Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-10 CRC MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION December 10, 2007 City Attorney's Conference Room 4:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Humberto Peraza, Jr., Elizabeth Scott, William Richter, and Ron Kelley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Armida Martin Del Campo, Egbert Oostburg and Pete De Lara STAFF PRESENT: David Miller, Deputy City Attorney; and Cheryl Ponds, Legal Assistant PUBLIC PRESENT: Jerry Scott, Theresa Acero, Peter Watry and Glen Googins The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. 1. Roll Call. Humberto Peraza, Chair called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. The roll was called and members were noted as present or absent as indicated above. 2. Public Comment. None 3. New Business. Term Limits Humberto Peraza began the discussion regarding new language for term limits. He stated that at the last Charter Review Meeting David Miller was asked to return with some language for term limits for the committee to send to City Council and for us to first look it over before we submit it to the City Council. David Miller distributed information regarding a brief history of term limits and limitations to the language related to the kinds of language we could have. Mr. Miller stated that basically there is California Law Government Code Section 36502(b), that talks about term limits and one of your questions related to whether or not term limits if we apply them would be required to be retroactive or had to be applied prospectively. Humberto Peraza asked if that's what the materials Mr. Miller distributed was about that. Mr. Miller replied yes but it's also about the broader issues. Mr. Miller started explaining one of earlier cases regarding term limits Younger vs The Board of Supervisors held that county charters could not allow for term limits, it would unconstitutional, however, Charter Cities could have term limits based on a doctrine called the Municipal Affair Doctrine. It basically says that term limits in a Charter City is a matter of municipal concern not of statewide concern and what this did making this decision is create sort of some question as to the applicability of Government Code Section 36502 to Charter Cities because what they're saying is that the legislature is not a statewide concern it's a municipal concern. Legislature cannot really control the manner in which the municipality does these things. So there are questions that developed at that point as to whether or not Government Code Section 36502(b) applied and whether or not that perspective of application or term limits is even something that the state legislature could address with respect to Charter Cities. There are another case Wool vs Superior Court, that basically said if you're going to put language into a Charter Review Commission 1 December 10, 2007 charter or into initiative it has to be very clear because the court is going to interpret it exactly as it's written. If the results are absurd and in this case the results they thought were absurd because exact interpretation would require seven of the council members to step down right at that moment, so they said that couldn't possibly be what they meant at that time. Because they wouldn't have elections, they wouldn't have anyone to replace them, etc. Next case was also similar, saying that the language has to be clearly drafted and the only reason he's going over this is because if we're going to put something in in the language that he drafted that's based on some other charter sections or other initiative sections in the past that have been approved that address the concerns we want to address and are seen as sort of clear. This language limits basically limited council members to two (2) four year terms, one of the council members was a woman who took over her husband's council seat so she had a seventeen month period and then she ran for two other terms and someone challenged and said "You already had two terms", the court said "no", it says 2 four year terms, she's only had a seventeen month term and one four year term, so that's how we're going to interpret that. So again; Mr. Miller stated the language and how it's written is very important. Mr. Miller discussed a San Diego case in 2005, basically if you say two consecutive four terms, it doesn't mean life terms it consecutive so if you take a break in between, you can come back and seek more terms and that sort of our issue here is that we do have the ability to do consecutive terms and come back. A discussion among the members took place regarding consecutive terms and coming back. David Miller explained the differences between his two suggestions for the new language. Each one does something slightly different. The first one basically says "No person shall serve more that full two terms as a council member from any combination of districts or Mayor. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years it shall be considered a full term for the purposes of this provision. Previous and current terms of office shall be counted for the purpose of applying this provision to future elections; all persons in the office at the time of the enactment of this provision shall be permitted to complete their present terms regardless of the number of terms previously served. Mr. Miller explained what that does is allow them to finish out terms, if they are already termed out, they will not be able to run for new terms, it doesn't do that absurd result that happened in that one case where people get kicked out in the middle of the term and then it basically starts from there and anybody new coming in will only be allowed two terms. Now the next one basically, takes into account a little bit of that question as to whether or not the government code section applies and how it would apply, this one basically allows the members in office to run for an additional term, one additional term, so basically we put a term limit on them But we don't let them do two term limits. Humberto Peraza asked Mr. Miller "So neither one of these has the language to just say that if you're a previous council member to be able to come back and run for a full term and then ok now that's it. Mr. Peraza said it sounds like to him that both of these suggestions make it retroactive. Mr. Miller replied, "one says, if you serve two terms you can't serve anymore. The second one says if you served two terms but you're currently in office, the two terms aren't necessarily going to be counted and we'll let you run one more term." Mr. Peraza asked "what if you were a council member previously?" Mr. Miller said "they'll all count, the previous or current terms would count." Mr. Peraza said "both of these are retroactive, I wanted one that would just say, that was a question that this commission had, should we make it retroactive, and that's something that Elizabeth Scott asked. That we should have one that was retroactive and one that wasn't retroactive. Mr. Miller