Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2000 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD ROOM This is the time and place set for a joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino from the joint adjourned regular meeting held at 2 p.m., Monday, June 7, 2000, in the Economic Development Agency Board Room, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. The joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Estrada at 4:10 p.m., Thursday, June 8, 2000, in the Economic Development Agency Board Room, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tem Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, McCammack; Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: Council Member Anderson. Also present: Charter Review Committee Members. CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WORKSHOP (1) Chairman Jim Morris of the Charter Review Committee submitted an updated working draft of the Charter dated June 5, 2000 and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and receive additional feedback on some of the specific language. Mayor Pro Tem Estrada suggested that some time lines and/or goals should be set, keeping July 101h in mind as the last day the Council could take any action. Senior Assistant City Attorney Carlyle stated that the City could provide the information to the County in 88 days or 120 days, but that 88 days prior to the election was the absolute "drop dead" date to be included on the ballot. 1 6/8/2000 Mr. Carlyle distributed a "Draft Analysis of Proposed Charter" dated June 8, 2000, which was a section by section analysis prepared by the City Attorney's office, and noted that there were several legal issues that had to be resolved before it could be submitted to the City Council. Mr. Carlyle stated that one of the topics needing further discussion was Section 303, Term of office. Sec. 303. Term of office. It was pointed out that under the proposal, the term of office commences in January. If a candidate wins a runoff in March, he/she would take office in April, but the term would start in January. If there's a county-wide or State-wide consolidated election within 60 days of the March runoff, then the date could slip to June, some five months into a four-year term. The City Attorney's Office deemed several sections illegal and/or invalid including: ARTICLE XVII. CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. The language regarding establishment of a Charter Committee was found to be In conflict with state law. ARTICLE XVIII. SALARY COMMITTEE. Section 1802. Effective date of changes in compensation. Mr. Carlyle stated that a situation could arise where the same Council Members are making different amounts of money for doing the same job. ARTICLE XX. PERSONNEL. Section 2003. Nepotism. Government Code Section 12940 indicates that the language would not be permitted dealing with discrimination regarding the appointment of family members to any office. ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Sections 309. Mayor Pro-Tempore. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor pro-tempore would not be able to vote which would result in a lack of representation for the respective ward. Section 307. Non-interference with management. There was a concern that calling a department head on behalf of a constituent in order to make inquiries would be a violation of this section. 2 6/8/2000 Other major areas of concerns with the Draft Charter were: Section 1103. Recall. A concern was discussed that State law should not require less than 25 % of the number of registered voters who could recall an incumbent and it was suggested that a person should not be appointed to any office within four years after the recall. Section 309 and 404. Mayor to preside. It was suggested that on a tie vote, the Mayor pro-tempore should be allowed to cast a vote. Also, there was a concern that allowing the Mayor to appoint a permanent Mayor Pro-Tem would add to the Council's erosion of power. Section 403 B. Powers and duties. It was agreed that language should be included indicating that this was intended to apply to the Mayor's staff. Section 310. Employees of Common Council. This Section is unclear as to whether the Mayor has veto power over the appointments by the Council and it was felt that the Charter should include language as to what the Mayor can and can't do. It was also agreed that there were too many sections where the legislative authority of the Council was subject to the approval of the Mayor. Section 901. Filling of vacancies. In this section it was felt that a person appointed to any office should be by the will of the people of that district, possibly in a special election, and not by the Mayor. Section 500. The City Clerk. It was felt that the City Clerk should be elected, but the qualification that there be prior experience as a city clerk or deputy city clerk was unnecessary and should not be included. Section 186. There was discussion as to whether this section should remain in the Charter, whether it should be changed to an Ordinance, or whether it should simply become an ordinance after two years and upon adoption of the Charter, after which time it could be changed at the Council's discretion. ARTICLE X. ELECTIONS. It was stated that the City's Charter should be consistent with the Elections Code. The Council agreed that they should spend some time reviewing the legal analysis prepared by the City Attorney's office and asked if the Charter Committee had a target date. 3 6/8/2000 Charter Committee Member Schulze asked when the Committee could expect to receive the second phase of the City Attorney's analysis. Mr. Carlyle distributed a memo from Mr. Penman and stated that their next analysis would be forthcoming, but could not give a definite time line. Mr. Carlyle explained that the analysis would consist of three stages: 1) What the current Charter proposed; 2) What was not in the current Charter but should be from the City's standpoint; and 3) Should there be language changes which would eliminate future lawsuits. Mr. Morris remarked that he appreciated the amount of work spent drafting the Charter, but stated that he was disappointed to hear that there would not be sufficient time to complete the proper legal analysis of the document. Mr. Carlyle stated that the Charter was the most important document of the City and the hope was that in 30 days all the analyses would be complete and all questions answered, but that it was a major undertaking. Mr. Morris stated that he appreciated the City Attorney's detailed written analysis; however, all the issues and concerns may never be resolved. The Committee would take a look at the input from the City Attorney's office and would provide the Council with a time line and revised language in the near future. ADJOURNMENT (2) At 6:39 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to 4 p.m., Tuesday, June 13,2000, in the Economic Development Agency Board Room, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. RACHEL G. CLARK, CMC City Clerk BY~~ Linda Sutherland Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 2 No. of Hours: 2.5 4 6/8/2000