HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-17 CRC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
July 17, 2000 Council Conference Room 4 :30 p.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Dorso, Harriet Acton, Deric Prescott, David Potter,
Jack Blakely and Barbara McAllister
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 (Blakely/McAllister) to approve the minutes of June 5, 2000 as presented.
3 . Election of Officers for FY 00/01
Chair Dorso asked that this item be tabled until the next scheduled meeting.
4. Council Agenda Report forwarding Ballot Measures for the November, 2000
Election.
The City Attorney, pursuant to Commission direction, prepared a draft report
forwarding recommendations concerning Charter amendments to the City Council that
has not yet been docketed. That report contains two basic provisions: (1) a
measure the -Commission previously approved concerning eligibility for members on
certain boards and commissions (2) a vote by the Commission to forward the issue
of term limits to Council for their consideration prior to August 11, which is
the deadline date set by the Registrar of Voters.
5 . Report bV City Attorney - None
6. Public Comments The Chair advised public comments were limited to five
minutes and the following people addressed the Commission:
Rudy Ramirez:
As a long time Chula Vista resident, he is concerned and curious about the
proposed changes to the City Charter repealing term limits. Term limits helped
open up the political process in our City and changing it would be a terrible
mistake. There has been no public outcry. The whole move does not smell right
and appears to be a move from the inside. It is arrogant to believe there are
no other qualified individuals who can run this City. He asked the Commission
to abandon the recommendation to the City Council to repeal term limits. He is
fearful that special interests may become more entrenched in this community.
Jack Blakely noted he brought this item before the Commission months ago because
people were unhappy with the way the system was circumvented by candidates
waiting a year and rerunning. As the months progressed, more of the Commission
members heard from the community that people were questioning term limits. The
Commission is neither in favor nor against it, but felt the City has changed in
25 or 30 years since it was on the ballot and the people should readdress it'.
Charter Review Commission Minutes
July 17, 2000
Page 2
Beatrice Fernandez:
She is new to the community, but not to the politics of Chula Vista. she is
vehemently opposed to having term limits removed. Without term limits,
Councilmembers, especially those appointed to office, will be able to stay in
office forever just because they are incumbents. Where you don't have term
limits, you have uncontested seats such as Greg Cox and Ron Roberts. Term limits
allow new candidates to bring new ideas and encourage debate in local government.
Give the citizens of Chula Vista a vote and voice and do not add further to voter
apathy.
Patty Davis:
She thanked the members for serving on the Charter Review Commission. Ms. Davis
thinks she could argue both sides of terms limits, what' s good and bad about each
side. However, that is not the point, the reality is the people should decide.
Do the people want to keep what they did 27 years ago or do they want to change
it? She thinks Chula Vista has changed in the last 27 years so the opportunity
for people to vote on this again is a good thing. In the 18 jurisdictions in San
Diego, there are only two jurisdictions with term limits, Chula Vista being one.
That limits us in regional issues. There are many reasons to look at the issue.
The point to be made today is to let the people decide.
Barbara Worth:
Ms. Worth feels we have a very fine Council and a very active Mayor who knows
what's happening. The people of Chula Vista should be the people who make the
final decision on whether we have term limits and it would be unfair if it was
handled any other way.
Steve Padilla:
Councilmember Padilla thanked the Commission for their service since it is not
an easy position to be in. ordinarily in a perfect world, he would be advocating
to go forward with the Commission's previous decision. He has never been opposed
to putting an issue before the people for their decision. He believes that there
are certain,issues the genesis of which should properly and rightfully come from
the average voting elector in this community. It' s common to see legislators
generate ballot initiatives. Issues such as the limitation on the terms of
election should come from the community and it should not be generated anywhere
else. This idea has not been generated from the community at large. He spoke
with Commission members, the City Attorney, the City Manager and looked at the
record of previous meetings back to January. It is very clear that while the
Commission has done their best job, no where in the record is there any member
of the public or of the Council coming forward to consider this idea. He asked
his staff to research every constituent contact, letter, e-mail, telephone call
from the general public since January 2000, regarding term limits. That research
showed no inquiries. He believes it is wholly inappropriate for a sitting
incumbent City Council elected under term limits to take a position that could
be construed as trying to extend their own terms in office. However, well-
intentioned, the appearance of such is not something that would be well-received
by the community. He respectfully requests the Commission to take a look at a
multitude of options such as lifetime bans, removing term limits, the status quo
and have staff evaluate those options thoroughly, encourage comprehensive public
participation and bring it back to a dispassionate Council. He would recommend
language to place it on a future ballot so incumbents under term limits would not
be put in a position that would have the appearance of trying to change the
rules. He thinks the benefits of this approach would encourage a healthy public
Charter Review Commission Minutes
July 17, 2000
Page 3
dialog that heretofore has not been received. He wants to depoliticize this
issue and take our time rather than rushing to get it on the November ballot.
