Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986/06/30 Charter Review Commission Minutes . . . ..-, ,., ( ( .., MINUTES OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE June 30, 1986 City Attorney's Library 7:00 p.m. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Members Present: Frank Scott, Norm Williams, Sharon Reid, Susan Fuller, Charles Smith, Bess pocklington Members Absent: Hugh Campbell Staff Present: City Attorney Thomas Harron Others Present: Councilman David Malcolm Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MSUC (Fuller/Reid) to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 16, 1986. Counci lman Malcolm addressed the Commi ttee wi th regard to three concerns. The first concern involved the question of runoffs. Mr. Malcolm predicted that there will be a large number of candidates running in future elections in the City of Chula Vista. He stated that there are ten to fifteen possible candidates for the council vacancy coming up in the next election. The annexation of Montgomery has provided the Ci ty with a new pool of candidates whom we can expect to see running for future offices. He suggested that the winner of the next election could have a small percentage of the voters. He pointed to a recent school board election where two candidates were elected with seventeen to eighteen percent of the vote. He stated that in the past he went along with the idea of not having runoffs to save money, but he no longer feels that this is a good reason. He feels that the present system gives a huge advantage to the incumbent. If an incumbent draws a crowded field, his or her name recogni tion should be enough to guarantee reelection. He feels that the voters didn't know what they were doing when they voted for the recent amendment to the Charter which eliminated runoffs. There was no opposition to this amendment on the ballot and the issue wasn't thoroughly explored. He proposed a June primary wi th a November runoff and suggested that this would be an inexpensive way of providing for it. He maintained that the City can afford this, and that the voters should have an opportunity to put the runoff back into our electoral system. Susan Fuller questioned the statement that the voters didn't know what they were doing when they amended the Charter the last time. Bess Pock 1 ington stated that she wasn't fooled the last time. She voted against it then, and she wants the runoffs put back in now. Councilman Malcolm reiterated his concern that candidates will be elected with a small percentage of the vote, and ci ted the fact that Aguilar and David were both recently elected to the school board wi th under twenty percen t of the voters' approval. . . . l' . ~, c ( Charter Review Minutes June 30, 1986 Page 2 Norm Williams reviewed the history of elections in the Ci ty of Chula Vista and in the County of San Diego, and concluded that the runoffs have generally been superfluous because the top vote getter normally won the runoff anyway. He also pointed out that due to the small turnouts, a candidate only gets fifty percent of the voters at presidential elections. Councilman Malcolm's second concern involved the cost of elections. He suggested that we move election dates to consolidate with general Statewide election dates to address the cost problem. Frank Scott informed him that the Committee favors this proposal and has expressed its intent to recommend it to the City Council. Mr. Malcolm's third concern involved Ci ty Council's salary. Hoe contended that the salary should be in line with the time required for the job. It currently requires a minimum of twenty-five to thirty hours per week. Council deals with complex matters and needs a lot of time to review reports and contracts to catch errors. He gave an example of the Jimmy's-on-the-Green contract. He noted that it is very time consuming to go through one hundred to three hundred pages of reports to prepare for Council meetings. Bess Pocklington asked how much the City Council presently makes. Mr. Malcolm responded that it was $600 per month and with the total of approximately $8,000 per year. He notes that he, along wi th other Councilmembers, rarely turn in expenses, but that their expenses exceed the amount allowed in reimbursement. Councilmembers can earn additional mone~ by serving on the Redevelopment Agency. This is limited to ~30 per meeting and is not paid if the meeting is combined with the City Council meeting. Frank Scott noted that that is not required by State law, but is a City Council policy. Bess Pocklington pointed out that the law did provide for a five percent yearly raise. Susan Fuller suggested that there would be a time problem putting the raise issue on the ballot for November of 1986. Frank Scott stated that one of the major reasons he resigned from Council was because it took too much time. He estimated that it cost him $15,000 to $20,000 per year to be on the Council. He considered it to be an all consuming job. He feels that this is an extremely poli tical issue and that timing is very important. He agreed with Councilman Malcolm that the salary should be raised. He stated that we are making it an eli tist job because ordinary businessmen can't afford to serve. Mr. Malcolm pointed out that it is important to have people with business backgrounds on the City Council, but that we're driving them out with