Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2000 Minutes MINUTES MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JULY 26,2000 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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 regular meeting held at 8: 12 a.m" Monday, July 24, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of the adjournment of said meeting held on Monday, July 24, 2000, and has on file in the Office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 8 a.m., Tuesday, July 25, 2000, on or near the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Valles at 5:13 p.m., Wednesday, July 26, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: None. DISCUSS & ADOPT - DRAFT CITY CHARTER (1) Mayor Valles explained why she chose to embark on the process of reviewing the City's current Charter. She stated that the Charter was a very political issue during her campaign and unofficial, self-appointed Charter committees proposed that the City should have the National League of Cities model Charter. In addition, the committee considered that the City should have a strong manager form of government and a ceremonial Mayor. It was agreed that the best time to put the Charter on the ballot for consideration by the voters was during a time when officials were not running for election, or in November 2000, A committee was selected and consisted of individuals she believed were objective and some who previously served on a Charter Committee. A consultant was hired to establish the process and educate the committee as to the 1 7/26/2000 different forms of government and charters, and establish principles that would guide the process so that discussions were not focused on people, but on positions and whatever discussions took place and whatever decisions made would produce a document that would lead the City in the future. It was important to recognize what belonged in a governance document and what did not. In order for the City to really affect the change that was needed, compromises had to be made. Mayor Valles stated that Section 186 shall remain as it currently exists in the Charter and shall continue in full force and effect and shall sunset upon adoption and implementation of Senate Bill 402 or any other binding arbitration by the State. The Fire and Police Departments were included as in the original Charter. The Civil Service Board was kept intact to provide employees with impartial arbitration of all disciplinary issues and hiring handled through personnel rules of procedures, adopted by the Council, to provide the desired checks and balances. Having two departments, Human Resources and Civil Service, was a duplication of effort and was not efficient. Mayor Valles distributed an updated version of the Charter dated July 24, 2000, which incorporated all the recommended changes, and a "Summary of Changes," also dated July 24, 2000. City Attorney Penman stated that Government Code Section 1020 provides that a person is incapable of holding a civil office if, at the time of his election or appointment, he is not 18 years of age and a citizen of the State. The Governor shall be an elector who has been a citizen of the United Stated and a resident of the State for five years. A person is ineligible to be a member of the legislature unless the person is an elector and has been a resident of the legislative district for one year and a citizen of the United States and a resident of California for three years immediately preceding the election. In Elections Code Section 321, an "elector" is any person who is a United States citizen 18 years of age or older and a resident of an election precinct at least 29 days prior to an election. City Attorney Penman stated that if there were any changes relating to the City Attorney's office in the body of the Charter, the City Attorney would not be able to prepare the impartial analysis. City Attorney Penman further stated that Section 9280 of the Elections Code provides that the elections official can be directed to prepare the analysis or, as practiced by other cities, it could be prepared by another law firm. RECESS At 5:44 p.m" Mayor Valles declared a 20-minute recess in order to review the revised Charter. RECONVENE MEETING At 6:20 p.m., Mayor Valles reconvened the joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, 2 7/26/2000 ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: None. Council Member Suarez made a motion to approve the proposed Charter, including Section 186. Council Member Estrada seconded the motion, but withdrew her second after Council Member Suarez clarified his motion was to approve the entire proposed Charter. Council Member Lien seconded the motion to approve the entire proposed Charter. (There was no vote taken.) The Council raised the following concerns regarding the revised Charter document. Sec. 403 (I). Powers and duties. Council Member Estrada felt that the City's annual budget should be submitted to the Common Council for consideration and approval. City Attorney Penman stated that the sentence should probably include the words, "and approval," otherwise, it could be argued that the Council only had authority to consider it. Jim Morris, Co-chair of the Charter Review Committee, clarified Council Member Estrada's concern by citing Section 2101, which gives the Council the authority to adopt the budget. City Attorney Penman stated that in his quick perusal of the new document, he found some legal problems and would need time to study it to confirm that it was legally sound, Sec. 404. Mayor Pro-Tempore. Council Member Estrada stated that she felt this item should not be part of the Charter, and the current system should remain as it is. Mayor Valles stated that Council Member Estrada made that same recommendation at the previous meeting and it was not approved. 