Bob Tugenberg:
He is a former member of Charter Review and the Planning Commission. He wanted
to know who raised the question of term limits to the Charter Review Commission
and what was the Commission's rationale behind the recommendation to the City
Council for the change. He is a firm believer of "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" . The City has had great council people and the City did not fall apart at
the end of their terms of office. To his knowledge, there has never been an
incumbent who ran for reelection and lost his seat. The power of incumbency all
but guarantees election to office. There are an ample number of citizens who are
willing and able to devote their time and energies to the well-being of the City
as evidenced by the 10 candidates running for the last open seat.
Isabelle Perez:
She is an 11 year resident and believes it is the best of the 18 cities in the
county. How was this item brought before the Commission since it was not a
request from the public? It' s the lack of such advocacy that calls into question
what is being perceived here today as a manipulation of the process for the need
to discuss the item. Recent polls demonstrate overwhelmingly the support of term
limits. Of the largest 100 cities, 47 have some type of municipal term limits.
Incumbents are able to gather fiscal resources more easily. We should not have
politicians representing their own careers, but rather representing the
community. Prior to any recommendation being forwarded to the full City Council,
she requested the Commission identify and include in any recommendation forwarded
to the Council how elimination of term limits can potentially impact the current
seated incumbents. With items of this magnitude, discussions should be held
after 5 :30 p.m. when working citizens can attend.
Norma Cazares
She' s been a resident of Chula Vista for 23 years and involved within the
community. She is President of a Political Action Committee, South Bay Forum,
who addresses the educational, social and political needs of the Chicano/Latino
community. The issue of term limits is of the utmost importance to the whole
community and cannot be taken lightly. She is requesting that the proposal to
abolish term limits for elected official's be seriously reconsidered. 27 years
ago the leaders of our City evaluated the argument of term limits and made the
wise decision to incorporate term limits into the Charter and the City has been
well-served by that decision.
Maria Perman:
Spoke in favor of the retention of term limits. By keeping term limits, which
a majority of the community voted for, we are opening the door to others who are
equally qualified and eager to serve but who do not necessarily want to be career
' politicians. By opening up the process, the number of women legislators has
increased by 25%, the number of Hispanic legislators has increased by 250% and
the number of Asian legislators has increased from 0 to 2 . She is asking the
Commission to support the voice of the people and continue with term limits.
Jim Perman:
Mr. Perman endorses the retention of term limits.
Charter Review Commission Minutes
July 17, 2000
Page 4
Ed Nagorski:
He is Vice-President of COMPAC, a County positive action committee. COMPAC
believes in term limits. The following are reasons for term limits: breaks the
alliance between entrenched incumbents and special interest groups because of
personal relationships; encourages successful and effective politicians to
compete with each other for office rather than hold a seat that incumbency has
made safe; reduces the raising of extra large campaign money to overcome the
incumbency advantage; increases the competition when new effective politicians
run against each other and provides rotation in office.
Marco Cortez:
He is a current member of the Planning Commission and former member of the Otay
Valley Project Area Committee. Term limits should stay in place. The State
Legislature recently defeated the issue of term limits because the assemblyman
felt it would be self-serving. According to Steve Peace's office, there is a
pending bill that will limit term limits not only at the state level but across
the county and municipalities to no more than 3 terms of 4 years each.
Mary Salas:
Ms. Salas noted 4 :30 p.m. is a difficult time for people to get off work to
attend a meeting. In all fairness to the public, it is important for public
officials to hold their meetings at times that are convenient for the public.
