 placed the onus on the Council to make their appointments on a case-by- case basis dependent on the qualifications of the applicants. Member Toothrnan inquired if the Board could forward both options to the Council, but recommend option 1 as being the Board's choice. Sara Lon aneoker indicated he felt the person who was appointed could be looked upon as the caretaker of the seat and other qualified individuals could wait until the seat was vacant to run for it in are open election. Ger Scott agreed that good candidates often are appointed to a vacancy and precluding them from running could be a disservice to the community; however, he felt that in other instances appointments were made under cronyism, and therefore he felt Option I was a good choice. Sander Duncan spoke regarding the perceived public mistrust of the City}s politicians. after the appointment of Patricia Chavez. She felt a one -year hiatus was a good suggestion and voiced her support for Option 1. Chair Acton asked if there were any ether comments from the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding whether to send forward one or both options to the Council. Member Richter reviewed the Board's options for making a recommendation to the City Council. He indicated that they could make a motion to forward either option 1 t option 2, or both to Council. It was Moved /Seconded (R iohterJToothr an to forward to the City Council option 1 as revised language for Charter Section Soo D, stipulating that there be a one -year hiatus from office after an appointee's term expires. The motion carried by the following Grote: AYES: Members Acton, Per a, Richter, Toothr an- I ES: Member Cox ABSENT: Member Martin del Campo Discussion proceeded to Attachment 2, a draft Council policy regarding the appointment and interview procedure to fill unanticipated Council Vacancies. The Members discussed that the purpose of the Charter review Commission is to review items of interest to the Charter. Normally the Commission would not be drafting Council policies, and they do not believe this should be precedent setting for the Charter review Commission to come up with the language for Council policies. Attorney Hull explained that this proposed Council policy resulted from the appointment process procedure that the Charter Review Commission had been asked to review, and that the Commission had determined that not all the issues they were requested to study should be addressed in the Charter. That is why they have been asked to approve the language in the proposed Council policy. Charter Review Conunission 2 March 27, 2006 Peter W tr expressed his concern regarding ]tern 6 wherein it states that "Each C un ilmemb r will then submit up to three names to the Clerk, and each applicant receiving two or more votes will continue in the pr s." He felt that since it is Council procedure for the Mayor r to speak first, it presents the Mayor with an advantage since the other C un ilmemb rs are then aware of the names he is proposing and can add those names to their own lists. Member Cox suggested alternate language, to wit: 6. "The Council shall schedule a council meeting within five days at which each applicant shall have three minutes to speak in open session to the Council. At that ra ting each C un ilmemb rwill then submit in writin.g up to three names to the City Clerk. Each applicant receiving two or more votes will continue in the process." It was also suggested that additional language be inserted after the second sentence, stating "The City Clerk shall then publicly announce the nominees, and the names of the C u ncilmembers who made the nomination." She asked Attorney lull if there was anything precluding the Council from raking their selections public, and there was nothing the attorney was aware of. The Commission concurred with this new language and Attorney Hull was asked to prepare a revision to the proposed Council policy including these comments and bring it back to the Commission at their next meeting. The Commission moved n to discussion of Section 303, Vacancies, for which two options were presented for review. Option A deals with vacancies when there is less than a year remaining in the term, and the Council shall have to make an appointment within 30 days. if there is more than a year remaining in the terra, the Council shall call a special election. Option B is similar but is worded differently. item C under both options is the rain area where the two are different. The Commissioners asked Attorney Hull for clarification of the differences. Attorney Hull indicated that in Option A, the Council has no option but to appoint if there is one year or less retraining in the term. if they can't make an appointment within 30 days, their power to appoint continues on beyond the 30 days or the seat remains vacant. Discussion ensued regarding the 3 -day period to appoint, whether to eliminate the continuation period, and the possibility of consequences if an appointment was not made within 30 days. The Commission requested Attorney Hull to look at other jurisdictions' processes and see if they have any consequences for an appointment not being rude within the prescribed time period. The second part of Option A proposes that if there is more than one year remaining on the term. a special election will have to be called. Option B, Item C, proposes that ;the City Council shall use its best efforts in good faith to fill such vacancy by appointment within thirty days. of their declaration of the eistne of the vacancy if o n the day the Council declares the vacancy less than one 1 year remains in the term. if more than one year remains in the term, the Council shall call a special election." Section 2 clarifies this further and eliminates the language regarding calling a special election to be held within 90 days unless there is a regular municipal or statewide election scheduled to be held within 180 days of the declaration of the vacancy. The Commissioners concurred that Option A was more precise and allowed less flexibility than Option B. Attorney Hull was requested to bring back Option A at next month's meeting, with the strikeouts rem oved so the Commission can review this option in its entirety. At that ti e , the Commission can also review the information on what ether jurisdictions de when an appointment cannot be made within 30 days. Nick Aal referred to the wording in Section 303 A. regarding temporary illnesses and suggested that perhaps a time limit should be placed on holding a vacancy open for a temporary illness so that it does not go on indefinitely. Discussion ensued regarding the determination of Charter Review Conunission 3 March 27, 2006 when a person is rnntlr disabled to the point of not being able to attend meetings, and if language should be included dealing with a finite number of meetings being missed that would constitute a vacancy of the Council seat. 4. New Business. — None. 5. Public Comments — None. 6. Members' Comments. None. 7. Ad'eurnm nt. NEXT MEETING, MONDAY, APRIL 24 @ 4:00 P.M. in the Executive Conference Room MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:20 p.m. �V MaoWn Barbieri Rkording Secretary Charter Review Commission 4 March 27, 2006