HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2014 Charter Committee Minutes Volunteer Citizen Based Charter Committee
Meeting 2—Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Approved Minutest
The meeting came to order at 5:38 p.m. in the EDA board room, with Committee members Casey Dailey, Gary
Walbourne, Michael Craft, Phil Savage, Tom Pierce and Gloria Harrison Present. Committee members Hardy
Brown and Hillel Cohn were excused for prior engagements. Dennis Baxter entered the meeting at 5:53 p.m. Also
in attendance were Senior Assistant City Attorney Jolena Grider and City Clerk Gigi Hanna.
Committee chairman Phil Savage called the meeting to order and Clerk Hanna read the roll call.
Mr. Savage had a few preliminary comments before opening the floor for public comment. He said the committee
has a responsibility to the City to make initial recommendations by May 19, meaning the committee has five
meetings to make its initial report and will have to stick to time limits on public and committee comments in order
to prioritize the use of our time. He assured people that their comments will be considered by the committee.
He read the Communication Rules for Effective Committee Dialogue, which was passed out at the first meeting and
reminded the group of the rules for public comment, adopted at the first meeting. He said all suggestions would be
considered and encouraged people to get them to the committee as soon as possible, via one of several means:
orally,via written statement, via email at a dedicated email account: CharterCommitteeksbcity.org.
Public Comments were provided by the following people:
Bill Sandefur, of San Bernardino: One year ago, I though San Bernardino should have outsourced the fire
department, paid the police department and work on the Charter in 2016. Today I'm thinking the City needs to
accomplish some goals to meet the Bankruptcy situation. Charter changes other than those that will help the
financial condition of the City should wait until 2016. The Charter Review Committee members should remember
the top priority for the City is the bankruptcy right now. I also think the committee members will be remembered
by the final results and the cost associated with it. Make sure you move in the direction that's good for the City.
Isabell Walbourne, of San Bernardino: I realize the committee was formed to take care of the Charter review for
the City of San Bernardino, but there are several people I have heard that do not know what happens to a City that
goes bankrupt. We don't have the corruption problems like the City of Bell, but our financial issues are still
important. The Charter is to be reviewed and possibly reformed to help in the lowering the overall City budget. So
what happens to the City if we do not satisfy the bankruptcy court? What possibly may happen to the offices and
people now working for the City?
(Mr. Savage said the committee would not be responding to questions while at the meeting because of time
constraints,however,her question would be passed along to staff to answer).
a
Approved at the 4/22/14 meeting
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
Matt Owen, of San Bernardino: I am the author of two of the proposals under consideration; one on the public
banking and the other on a community council rooted in the neighborhood associations. Public banking addresses
directly some of your priority-setting factors: The likelihood of improving the City financially is enormous, based
on the experience of North Dakota and other entities that have put their money in a public bank; the likelihood of
City-wide support is unknown; And considering whether there is adequate time for review and analysis has
sidelined too many good proposals. My thinking is that a community council would be the most representative
legislative branch possible, and you gain City-wide support to reduce the likelihood of corruption by plugging us
into the process.
Scott Olson, of San Bernardino: Regarding the mobile home issue, it is an ordinance and should not be part of the
Charter discussion; you need to stay focused. He discussed several items on the committee's matrix of topics: I
find it interesting that the repeal of Charter Section 186 is at the top of the list(of options the committee will
consider). Would it improve the City financially? I haven't seen any proof of that. Is there likelihood of-wide
support? We all know it is a hot-potato issue; some people support it, some don't. The question of considering this
now or later? You better put it much later because if you put it front and center,the entire legitimacy of your goals
and agendas are going to be put into question--that is the reality of what was created last year with the recall.
Suspending Charter Section 186 is setting the City up; every time there's an emergency you're going to suspend
the rules so you can create new ones? You will be the laughingstock of the entire country if you try that. Before
amending 186, the committee should first be able to explain the overall goal and benefit to the City vs. the
detriment,because the morale among public safety workers is low. Changing election years would obscure local
candidates trying to compete for attention against state and national races. The balance of power between the
Mayor, Council and Manager is a checks-and-balances system; in changing anything, maintain the checks and
balances and learn from cities that don't have the issues you have witnessed over the last 10 years. Regarding
making the City a general law City,this is akin to asking Sacramento to decide the City's future because we are
not capable. He suggested keeping the City Attorney and Clerk elected rather than appointed.
Action Item 91: Discussion and possible adoption of guidelines and/or policies for prioritizing Charter issues
Mr. Savage said the committee would need to decide how to prioritize the topics they would consider in the short
time they have been given and suggested three criteria to determine those issues to be taken up now, and those
better left for later: What are the changes might most help the City financially concerning its bankruptcy; What's
the issue most likely to garner City-wide support; and is there adequate time to review an issue and make a
recommendation that we believe is right. He said the committee would work by consensus to determine those
topics to be taken now and those to be considered later. Those would not necessarily be the most important issues
for the City, but those that the committee can address with in the time it has.
The committee expressed support for the criteria.
Mr. Savage introduced the matrix of comments received by him and other committee members. He said he and the
Clerk would keep a master list of all suggestions received and as a committee prioritize them. The document will
be dynamic, changing as more suggestions come into the committee, and the committee may change its mind
during the process about whether something should be considered now or later.
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
Tom Pierce said he wanted to entertain specific proposals from department directors because they deal most
directly with the Charter and he said the committee needs to hear from the City Manager before prioritizing the
topics on the matrix. I think we will need a lot of input from those in decision-making positions so I hope there
will be a lot of support available to us at every meeting. Casey Dailey echoed that sentiment, saying that the
opinion of the professionals who see the impacts of the Charter on budgets, process, and day-to-day operations
would help inform the committee in its decision making,
Mr. Savage said he had expected to hear from staff at this meeting on various Charter related topics because the
matter was listed on the agenda.
