Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1972/01/20 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNE~ REGULAR ~EETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursda~ Januar~ 20~ 1972 An adjourned regular meetina was held by the City Council of Chula Vista, California, beginning at 3 P.M. in the Administrative Confer- ence Room, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, E~dahl Absent: Councilman Scott Also present: City ~anager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg Members of the Charter ~eview Committee present: Chairman John Kingston, Ada Thompson, Lester Swanson, Nell Haas, Bud W~lson, Ken Weimer, David Kassebaum, Steve Parka ~ayor Hamilton opened the meeting by statin~ its purpose was to consider the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee. CHAIRMAN KINGSTON'S Mr. Kingston discussed the meetings PRESENTATION held by this Committee. Three things were considered but not recommended by the Committee to be included in the Charter changes: Sections 300 & 304 Limiting terms of office of the City Council - the motion to oppose this proposal passed by a vote of seven to two. Section 301 This was discussed at three different Eligibility meetings, and the final vote was that no change be made in this section. The motion passed by a vote of five to four. The majority of the Committee felt there was value in the condition precedent that is invoked by the lang- uage of this section: "the qualified elector," etc. The Committee felt they did not want to address the issue as one of affecting 18 year olds, however. Civil Service Regulations The Committee felt that with all the time alloted, they could not develop the expertise to attack all of the language in the Charter with reference to Civil Service rules; tkerefore! a~y review that Nay'be presently operative should include a review of the Charter language with reference %hereto with the focus of eliminatin~ a lot of the language in the Charter. Section 302 By a vote of five to four, this item was placed as No. 1 on the priority list. Mr. KinGston explained that the Committee is not recommending an immediate raise for the ~ayor and Councilmen. They do recommend a review commission, however. This commission should not be oovernment-connected. In this respect, the Committee suggests the following wording: ..."whose members shall be selected from with- out by members of the boards and commissions..." The proposition carried by a vote of eight in favor and one opposed. City Attorney Lindberg stated he felt : there should be some opportunity for a possibility of a referendum on the ordinance sufficiently prior to the time of the initial general municipal election, to be allowed to be placed on that ballot and not have the neces- sity of a special election. Double ordinance To do this, he set up a double-ordi- nance proposition: the Council would first adopt an ordinance indicating its intention to establish certain salary levels which would be subject to referendum and then also, at the time of establishing the budget for the next fiscal year, adopt the ordinance establishing the salaries, which again, would be subject to referendum. Salary Review Committee The Council discussed the make-up of the proposed committee; Councilman Hobel questioned the t~me element. City Attorney explained that the decision of the Committee would not take place until the fiscal year 1973- 74. Discussion ensued as to the right of referendum and the necessity of going to a special election. It was noted that there is a Sweetwater Union School election in the odd years, and the question can be put on that ballot. Public hearings Councilman Hyde referred to the two public hearings to be held by the Council on this matter. City Attorney Lindber~ felt it should read, "a public hearing," explaining the process of an ordinance adoption requires two readings, at which both times the public can present testimony. Bud wilson, member of the ComMittee, spoke in favor of the two hearings before the Council. Neil Haas felt it would place an undue burden upon the Council noting that the right of referendum is built into the section. Section 303 ~r, Kingston stated the vote to chanoe Vacancies this section was eight in favor, one absent. Two items are being recom- mended for change: changing the days from sixty to thirty for absenteeism of a Councilman. Also if convicted of a "felony or a crime" instead of just "felony". These changes were numbers 5 and 6 on their priority list. Section 501 Mr. Kingston explained that this Administrative Departments section held priority #7; there were six in favor and three absent. Section 807 Mr. Kingston stated this section was Removal or Suspension ~2 on their list of priorities. The of Employees Committee felt the first section could be deleted and nothing need be added. This matter came up late and the Committee did not have a chance to meet with the City ~anager nor depart- ment heads on this issue. - 2 City Manager Thomson City Manager Thomson