The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-04-24 CRC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW IE1l COMMISSION I1 ISSIO April 24, 2006 City Attorney's Conference Room 4:00--..p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Harriet Acton, Cheryl Cox, Humberto Pera a, Jr., Armada Martin Del Campo, and William Richter MEMBERS ABSENT: Norma Tooth an STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Wagner Hull 1. Doll Call. The roll was called and members were noted as present or absent as indicated above. 2. Approval of Minutes of larch 27, 2006 Meeting. There were two corrections made to Page 2 of the March 27 minutes. The spelling of Sam Longa res was corrected to read Lo gave ker, and in the Grote to forward option 1 to the City Council, Member Actor's name was misspelled as "Action ". It was I S C Pera a/ i hter to approve the minutes of March h 27, 2006 as corrected. 3. Review of revisions made to Council Policy 106-01 entitled "Appointment and lntervie r, Procedures to Fill Unanticipated Council Vacancies" Attorney Hull explained that the Council Policy before the Commission today reflects the changes suggested at last month's meeting, in particular the language on Page 2, Item 6, where the amended language is underlined. The Commission concurred with these changes. Commissioner Cox questioned why, under Item 2, the vacancy period ends at 3 :00 p.m. rather than :00 p.m. on the tenth day. Attorney Hull indicated that that was to allow the Clerk time to compile the applications, and to ensure people weren't arriving at City Hall at -00 p.m. to submit their applications. Under Item 1, the wording was changed from the Council will be attempting to appoint a Co noilmember,..." to `...the Council will atterr, to appoint, 31 etc. Commissioner Cox asked Ms. Hull if this process falls within the 30 day requirement to appoint, and Attorney Hull indicated the process will be completed within 22 days. The Council then has the option of making the appointment at that time or waiting a week, which would take It to 29 days, still within the 30 day requirement. Chair Acton ask ed if any m e m bers of the public wished to speak on this issue. There were no public comments. It was I S C (Acton/Cox) to approve the wording changes to the policy and send it forward to the City Council for adoption. 4. Further Review and Discussion of Charter Section 303@ and Other Jurisdictions' Processes with Regard to Election /Appointment Procedures. Charter Review Commission I April 24, 2006 = Attorney Hull referred to the enclosures in the Commission's packets referred to as option A and B. These options were discussed at the March meeting and have been cleaned up to reflect comments made by the Commission at that meeting. With regard to other jurisdictions, general laver cities have to appoint within 3o days or have a special election. If they fail to do either of hose, the seat remains vacant until the next regular election. The Cities of Los Angeles, Modesto, San Diego and Santa Clara all have similar language to make an appointment or hold a Special Election, but here are no consequences if they do not meet the 30 day timefrar e. Discussion followed regarding the -problems with having the seat remain vacant for a year, or requiring a Special Election but not being able to get a four - fifths vote to fund it. The Commission compared options A and B and reviewed the definition of unanticipated versus anticipated vacancies, the desire to place consequences for not appointing within 30 days, changing the 30 day period to 60 days, and the ramifications of having a special election or a long vacancy. It was noted that in the past 25 years, an appointment was always made within the 30 day requirement even if it took numerous votes to achieve that selection. At this tine, Chair Acton invited input from the members of the public. Deter 1 — lair. vatry indicated that historically he knew of an incident where the vote to appoint a C o u n ci I mem ber was split 2 to 2, but when the issue of a special election was raised and determined to be too costly, the four councilrnernbers cane to agreement on an appointee. Sandy Duncan — I1.IIs. Duncan referred to the most recent vacancy on the Council, and how here was very little time to consider the appointment due to the holidays and people being away. Attorney Hull explained that once a letter is received from a Council, er ber indicating his /her resignation, the Mayor, by provisions in the Charter, is required to declare the position vacant as of the date the letter was received. Therefore, the Council had no choice but to make the appointment within the timefrarne allowed. Discussion ensued regarding changing the language in Section 303 A. to read " ... or within fire da s f the effective date of resignation as set forth in such letter of resignation, as .applicable.' This would male the language in the Charter consistent with the language in the proposed Council Polio,. The Commission then reviewed the language on Page 2, Paragraph 2 of Option and discussed placing a consequence here. It was moved/seconded (Cox/Acton to change the first sentence in this paragraph to read, "If the Council is unable to make an appointment, the Council's power to appoint with in 30 days of declaration of vacancy is hereby terminated for the duration of such minimal remaining term and the seam will remain vacant." The proposed ,notion was discussed further, and Commissioner Cox amended the original motion, as follows. It was moved /seconded (Cox/Acton to change the first sentence of option A, Page 2, Paragraph 2, as indicated above, but to also change the second sentence to read, "The Council shall use good faith and best efforts to reach agreement on such an appointment." The remainder of the sentence is to be deleted. Commissioner Peralta indicated he had concerns with this language, inasmuch as the position could remain vacant for a period of 9 or 10 months, which would hamper the Council's ability to do the City's business. Discussion then followed regarding alternatives to the Council's not Charter Review Commission 2 April 24, 2006 making ing an appointment within 30 days, including making the appointment by majority vote rather than unanir o us vote after the a piration of the 3 o days, or giving the Mayor the poorer to appolnt. Sari Lon anec er. Mr. Longanec er commented that he felt that responsible elected officials could feel the sane pressure as the Commission has discussed and would appoint within the firneframe, since they are aware of all the problems they would face having a position on the Council vacant for a lengthy period of time. The Co rn m iss ion discussed the options if the Co u nciI does not male an ppointr ent with in 30 days: the seat could be declared vacant, a special election could be held, the appointment could be ,made by a majority vote, or someone on the City Council could be delegated to mace the appointment. The consensus was that it would not be in the City's best interest to have the seat vacant, there right not be enough time to call a special election even if cost was not are issue, and getting a ,majority when there were only four Councilrembers could be difficult or result in a 2-2 split. The problem with having the Mayor or one Co ncilrnember having the authority to make the appointment after the 30 day period has elapsed is that person may have a particular candidate in mind and can just hold out during the 30 day period without casting a unanimous vote, thereby being in a position to appoint his /her candidate after the period elapses. It was M S ichter /Acton to rewo rd the second paragraph on page 2 of Option A to read: "The City council shall use good faith and best efforts to reach agreement on such are appointment, If the Council is unable to make an appointment, the Council's poorer to appoint is terminated and the seat is hereby declared vacant for the remainder of the term." Attorney Hull will refire the language and bring back an amended version of Option A at the next m eeting. Comrnissioner Cox inquired if there was any reed for the Commission to consider Option B at all, and the Attorney responded there was none. Ms. Hall indicated she would also have a cleared up version of the Council Policy available at net ,month's meeting. 5. New Business — alone. 6. Public Comments -- hone. 7. Members' Comments - Done. 8. Adjournment NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, MAY 15 @ :00 P.M. in the Executive Conference Room MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:04 p.m. F� = mar 6n Barbieri m ""'RE;&ding Secretary Chester Review Commission April 24, 2006