Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-16 CRC MINS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING- OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 May 16, 1995 City Attorney's Conference Room 4 :30 p.m. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Campbell, Jack Blakely, Rosie Bystrak, John Dorso, Sharon Reid and Janet Lawry MEMBERS ABSENT: Deric Prescott STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Bruce Boogaard. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Campbell at 4: 35 p.m. The roll was called and . all members were present except Member Prescott who requested to be excused due to a meeting with his college advisor. MSUC (Reid/Blakely) to approve the minutes of April 18, 1995. Budget for Charter Review Commission. The Budget Manager has recommended the Commission budget be reduced from $600 to $396 for FY 1995-96. The Commission discussed the amended budget and MSUC (Blakely/Dorso), to accept the Budget Manager's recommendation if it does not pose a problem. Referral by Councilman Rindone for Clarification of the One Year Hiatus Period for Councilmembers. At the April 25, 1995 Council meeting, during Council Comments, Councilman Rindone referred to the Charter Review Commission the issue of the one-year hiatus period for previous Councilmembers. Attorney Boogaard explained Proposition J allowed for runoffs in a special election when no one candidate receives a clear majority (51% of the votes) . A candidate cannot win by a plurality. Councilman Rindone felt the public has given us a mandate that they want more participation in the selection of vacant positions. Section 300D of the Charter states: "No person shall be eligible for nomination and election to the office of City Councilmember or Mayor for more than two (2) consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Council office for a period of two (2) consecutive terms or the office of Mayor for two (2) consecutive terms, may again seek nomination and election to said offices of Council or Mayor respectively until a period of A. Charter Review Commission Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 2 one (1) year from the termination of the second term for Councilmetber or Mayor has elapsed; . . . " A discussion of Section 300D ensued relating to whether or not it applied to Councilman Moore in making him ineligible for appointment to Bob Fox's seat. Jack Blakely questioned the meaning of "nomination" . Attorney Boogaard clarified the two ways for nomination in the typical electoral process: (1) a candidate (over 18 and a resident of the City) obtains nominating papers, gets signatures of not more than 30, nor less than 20 people, turns them into the City Clerk, making him/her eligible to run for office (2) The nomination of a candidate by a Coucilmember to fill the vacancy such as the one created by Bob Fox's resignation. There is a narrow (electoral process) and a broad interpretation (both the electoral process and the appointment process) . The Commission reviewed the City Attorney's legal opinion regarding eligibility of Councilmember Moore. Attorney Boogaard opined you have to use the broad interpretation that comports to the will of the people which, in theory, was they wanted a one-year hiatus, not a term .limitation. The consensus of the Commission was to agree with the City Attorney's opinion. Sharon Reid discussed if the intent of the section is clearly to keep from rollover service, the hiatus could be 30 months or some period of time that effectively precludes that from happening. Bob Campbell sees no problem with the one-year hiatus and believes a person serving a one-year hiatus should not be eligible to receive an appointment after the one year's time has elapsed. Janet Lawry finds the language very clear and not confusing. If you have two full terms, you cannot seek or be nominated by anybody or appointed. Jack Blakely did not feel it necessary to change the Charter because 2 or 3 people had trouble interpreting it. Since it is very clear to the Charter Review Commission they agree with the . City ,Attorney's position, they do not feel the Charter should be amended because nomination and election is any kind of nomination and election, by the general electorate, or by the City Council. Charter Review Commission .Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 3 MS (Reid/Dorso) it is the unanimous opinion of the Charter Review Commission that the intent of the language in the Charter section prohibiting for a year following the second full term service, that nomination and election means "nomination and election" in the general sense of the electorate process and in the specific or the special instance of the nomination for an appointment by the City Council to fill an unexpired term. Attorney Boogaard presented a con argument: Is ballot label controlling which stated "adding a provision limiting the members of the City Council to two consecutive terms"? From the ballot label, Attorney Boogaard stated the argument could be made it is a flat prohibition and after two terms, you can't be eligible, and on the other hand, it could also be read, you can serve two terms as long as you have some gap in holding office. The intent of the ballot item was to broaden the citizen partici- pation in government and avoid the concentration of power that continued officeholding has and disseminate the power down from a lifetime ban to a one year ban. Jack Blakely suggested eliminating the word "consecutive" and make it two terms, therefore, a person could serve only two full terms whether it was consecutive or 20 years apart. Since the City is getting qualified applicants, there appears to be no reason to go back to an official who has previously served and, as Sharon Reid, pointed out, it sends a "hands off" message to the people. The possibility of one eight-year term was also mentioned which would eliminate special interest lobbying. The Commission questioned where the one-year hiatus originated and asked - the secretary to research the ballot label, Council resolution, A-113 and minutes to give them a background on the measure. Sharon Reid added to her motion "based on the ballot label from 1973, we are doing further research, because we believe the people may have meant it to be an absolute" . The secretary was requested to send a note regarding the Council tickler response date of 6/13/95 to Administration stating the Commission is taking the matter under consideraton and will respond shortly. The Chair declares the Motion is tabled. Charter Review Commission Minutes May 16, 1995 Page 4 The Commission decided to have their next meeting on Monday, June 5, 1995 at 4: 30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Lorraine Kraker, Secretary C:\crc\minute\5-16-95