3 7/26/2000 Sec. 409. Fire Department - Membership. Council Member Estrada felt that the title "Fire Chief" should replace "Chief Engineer. " City Attorney Penman agreed that the language was archaic and could be changed. Sec. 605. Outside legal counsel. Council Member Estrada stated that the word "jointly" inferred that the Mayor and Council had to agree on the issue of employing legal counsel. City Attorney Penman clarified that the word "jointly" meant that the Mayor and Council together make the decision. Council Member Anderson made a substitute motion, seconded by Council Member McCammack, that the position of City Attorney be reestablished as an elected position as in the original Charter. The motion failed by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Anderson, McCammack. Nays: Council Members Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Absent: None. Sec. 305. Ordinances, resolutions, and orders. B. Approval by Mayor. Council Member McCammack expressed a concern regarding the language in the sentence, "Approval of the Mayor shall not be required for emergency ordinances or quasi-judicial decisions of the Common Council." and requested that the line be stricken or a glossary of legal definitions be added to the Charter. Mr. Morris clarified that "emergency ordinances" is defined by State law and restricts what the Council is allowed to do in terms of procedures for the approval of emergency ordinances. Quasi-judicial actions is a commonly-applied term describing various procedures in terms of how the Council acts on various types of proceedings in its judiciary capacity, and the Committee felt it could not provide an explicit definition in the Charter. City Attorney Penman explained that appeals to the Council were quasi-judicial hearings and there were other measures passed by order. Matters in both the current Charter and the proposed Charter are passed by order, resolution or ordinance. If the veto for orders of the Council is no longer allowed, it would be a substantial change in how San Bernardino City government is administered. If the Mayor retains the veto for emergency ordinances and quasi-judicial decisions, five votes of the Council can still override that veto, In Sec. 305E, if the Mayor vetoed a 7 to 0 vote, the Council would have to override the Mayor's veto. 4 7/26/2000 Mr. Morris explained the rationale as to why emergency ordinances and quasi- judicial decisions were exempt from the Mayor's veto power. First, because a super majority vote of the Council is necessary to declare an emergency ordinance, the Committee felt it was not necessary for the Mayor's veto to be exercised because the Council could override it, and the determination of an emergency should be a determination made by the City Council and not the Mayor. Second, when the Council sits as an adjudicatory body, they are sitting as a board of essential judges to determine whether a decision was based on the proper findings. The Committee felt that by allowing the Mayor to override the decisions of that body was to allow the Mayor to function as one judge when the decision should be made by the Council as a whole, which is especially important in land use issues. Several Council members voiced their concern regarding the sentence, "Approval of the Mayor shall not be required for emergency ordinances or quasi- judicial decisions of the Common Council," and the balance of power. Council Member Lien stated that the language was included in the July 10 document and refers to some very specific instances where it makes good sense. City Attorney Penman stated that the language would remove the ability of the Mayor to veto any decision made by four Council Members. Council Member McCammack stated that the statement was highlighted in the July 20 document and was one of the issues raised by Mr. Gresham's firm. She indicated she would have difficulty supporting the document based on what she was asked by many of her constituents--to keep the strong Mayor form of government, but keep me balance of power intact with the Common Council. Section 186. Salaries. Skip Kulikoff, President of the City of San Bernardino Fire Fighters, stated that if Senate Bill 402 were to pass, Section 186 would sunset and that could mean they would receive no raises for 2-3 years. He indicated that he was a strong supporter of the Civil Service system and that the fire fighters were strong supporters of an elected City Attorney. Steve Filson, San Bernardino Police Officers Association, asked what were the alternatives after five years if Senate Bill 402 was not continued. Mr. Filson asked if language could be included such as, "Section 186 shall remain in full force and effect until implementation of Senate Bill 402 or until the expiration of current contractual agreements. " Council Member Lien asked if Mr. Filson also wanted to address the issue that if binding arbitration should sunset in the future, he would have the guarantee that 186 would be reinstated. 