In her 4 years as a City Councilperson, she learned that knowledge is power. At
times even the Councilmembers are not appraised of what is going on and she was
disturbed with the way the process evolved regarding term limits. When district
elections and the design review process was discussed, there was ample
opportunity for all members of the Council to give their input and express their
views. On June 5, the City Manager informed her the Charter Review Commission
unanimously voted to put a measure on the ballot to eliminate term limits. If
it were an open and fair process, that would not have happened. She has never
received one letter or phone call stating Councilmembers are so wonderful, they
should be Councilmembers for life. We have to look at this matter carefully.
If a petition were forwarded to the City, she might have been more comfortable
with it. Term limits on the municipal level have withstood the scrutiny of the
legal letter of the law and are very important. If this process was driven from
the community, I might react more favorably.
Gina Galvez Mallari:
Abolishing term limits eliminates diversity. It would be a detriment to the
community if we leave Councilmembers in forever. She supports term limits and
would hate for it to be abolished.
Chair Dorso recognized City Attorney John Kaheny who clarified a few issues. For
those who have not reviewed the May minutes, the reason this issue came to the
Commission was the Attorney was approached by the City Manager prior to the
meeting. The City Manager indicated some people at a church meeting were talking
about repealing term limits. Mr. Rowlands asked Mr. Kaheny if he or the
Commission had heard anything about this. Mr. Kaheny noted at the January
meeting, a member of the Commission had discussed the difficulties with the two
year term and the one year necessary to run. Mr. Kaheny discussed this at the
next meeting because if it were not placed on the November ballot, it could not
go on the ballot until 2002 unless there was a special election called which
would be very expensive. The deadline for the November ballot is August 11 and
the Council has to have at least 2 meetings prior to that to act on any measure
so the time frame was compressed. The Commission at the May meeting directed the
Charter Review Commission Minutes
July 17, 2000
Page 5
Attorney to bring back various proposals. The Commission voted at that point to
forward the concept to the Council in order to let the Council decide what to do
if, in fact, the Council wanted to submit this to the voters.
7. Members' Comments.
Member Blakely stated he is not opposed to term limits, but is opposed to a
person circumventing the system by sitting out for a year and rerunning. A
commissioner has to sit out at least two years. The initial question was do we
want to address term limits, if there is a push within the city, no matter how
small, to review term limits. Is one year sufficient or is it a life time ban?
These were decisions that the Commission was not prepared to make at this time,
and if the community voted to abolish term limits, any work would be for nothing.
By sending it forward, the Council could decide if the Commission should address
the issues. If the Council votes to put it on the ballot, the community gets to
vote. There are matters in the Charter from 30 years ago that were unforeseen.
Member McAllister found it interesting that she is an insider in some kind of a
secret plot that is going on. She is opposed to term limits and voted
accordingly.
Member Potter noted the current set up of the term limits is extremely confusing.
This was not a decision for the Commission without a reading from the electorate
of the City as to whether or not they want to continue term limits. If the
electorate wishes to abolish term limits, the issues are moot.
Member Acton agreed with the other three Commission members in their
observations, ideas and goals. one of the speakers make a statement about voter
apathy, and maybe this will make the citizens of this City more interested in
their local government and their future and maybe the one thing that could be
abolished is voter apathy.
Member Prescott reflected on the decision process at previous meetings. At the
fundamental heart is what we want as an electorate, and the key is deciding who
we want to represent us. There is a conflict between the law stating you can
serve a certain amount of time and the people deciding who they want. His
personal belief is it should be up to the people to decide this issue. If they
feel that term limits have worked well, then the City as a whole has a directive
going forth with term limits. If the people decide otherwise, then we are able
to elect whomever we want. It should be our goal to allow the people have the
ultimate choice of who are representatives are. Both sides are equally valid in
that they have logic, evidence, and facts behind them. My vote was not in favor
or against, but in favor of allowing the people to decide what they want and give
us direction back as to how to pursue the issue.
8. Adjournment.
MSUC (Potter/Acton) to adjourn the meeting at 5 :35 p.m.
O�CtI�Z�QJ ��Z�
Lorraine Kraker, Secretary
H:\home\lorraine\crc\minute\7-17-00