spoke in favor of retaining this section. He read a letter from the Chief of Police in this regard. Mr. Thomson commented that he talked to the department heads about this. They were all in favor of re- taining the section, and even agreed to lessen the number of days to a reasonable time, such as five or ten days. Mr. Thomson declared he would recommend the five-day limitation cumulative in a twelve-month period. These suspensions could be made subject to review by the City Manager. City Attorney Lindbera Mr. Lindberg explained that there was no question, on the part of the Committee, as to the tool of the right of suspension by the appointing auth- orities. The Committee considered the basic issue - the right of appeal and the desirability of granting that right -- it was the consensus of the Commit- tee that such a right be granted, and any suspension should be granted the right of appeal. Mr. Lindbera cited court decisions on this matter, quoting from text: "The detriment to an employee of no more than 5 days' suspension in a 12-month period, while not negligible, is, in our view, not sufficient to justify a holding that a hearing is the employee's constitutional right when- ever his superior feels it necessary to discipline him in this way." Not placed on ballot In view of the fact that this section needs more meetings with the Civil Service Commission and department heads, it was a~reed that it would be referred back to the Charter Review Committee for reconsideration at a later date. Sec%ion~ 1T06 ~r. Kingston reported that this section Tax Limits received priority #3. There were seven in favor and three opposed. Section 803 Mr. Kingston explained that this Rules and Regulations section was ~4 on the list of priorities. Five members were in favor of it, 1 abstained, and 3 absent. Th~s makes the probationary period of an employ- ee one year instead of six months. Section 501 These sections received ~7 and #8 on Administrative Departments the priority list. Mr. Kingston Section 805 stated the vote on this was seven in Temporary Appointments favor, two against. Section 610 Mr. Kingston explained that this is Board of Library Trustees just a housekeeping measure and sub- section (c) should be deleted~ "approve or disapprove the appointment of Librarian who shall be the department head." Section 1105 Budget Appropriations This was approved by the Committee st its meeting of December 16, 1971. City Manager Thomson explained the necessity of including this section in the Charter changes. - 3 - Thanks to Committee Mayor Hamilton thanked the Committee for the time and effort spent on these recommendations. He stated he is not dismissing the Committee, but will ask them to reconvene, after four or five months. COUNCIL ACTION The Council discussed the sections that were non-controversial and those that were "housekeeping measures." Section 807 It was moved by Mayor Hamilton, seconded Suspension of Employees by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that this section be sent back to the Charter Review Committee for reconsideration when they reconvene. Sections to remain The Council agreed that the following sections should be put on the ballot: 303, 500, 501, 605, 610, 803, 805 and 1105. The City Attorney was asked to combine some of the sections, if possible. Section 302 The Council requested that the City Attorney condense the wording of this section. Compensation for Councilman Hyde commented that he Commissioners would have liRed to see a proposition allowing compensation for commissioners. City Attorney Lindber~ stated that the commissioners could be reimbursed on a voucher system. He explained that the Committee would like further time to study this proposal. City Attorney Lindberg explained this section, the boards and commissions would meet in July and make their recommendations for the Salary Review Committee. Councilman Hobel suggested the boards and commissions make their recommendations for the Committee by June 30. City Attorney Lindberg further explained that %his Committee would then conduct two public hearings and make their recommendations to the City Council before the 1st of November. The Council would then adopt an ordinance declaring its intention to adopt a salary, not to.exceed that recommended by the Salary Review Committee, by the 31st of December. There will be at least one public hearing. The people would then have the opportunity of a referendum on that ordinance, which in the even- numbered years, would be placed on the general municipal election, and in the odd-numbered years would go on the school ballot. In July, the Council would adopt the ordinance establishing the salary and that, too, would be subject to referendum. City Attorney Lindberg stated he wouTd put these propositions in resolution form for the meeting of January 25, 1972. 5~ayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting ADJOURNMENT at 5:05 P.M. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 25, 1972 at 7 P.M. CITY CLERK - 5 -