Mr. Dailey asked about the 2010 Management Partners study that made several suggestions regarding Charter
change, and Clerk Hanna said it in the committee members' notebooks, and is also posted on the web page for the
Charter Review Committee (direct link: http://www.ci.san-
bernardino.ca.us/hall/ clerk/volunteer citizen based Charter committee a endas asy)
Mr. Craft asked for clarification that the City Manager had told the committee at its first meeting that the
committee could request reports from Department directors. Clerk Hanna said he had said that, but it would be up
to him whether the report would be made by him or those who report to him. There was a request by the
committee chair that the City Manager present summaries, rather than have each department head make a
presentation, by the next meeting. He also requested that employee groups provide input as well. And that the
committee needs to have the information before it can function effectively.
Clerk Hanna said she had confirmation from no other departments, but that Stacey Aldstadt said she would make a
presentation at the April 22 meeting.
Gloria Harrision requested historical information about why certain commissions mentioned in the Charter were
formed, what they were charged with doing and what the consequences would be of removing them.
The group voted unanimously to approve the criteria for setting priorities in considering Charter topics.
Action Item #2: Entertain specific proposals from Department Directors and City Manager for Charter
Review.
This item was skipped.
Action Item #3: Discussion and possible adoption of the Anaheim Guiding Principals
The group voted unanimously to adopt the Anaheim Guiding Principles (provided at Meeting 1);
The group voted unanimously to approve the Communication Rules for Effective Committee Dialogue (provided at
Meeting 1);
Action Item #4: Entertain specific proposals from Committee Members for Charter Review.
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
Public comment on this item was provided by:
Scott Olson, of San Bernardino: who said that using the criteria of how a Charter Review topic might help the
City financially is a good idea. He said if the committee doesn't have City -wide support, the committee's work is
in vain. Time for adequate review and analysis is essential because the City will not be well served by a quick-fix
job. He said the committee should also consider what helps the City's overall function, and to start at the top
because every item they discuss all depends on the role of the Mayor, and the City council. He said once that
structure is in place, everything else will fall into place.
Committee members were polled about their specific ideas about the topics listed on the matrix, which informed
how the committee determined the items to be considered now and later.
Mr. Dailey said his concerns were the outdated Charter that had items in it that were now superfluous, or not in the
purview of the City Council, such policies on the school district. He also said that holding elections on odd years
hurts voter turnout. And he said he'd like to review the issues of an elected City Attorney and full-time Mayor. He
thinks the council/manager form over government is the most appropriate way to operate.
Dr. Pierce said he wanted to study the issue of Section 186. He also asked for the annual wage change for public
safety employees since Section 186 was instituted, compared to the wage changes for other employees; a report on
what percentage of the City's budget is dedicated to public safety, compared to other departments and how that
compares now to 10, 20 and 30 years ago. He also wanted to know the cities used in the Section 186 salary
comparisons and whether they had a similar mechanism as Section 186.
Gary Walbourne said he like to consider moving elections to even-numbered years. He acknowledged that Section
186 is a hot topic, but questioned whether there could be adequate review by May 19.
Dennis Baxter said he'd like to consider the election cycle, Section 186 and adding line items into the City budget
so the council is better informed of what they are voting upon.
Mrs. Harrison said she was interested in studying the election cycle, Section 186, cleaning up the outdated
language in the Charter and adding line item detail in the City budgets. She said the main issue in prioritizing is
determining if there is an urgency to consider an item.
Michael Craft said he was interested in reviewing Section 186, the line item detail in budgets and moving elections
to even years. He also said that those areas in the Charter that are procedural do not delineate the consequences of
not following the Charter, and he would like to see that changed. He also said he'd like to see the Charter contain a
City organizational chart.
Mr. Savage suggested that the committee seek authorization from the council to make recommendations by the
May 19 deadline, but to undertake an overall review and set up a procedure for regular review of the Charter.
Based on several consensus votes,the committee voted unanimously to prioritize the topics on the 4/15/2014
matrix. The edited document is attached.
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
The chair asked that the City Attorney agendize a report on the antiquated language in the Charter.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. The next meeting is set for Tuesday,April 22, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. in the EDA
board room.
i
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
SAN BERNARDINO CHARTER COMMITTEE POSSIBLE CHANGE TOPICS
Created 4/16/2014 by Gigi Hanna
' I
cd
0
�
� 3
>
A o •� U
� o 0o I
cd
U
Qj
z ° a z
U a s a s
>, cd
b
a�
to bA
U
ON N rU+ � N � � �
c N O
cd
cn
cn
U ° 88 o ° U a a p U
00 �o o°n a bL
00 — 000 �. ° ° U �° `J U 3 bbb u as
•� v •� U � � O U C j ° •~ � a�i � �' �
C% Coo vn u � �� � v U � p p
u CID
c
d y bA E 'C cd q cd N N N
U
a�
cd
X.
oo 1,:;, O E
U
0
Cd
a� o
U
b
.� ct 3
cd
as in.
O E —=-
tO
vOi N U O CA z
40, in
N CJ '_' �h c� N y
V] " > En
O
. +C� p" U p O 73 p, O
O °� cC t�
cd a> >,
cd rOr V� r N N N ^D VD
En
U r+, bOA p p
E- cdooUW � � xW
�t �n t� oo a, o
x �n 11.0 10
"~ N N
N `/
i
o�
.a
U
U
V]
tt
i
M
O
U �
N O
� N
� O
U
C�
y� O
a�
M � �
O O C7
cz
Qj
l� 00 --
O
N N ~ N N
U U U
N M
M M M M M M M r!1 U
cd
x
bA
aim
O
N
oo y
�' U