5 7/26/2000 Mr. Filson stated that either 186 would come back or that binding arbitration rules and regulations adopted by the State would remain in effect in the City of San Bernardino. Dr. Juanita Scott, a resident of San Bernardino, stated that there are checks and balances with an elected City Attorney and through a Civil Service system and the City must be concerned about the future. Mayor Valles addressed Dr. Scott's concern by stating that the Civil Service system would remain in place, it was the Civil Service Department that would have to work in concert with the Personnel Department. Richard Lewis, Secretary/Treasurer for the City of San Bernardino Professional Fire Fighters, stated that the City would not be able to move forward with dissension present among the labor forces. He felt the provisions in Senate Bill 402 were not satisfactory and asked how the City intended to make up for the people who will leave because the City has not remained competitive in salaries for its safety personnel. He asked that the Council carefully scrutinize the document before approving it. He invited the Mayor to meet with them to discuss what would satisfy their needs. He stated that the Fire Fighters were strong believers in the sanctity of both the Civil Service Department and Civil Service system and an elected City Attorney. Mayor Valles repeated that the Civil Service Department will still exist, but it will be under the auspices of the Personnel Director so they can work cooperatively as one. Civil Service as a system will remain in place, and fairness and personnel policies will be determined by the Mayor and Common Council. Oscar Gonzalez, a resident of San Bernardino, stated that he believed the Civil Service Department would be eliminated and the Civil Service Board would be limited to hearing appeals on disciplinary actions only. He didn't understand how the system could be fair and impartial working under the jurisdiction of the Personnel Department and the Mayor. Council Member Estrada stated that there were certain sections of the Charter that needed to be dealt with individually by the voters and she did not agree that everything should be included as one document and felt it would fail as a result. City Attorney Penman stated that there was a concern with the language of Section 1305 regarding the transfer of funds from the Water Department to the City's general fund and Proposition 218, and the likeli1100d that the City would lose its ability to transfer the funds, Also, Mr. Penman stated that if the voters reject the Charter in its entirety, they also reject the language, and the City could no longer transfer the money. Mr. Penman felt that the problem was corrected in the revised July 20 version of the Charter and encouraged the Council to take the safer. conservative approach. 6 7/26/2000 Mayor Valles suggested using the same language as was included in the July 20 version so as not to jeopardize the funding from the Water Department. City Attorney Penman suggested that the language in the July 24 version of Section 1305 be deleted and replaced with the words "Section reserved" and the language in the July 24 version of Section 2207 be deleted and replaced with the language from the July 20 version. Discussion ensued regarding possible amendment of Council Member Suarez' motion to include Mr. Penman's recommendations. Council Member Lien stated that she understood the previous discussions to be a substitute motion to be voted on separately in order to make the changes proposed by Mr. Penman. She also indicated that she wanted to give Mr. Scoggin and Mr. Morris an opportunity to respond. Mr. Morris felt the Water Fund was not in any jeopardy and stated that his only concern was if the July 20 version of Section 2207 is adopted, the language would eliminate the repeal of the current Charter upon adoption of the proposed Charter, and almough certain sections could be exempted from the repeal, the Water Fund and the language for the Board of Education would also be exempted out. Mr. Morris stated that the Council could approve the Charter in concept, and Mr. Penman could address his legal concerns before final adoption occurred. City Attorney Penman explained why Sections 190, 191 and 192 relating to the school district were not deleted and suggested that the motion include his suggestion that Article XV, Board of Education, be reserved, and the title be changed to "Effectiveness of this Charter." Mr. Morris did not understand why the language about the provisions of the previous Charter being repealed was stricken out and felt that it should be clarified that the existing Charter Sections go away, except those mentioned in that section, and it was his opinion that the first sentence in the July 20 version should remain intact. Council Member Lien suggested the Council adopt the July 24 document III concept. Council Member Suarez amended his original motion, seconded by Council Member Lien, that the Council approve in concept the Draft Charter dated July 24, 2000. (There was no vote taken.) Charter Committee Member Scoggin stated that the Charter document works in concert with modern law and reflects the touch of many hands and the Committee's careful consideration. 7 7/26/2000 Dave Child, 4965 N. "G" Street, San Bernardino, stated that he would like Section 186 to remain in the Charter and felt the citizens should have the opportunity to vote on it. Discussion followed wherein Mayor Valles suggested additional wording be included in the motion to more specifically detail the preparation of documents and investigation of legal issues, with the document to be returned to the Mayor and Council for final approval. City Clerk Clark stated that the next meeting was scheduled for August 7, and the deadline to submit to the County was August 11, 2000. She suggested that the meeting could be continued to a date sooner than August 7, or for one week to August 2, 2000, at 5 p.m. Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member Schnetz, and unanimously carried, that the City Attorney and City Clerk prepare the documents required to place the proposed Charter on the ballot, including any legal issues that need to be addressed, and that said document be brought back before the Mayor and Common Council at the next scheduled meeting. ADJOURNMENT (2) At 7:48 p.m., the joint adjourned regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission was adjourned to 5 p.m., Wednesday, August 2, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RACHEL G. CLARK, CMC City Clerk By;);'~h I M/flfc,/}(;{j i./ Linda Sutherland Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 2 No. of Hours: 2.6 8 7/26/2000