Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1988/08/18 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING ]ouncil adjourned the August 16, 1988 City Council meeting at 11:24 p.m. to meet immediately following the 4:00 p.m. ledevelopment Agency meeting on Thursday, August 18, 1988 to :antihue discussion of: Arguments of the City propositions to be placed on the November 8, 1988 ballot The meeting will be held in the the Council Sonference Room, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CITY CLERK 3ATED: August 17, 1988 8:30 a.m. "I dec:arc un 'or penaltV cT :?o~!u-'; that l em,~o.e: b.,' t::e Sity o~ Chu:a V;s:a :n the OTfica of t:~s City Clark and t~a~ t pos.ed this Agends/;'];~:e on the BuN~tgn Board at MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, August 18, 1988 Council Conference Room 7:05 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox; Councilmembers Nader, Moore and McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Malcolm STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Attorney Rudol f, Deputy City Manager Morris 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING ARGUMENTS OF THE CITY PROPOSITIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 1988 BALLOT This item was continued from the City Council meeting of August 16, 1988. Councilman Moore stated he met with the Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, Bob Campbell. Mr. Campbell had concerns with making any major amendments to the Charter Review Committee's Argument in Favor of Proposition 0 because the wording was prepared by the subcommittee which was approved by the full committee. Mayor Cox commented the only modification that has been made by Mr. Campbell as Chairman of the Charter Review Committee is in reference to Proposition O. There was a deletion of the second sentence in the last paragraph dealing with the Argument in Favor of Proposition O. Councilwoman McCandliss noted concern with the last paragraph of the Argument in Favor of Proposition O. She believes this paragraph is misleading; that it does not represent what the amendment will accomplish. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated ordinarily the Council or some of the members of the Council would place its arguments on the ballot; however, this has been delegated to the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Cox pointed out there are two options to consider. The City Council could still have the ability to present their own argument which would supplant the Charter Review Committee's argument. The other option would be to communicate through the City Attorney the concerns that the City Council has and it would be at the discretion of the Charter Review Committee whether or not to change the argument. Councilman Nader noted there are legal precedents against placing an argument on the ballot which directly misstates the proposition being voted on or factually misleads the voting public. Mr. Rudolf stated there is a ten day Minutes - 2 - August 18, 1988 public review period during which someone who believes that it is false or misleading can bring a lawsuit to have it so declared by a court. Councilman Nader suggested the Assistant City Attorney immediately contact Mr. Campbell and inform him that it appears the ballot argument as written is misleading. Mr. Rudolf stated he had spoken with Mr. Campbell regarding the inconsistency of the argument and to consider rewriting the argument. Mayor Cox pointed out that the pamphlets which go before the voters will have (1) the proposition; (2) the City's impartial analysis; (3) argument in favor; and (4) rebuttals. Therefore, there will opportunities to clarify the proposition. Mr. Rudolf suggested that the Council approve the Argument in Favor of Proposition 0 as presented by the Charter Review Committee with the deletion of the last paragraph if that is acceptable to the Committee, or approve it as written by the Committee with some change in the 1 ast paragraph. Mayor Cox commented he believes the Council does not have the ability to change the argument as presented by the Charter Review Committee. Mr. Rudolf pointed out the Council would be asking the Committee if the suggested change would be acceptable to them. MS (McCandliss/Nader) to ask the City Attorney to express to the subcommittee of the Charter Review Committee the Council's concern with the last paragraph in the Argument in Favor of Proposition 0 and ask them to reconsider the wording on their ballot argument. Councilwoman McCandliss suggested deleting the last paragraph in the argument. The motion carried. (The vote was 3-0; Mayor Cox was not present for the vote.) Mr. Rudolf questioned what if the Charter Review Committee finds it unacceptable to delete the last paragraph? Councilmembers Nader, McCandliss and Moore agreed the argument would go forth as written. Councilmember Nader stated he had concerns on both the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis for Proposition P and the Argument in Favor of Proposition P. Regarding the City Attorney's analysis, Mr. Nader suggested the analysis should mention the way increases in salary would be affected if both Propositions 0 and P passed. Councilwoman McCandliss stated she would like it to be pointed out that other cities, including National City and Oceanside, pay Councilmembers a higher salary. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) to file the resolution and take no action; to request the Chairman of the Charter Review Committee to consul t with the committee to amend the Argument in Favor of Proposition P to include comparative data from other cities with regard to what councilmembers are paid. {The vote was 3-0; Mayor Cox was not present for the vote.) Minutes - 3 - August 18, 1988 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 3. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER: None. 4. MAYOR'S REPORT: None. 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT at 7:35 p.m. to the regular meeting of Tuesday, August 23, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC CITY CLERK By: Sandra Chase Recording Secretary WPC 3738H