Loading...
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 ,~/