unreasonable pay. We compete with other cities for choice development and we're involved in complex business-type questions . . . .' " . c ( Charter Review Minutes June 30, 1986 Page 3 invol v ing eminent domain, and some bus iness necessary to deal with these kinds of problems. expertise is Bess Pocklington pointed out that it is a mistake to associate better performance with better pay. Councilman Malcolm agreed with this, but stated that the current pay discourages many qualified candidates from running. He also noted that many of his constituents call him during business hours and that there is no practical way to avoid this; therefore, his business has to be sacrificed in order to serve on the City Council. Chairman Scott called the question as to whether we should include runoffs. Susan Fuller pointed out this decision would not affect the seat coming up for election in November of 1986. The first election it could affect would be the election fo'r seats three and four in 1987. Charles Smith expressed his opposition to the addition of runoffs. Bess Pocklington expressed her support, noting that the voters should have two candidates weeded out from the rest. She maintained that runoffs restore integri ty to the process. If we don't have them, our system favors the incumbents. Frank Scott and Norm Williams noted that the incumbent can only enjoy this advantage one time because of the two term 1 imi t on Ci ty Counci 1. Norm Wi 11 iams pointed out that our system presently does not result in a candidate getting fifty percent of the electorate because of the poor t urnou t we exper i ence. He also po in ted ou t tha t in State elections where there is a runoff, the primary is conducted on a partisan basis and he, as an independent, doesn't have any choice in the primary. Bess Pocklington noted that Chula Vista is the fastest growing city in the state, and suggested that we should start acting like a big city. Sharon Reid spoke against runoffs, noting that in the Aguilar/David school board election, the incumbents lost is both instances. She stated that by using the June and November dates, we will give greater integrity to the process. The winner will still get as many votes as previous runoff winners did when we had a light turnout. Susan Fuller expressed her agreement with Sharon Reid. Frank Scott noted that he unseated an incumbent prior to the time Chula Vista had runoffs. Norm Williams suggested that campaign managers are the strongest lobby in favor of runoffs. Chula Vista's history doesn't suppor t any need for r unof fs . Susan Fuller pointed out that campaign costs are going up and up, even with school boards, which makes it difficult for candidates to raise all the money needed to run in two elections. Frank Scott stated that he had always supported the concept of runoffs in the past, but that thi s quest ion has recently been pu t to the elector a te and they have decided. He feels that the voter s do know what they are doing (after all they elected him four times). He pointed out that since we changed our system four years ago, nothing has happened which would argue that we made an error. . . . , ( ( Charter Review Minutes June 30, 1986 Page 4 Bess pocklington stated that it is a run against an incumbent because of has. For example, name recogni tion countered by saying that a record against him or her. deterrent to a candidate to the advantages an incumbent and publici ty. Sharon Reid of an incumbent may work MSC (Williams/Smith) that the Committee affirm its earlier action opposing runoffs. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABS ENT : Scott, Williams, Reid, FUller, Smith Pocklington Campbell Chairman Scott noted that the Committee will be watching the next elect ion to see how it wor ks and that the Commi t tee wi 11 be having meetings afterwards so that it can make further recommendations based upon our experience in November of 1986. Mr. Scot t then brought up "AI terna t i ve No.1" which moves the elections for the Mayor to June of 1990 and extends seats one and two until November of 1990. In addition, it extends the next term for seats three and four from 1991 to 1992. Bess Pock 1 ington spoke aga ins t extending the cur ren t terms of sea ts three and four because this would result in their terms being extended twice without an intervening election. MSC (Reid/Fuller) in favor of Alternative No.1. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Scott, Williams, Reid, Fuller, Smith pocklington Campbell Bess Pocklington voted no because she wanted to be consistent with her position of favoring runoffs. Frank Scott suggested that one member make a presentation to the City Council. it should be the Chairman, Frank Scott. that this presentation be made on Tuesday, of the Commi t tee should The members agreed that The membership directed July 8th. The Committee then discussed future meetings, and Norm Williams suggested that they take place every two weeks. Frank Scott suggested that it be twice a month on the second and fourth Monday. The Committee agreed to put together an agenda at their next meeting which will take place on July 14th, and at that . . . . ;,. .' c- Charter Review Minutes June 30, 1986 Page 5 (- " time, deal with setting up a schedule of meetings to address the subjects that they feel need to be addressed. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. l749a ~