explained that second one isn't really fully retroactive because what it does is it allows those councilmembers currently in office to apply to have another term which would be essentially like having two terms. He said if you want I can easily write one up, that says starting, all we would do is change for the purposes of this provision the 2 two year terms shall be counted for all terms after such and such date and just take out the other section. Charter Review Commission 2 December 10, 2007 Elizabeth Scott said at the last meeting when they discussed it being retroactive, she thought it came out that it cannot be retroactive. Mr. Peraza said "Well, they said they would look at it and that was one of the questions,that was asked "Can it be retroactive?" and why we asked that language would be brought back for both." Mr. Miller said basically the law that is currently out there suggests that section of Government Code that talks about it can apply perspectively may not apply to Charter Cities. So we could apply it, if we chose to. The members had a discussion regarding retroactive. Mr. Miller explained the difference between the two suggestions to the commission. Mr. -Peraza said that's a question for the commission to decide whether we want retroactive, which was part.of the discussion at the last time or do we want to leave it, because at time it might look like we're targeting specific politicians. Mr. Peraza suggested. make it strict term limits, take out the one year loophole And make two full terms and that's it. They discussed the option of taking a break and running for office and taking a break, etc., it could go on forever and the power of incumbency. Mr. Peraza said this decision should be based on "what's the right thing to do" not on one individual." He said "this is something we should bring before the council and they ultimately will make the decision. The question was asked to Mr. Miller. regarding possible litigation regarding the language. Mr. Miller stated that potentially this is something that has never been litigated. Mr. Peraza suggested to keep it simple for the council and the voters, if you try to make it retroactive it could be challenged. Mr. Miller said that both suggestions have essentially been approved by the courts Some of these cases have used the. language that's out here and the courts haven't stricken these. A discussion took place regarding the career politician, consecutive terms and breaks between running for office. Mr. Peraza said the commission could submit two suggestions to the council and let them decide. Mr. Peraza said he would like to see language without the retroactive. Mr. Miller said that would be suggestion number 2, striking out everything after the semicolon making the semicolon a period. The members discussed possible changes to the language in Suggestion #2. 2.) No person may serve more than two full terms as Council Member, or Mayor. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. These term limitations shall apply only to terms of office that begin on or after ,,,..,, ve these ineumbents, Mr. Peraza called for the motion. Motion was made by and seconded by Mr. Peraza called for the vote. It was three to 1 in favor of the Suggestion #2 language withchanges to go before the City Council. Mr. Ron Kelley voted against the motion. Mr. Miller said he would have to check to see if it was required for'the full Charter Review Commission to be present to pass this item. He will check into it and get back to the .commission members. Mr. Peraza moved the District Elections to the agenda for the next meeting. Charter Review Commission 3 December 1.0, 2007 4. Members' Comments. NEXT MEETING: to be determined MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:20 p.m. Cheryl Ponds Secretary Charter Review Commission 4 December 10, 2007 PROPOSED TERM LIMIT LANGUAGE No person shall be eligible for nomination and election to the office of City Councilmember or the office of Mayor for more than two full terms, and no person who has held the office of City Councilmember for two full terms or the Office of Mayor for two full terms, may again seek nomination and election to said office of City Councilmember or office of Mayor, respectively. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. The above - referenced lifetime term limitation shall apply only to terms of office that began on or after December 7, 2010. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the application of this provision permit any person, who has held the office of City Councilmember for a period of two (2) consecutive terms or the office of Mayor for a period of two (2) consecutive terms, including terms of office that began prior to December 7, 2010, again seek nomination and election to the office of City Councilmember or office of Mayor, respectively, until a period of one (1) year from the termination of the second term of office as a City Councilmember or as Mayor has elapsed. TERM LIMIT GRID Category (on date of Application of Effect of Consecutive Total Terms That May enactment) Lifetime Term Limit Term Limits Be Served Serving 1" Term 1St term will not count Consecutive term Serve a total of 3 terms. towards term provision will prevent 3 limit of 2 lifetime Consecutive terms —1 terms year between 2nd and 3rd terms Serving 2°d Term 1St two (2) terms will Consecutive term Serve a total of 4 terms. not count towards provision will prevent 3 term limit of 2 consecutive terms —1 lifetime terms year between 2nd and 3rd terms Never served All terms will count Consecutive term Serve a total of 2 terms. towards term limit of provision will not apply 2 lifetime terms as no additional terms may be served Served x terms prior to Only terms served Consecutive term Serve a total of x+2 enactment, not currently after enactment will provision will prevent terms with one year gap. serving. Less than one count towards nomination or election year since in office for lifetime term limits at upcoming election two consecutive terms Served x terms prior to Only terms served Consecutive term Serve a total of x+2 enactment, not currently after enactment will provision will not terms serving. More than one count towards prevent nomination or year since in office for lifetime term limits election at upcoming two consecutive terms election Section 503 (e) Term of Office of the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall be elected to a nominal term of four years and shall commence on the first Tuesday of December of the year of the election, and shall continue until a successor qualifies. 1. No person shall be eligible for nomination and election to the office of City Attorney for more than two full terms, and no person who has held the office of City Attorney for two full terms may again seek nomination and election to said office of City Attorney. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. The above - referenced lifetime term limitation shall apply only to terms of office that began on or after December 7, 2010.