HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-20 CRC MINSMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
November 20, 2000 City Attorney's Conference Room 4:30 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Dorso, Harriet Acton, Deric Prescott,
Mark Croshier, Sergio Feria, Barbara
McAllister and David Potter
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City.Attorney John M. Kaheny
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m.
1. Roll Call.
The roll was called and all members were present.
2. Approval of Minutes.
MSUC (Potter/Acton) to approve the minutes of October 16, 2000 as
presented.
3. Campaign Financing Referral.
The Council referred the linkage with term limits. Anything done
in California is subject to the court ruling on Proposition 208.
The approval of Proposition 34 makes the situation hopelessly
muddled. The case in federal court now is the Scully decision.
Most of Proposition 208 was repealed by Proposition 34- as it
applies to state elected officers, but it does not address any
local issues. The judge was to announce a decision immediately
after the election, bu�t_.did not. Mr.Kaheny believes the judge is
reviewing it in light of Proposition 34. Proposition 34 may have
gutted it significantly enough so it's over as far as the local
campaign limitations are concerned. At this point, Attorney Kaheny
suggests we do nothing because he suspects Proposition 34 will be
attacked. Therefore, there is no guidance at this point.
Chair Dorso called the Commissioners' attention to Page 2,
Paragraph 6, of the 10/16/00 minutes to reread Commissioner
Prescott's comments as food for thought. He agrees with his
philosophy and recommendations.
4. Report by City Attorney John M. Kaheny Concerning Term Limits.
Not knowing how the election would turn out, the Attorney placed
this on the agenda, however, it appears the issue is off the burner
for awhile. He was surprised the "complete repeal" proposition
lost as badly as it did, but there was not much of a campaign.
There have been rumors about Mr. Diaz' pursuing his election
challenge which has to do with the wording of the term limit
section. John Dorso noted the 18,000+ votes accumulated by Mr.
Diaz was more of a vote against term limits than a vote for Mr.
Diaz. One of the aspects of the challenge is what the terminology
"seek nomination within one year" means. Regardless of what
happens, we may wish to clean up the language to more clearly
delineate its meaning.
Charter Review Commission Minutes
November 20, 2000
Page 2
Mark Croshier asked the attorney to explain the mechanics of the
challenge. Attorney Kaheny explained procedurally there are two
tracks to challenge the election: (1) file his challenge with the
City Clerk and file affidavits asking the'City Council to conduct
a challenge hearing. The City Council has its own election code
that authorizes it to conduct a challenge hearing. Unless there is
an action attacking the certification of the vote tally, that would
be done, and Rindone would be seated. Then the Council judges its
own members and determine on the evidence whether or not to remove
Rindone. (2) If he stays, Mr. Diaz can go to Superior Court and
file a challenge. If Rindone is removed, he can go to Superior
Court and file a challenge. If the challenge is upheld in the
courts, a vacancy occurs on the Council and an interim Council
appointment must be made by the Council for two years. If that
fails or within thirty days, they cannot agree, a special election
must be called. Under our Charter, the challenger does not have to
go to the Council, they can go directly to court, or do both. The
City Attorney will wait to see what happens.
Attorney Kaheny noted former City Manager Goss sent him an article
concerning the City of San Bernardino and the mudslinging attacks
involving the Mayor and City Attorney regarding appointment, rather
than election, of the Attorney position. The proposition failed
but it's a classic out of control situation.
5. Public Comments.
Susan Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, felt strongly about
term limits and the extension of the two terms and it was her
feeling the public was not behind either one of the propositions
and it was borne out at the election.
direction the Commission was going.
campaign for Propositions E and F from th
of Women Voters. The election proved
where the people stand.
Carleen Scott was observing the meeting.
6. Members' Comments.
She wanted to see what
There was a substantial
e Police, Fire and League
to be a clear picture of
Member Potter commented the Commission found out what we wanted to
know and he thinks the way the Commission went about it was the
best way to do it.
7. Adjournment.
MSUC (Acton/Potter) to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m.to the
December meeting at the call of the Chair with the next regularly
scheduled meeting set for January 22, 2,001 at 4:30 p.m. (due to the
holiday occurring on the third Monday of the month).
co)yt w, �c�v4A�
Lorraine Kraker, Secretary