HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/08/08 Charter Review Commission Minutes
.
.
.
->
(
(
MINUTES OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
August 8, 1988
Council Conference Room
7:00 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Members Present:
Chairman Campbell, Members
Jack Blakely, Sharon Reid,
Click, Carlos Batara, and
Dorso
Susan Fuller,
Mary Frances
Nominee John
Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
City Attorney Tom Harron
After meeting in joint session with the City Council, the Charter
Review Committee met on its own starting at 8:30 p.m.
MAYOR/COUNCIL COMPENSATION:
Chairman Campbell stated that none of the issues raised regarding
compensation hadn't already been discussed and considered by the
Charter Review Commi t tee. He has not changed his . mind on the
recommendations of the Committee.
Member Reid said that the testimony of Bess Pocklington at the
joint meeting was a classic example of the problem which led the
Committee to make the recommendation it did. Bess Pocklington
was a member of special interest group which opposed the SANDER
project and which, in turn, opposed increases in Council
compensation for reasons which had nothing to do with
establishing fair compensation related to the responsibilities of
the position. Council compensation is at best a controversial
issue and when special interest groups politicize the issue for
reasons unrelated to a determination of the correct compensation
for the position, any proposal is going to have problems. The
whole point in adopting an "independent indicator" was to prevent
this kind of politicization. Member Blakely agreed.
Member Batara said that he had been moved by some of the
arguments and agreed that there was some danger in using an
"outside" indicator. He felt the salary should relate to Chula
Vista itself.
Member Reid noted that when Montgomery was annexed, approximately
23,000 people were added to the City. The population is now
125,000 which means that Montgomery resulted in approximately a
20% increase. Council's salary increases could be related to
this number, but she felt a better measure relates to the
responsibilities of the job.
..'
(
(
.
Charter Review Minutes
August 8, 1988 Meeting
Page Two
Member Blakely said that he felt that there was some merit to the
idea of phasing in a full-time City Council. In response to a
question from Member Blakely, Harron advised that it is legally
possible to do this.
.
Chairman Campbell noted that the Charter Review Commi ttee had
previously found that the time was not right to go to a full-time
Council. Member Fuller noted the concern that City Council would
then need staff and the increased costs would be significant.
Member Fuller stated that the Commi ttee should reconsider its
posi tion due to the Ci ty Council reaction. Member Click stated
that if the Ci ty Council is so concerned about losing control,
why should the Charter Review Commi t tee be worr ied abou t taking
it out of the pol i tical arena. Member Fuller f el t that the
Committee could meet the concerns of the Council and the public
by picking a number versus an indicator. Member Reid reviewed
the reasons that the Charter Review Committee picked an indicator
after its previous discussion and defended those reasons. They
were based on an analysis of the responsibilities of the
positions. Member Batara stated that he had problems using the
Board of Supervisors as an indicator and would feel more
comfortable using jUdges directly. Member Click noted that the
majority of the people will say that Councilmembers knew what the
pay was when they sought the office so they shouldn't complain
now. Member Blakely recalled that the Committee had started
discussing the issue of a full-time Council in response to
comments from the City Council and had then initiated the issue
of increased compensation on its own. He said that it appeared
to him that two of the five Councilmembers don't support the
increase and questioned whether the Charter Review Committee
should just drop the subject. Chairman Campbell felt that
Council's comments should not necessarily be characterized as
opposition. He stated that Councilman Nader seemed to be looking
at other alternatives which doesn't mean he is opposed.
Member Reid said that she recognized that the issue of Council
compensation is always going to be controversial, but she wants
to attract above average people to serve on the City Council and
feels that the Committee's compensation proposal will help to do
this. She recognized that if the measure receives opposition,
there is a good chance it will fail, but she felt the Committee
should be willing to try anyway. MSUC (Campbell/Reid) to
reaffirm the Committee's prior position on Mayor and City Council
compensation.
.
.
.
.
(
(
Charter Review Minutes
August 8, 1988 Meeting
Page Three
PLANNING COMMISSION COMPENSATION:
Member Fuller suggested that the Commi ttee should drop Planning
Commission compensation because there too many money issues on
the ballot. Chairman Campbell stated that he had been impressed
by the survey results. Member Reid noted that San Diego doesn't
give compensation and its Planning Commission has the most
responsibility of all. She reminded the Committee that this
issue resulted in its most "tepid" recommendation. She did note
that the Planning Commission does make some final decisions.
Member Blakely stated that he would consider deleting this
measure because it may jeopardize Mayor and City Council
compensation. Member Fuller moved to withdraw the Planning
Commission compensation measure from the ballot, Click seconded
the motion with a 4-2 (Reid/Campbell opposed) vote.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS:
The Committee made various recommendations on wording changes for
the draft arguments and analysis. The Committee appointed a
subcommittee of Chairman Campbell and Members Reid and Blakely to
review the changes and scheduled a meeting on Friday, August 12,
1988 in the City Attorney's Library to sign the arguments so that
they would be available to the City Council at its August 16
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
4533a
u
,~/