Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2015 Charter Committee Agenda & Backup 1 City of San Bernardino Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee Agenda Time: 5:00 p.m. Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 Place: EDA Board Room 201 N. E Street, San Bernardino, CA 92418 The City of San Bernardino recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services to those individuals with disabilities.Please contact the City Clerk's Office (909) 384-5102) one working day prior to the meeting for any requests for reasonable accommodation, to include interpreters. Anyone who wishes to speak on a numbered agenda item will be required to fill out a speaker slip. Speaker slips should be turned in to the City Clerk before the item is taken up by the Committee. The Clerk will relay them to the Committee Chair person. Public comments for agenda items are limited to three minutes per person, a total of 15 minutes per each numbered item(not each sublettered item), with comments to be received from the public before discussion of the item by Committee members. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIR'S COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENT(LIMIT 30 MINUTES) ACTION ITEMS(subject to time available with meeting scheduled to end by 7pm) 1. Approval of minutes from May 12 17, 2015 meeting(attached) 2. Procedural Matters a. Presentation from Andy Belknap, Management Partners b. Review,revise, and approve Approach to Charter Review Revision#lc (attached) C. Review our Public Input Questionnaire,possible modifications and updates of it, & responses concerning it received to date. d. Timeline(PMS draft attached) e. Request for Professional Charter Consultants &/or Legal Counsel f. Review City's Strategic Plan and Plan of Recovery in support of Plan of Adjustment- (Extracts attached) 3. Development of Skeleton Form of Government Structure (PMS Analysis attached) 4. Development of Skeleton City Council Structure and Powers 5. Next Meeting Date and Time ADJOURN Unless changed at the May 2e meeting, the next meeting of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, June, 9, 2015 in the EDA Board Room, 201 N. E. Street. Attendees are encouraged to park on the top floor of the City Hall parking structure and access the EDA building from there. Item 1 Draft Minutes 5/12/15 City of San Bernardino Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee May 12, 2015 DRAFT Minutes The meeting was called to order by Chairman Phil Savage at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 12, 2015, in the EDA Board Room, 201 N. "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Phil Savage; and Committee Members Dennis Baxter, Hillel Cohn, Michael Craft, Casey Dailey, Gloria Harrison, Tom Pierce, and Gary Walbourne Also attending: City Attorney Gary Saenz and Deputy City Clerk Linda Sutherland PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIR'S COMMENTS Chairman Savage stated that at their last meeting the committee laid out a plan of approach they were going to take and they discussed the importance of public input and the need for professional counsel. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Smith, Highland, stated that public input was extremely important and offered to help the committee in any way he could. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Minutes for April 28, 2015 Committee Member Walbourne requested that the discussion regarding the Strategic Planning Core Team meetings being a possible Brown Act violation be included in the minutes. Committee Member Craft made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Pierce, to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion carried unanimously. 2. Revision ofApproach to Charter Review—Revision #1 Chairman Savage reviewed the revisions he had made to the document and stated that when they review each topic they should also be considering the City's Strategic Plan and not just the Operating Practices for Good Government that had been adopted. He suggested adding the Strategic Plan to the process as Item No. 1 E7. He stated that they also need to discuss what should be in the Charter versus what should be in the Municipal Code. 3. Plans re Public Comment and Forums There was discussion as to whether public comment on specific agenda items should be limited. City Attorney Saenz advised that at a previous meeting the committee had agreed to provide a 30 minute general public comment period at the beginning of each meeting with a 3 minute limit per person and hear public comment for each action item limited to the 3 minutes per speaker, for a total of 15 minutes per item. Committee Member Cohn stated that the fundamental problem was not how long a speaker should be allowed to speak; it was how to get the public to come out and be concerned about the Charter. He said one of their challenges was how to make them understand that the Charter is more than some technical discussion and that it was crucial to the whole development of the City. Committee Member Dailey stated that he would like to get the results from the questionnaire first and then use the resources available within the community to solicit input from the public. Chairman Savage stated that at some point the committee may need the help of a professional consultant. Committee Member Harrison stated that it's essential that they have a very strategic outreach plan. She suggested enlisting the help of the new communications manager to make sure the story they put out to the public is consistent. She stated that she understood the role of the committee members was to study the information and come up with their best recommendation and then educate the community as to how they came to that conclusion. Discussion ensued regarding how/when the committee should present information to the City Council. Committee Member Craft made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Dailey,to take part in public comment and forums. No vote was taken. Committee Member Harrison suggested that the motion be amended to include a request for assistance from the Mayor's office, the City Manager's office, and the communications manager. 2 Committee Member Craft amended his original motion, seconded by Committee Member Dailey, to take part in public comment and forums and to request assistance from the Mayor's office, the City Manager's office, and the communications manager. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Questionnaire/Outline for Public Input The questions were discussed at length and adopted by consensus of the committee. Jim Smith, Highland, recommended that a question be added to the questionnaire asking the public whether they would like to keep the current election cycle or change it to even numbered years. Committee Member Dailey made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Baxter, to add the following question to the questionnaire: Should all City elections coincide with presidential and gubernatorial elections. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Timeline (Continued to the next meeting) 6. Development of Skeleton for Charter Review (Continued to the next meeting) a. Form of Government Structure b. City Council Structure and Powers 7. Next Meeting Date and Time ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. The next meeting of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be held at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2015, in the EDA Board Room, 201 N. "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. By Linda Sutherland Deputy City Clerk 3 Item 2b Approach to Charter Review Revision#ic APPROACH TO CHARTER REVIEW- Revision#lc 5/26/15 I. PROCESS A. Develop a specific timeline for working through the process and planned meeting schedules. B. Actively solicit input on each decision in the process from the public, Council,relevant City personnel, &professional advisors. C. Work from Charter Topics,not from S.B.'s Charter. Keep General Law as a possibility. D. Determine topics to be used; first for Skeleton and then for language. E. For each topic review and consider the following: 1. Input received from the public 2. National Civic League's Guide &Model Charter 3. Charters of other similar Cities 4. San Bernardino's Charter Reform Principles &Objectives (5/19/14) 5. Other issues relevant to the topic. 6. San Bernardino's Strategic Plan 7. San Bernardino's Current Charter 8. Charter vs Code Filter a. Require by Charter or Charter to Authorize Code to implement b. Great City-Aspirational -vs Functional City 9. Manner General Law would treat, or allow treatment of, the topic a. Comparison with reference to issues related to this topic b. Great City-Aspirational vs Functional City 10. Thoughts of each Committee Member F. Develop the desired"governmental skeleton" of basic topics first, leaving specifics, other topics and drafting to take place later, considering first what basic approach to governing is desired(Form of Government) 1. Council-Mayor 2. Council-Manager 3. Mixed/Other G. Flesh out specifics and language as to each basic and other Charter topic. II-a BASIC SKELETON TOPICS A. Form of Government Structure 1. Council-Mayor 2. Council-Manager 3. Mixed/Other B. Council 1. Powers 2. Number(reduce? Add 1 at large?); Districts (Wards); Election (by Districts, from Districts, at large, mixed, cumulative voting, dual district&final at large elections) 3. Other C. City Officers 1. Mayor a. Powers-Duties-Responsibilities b. Manner of Selection(Election at large or by council or rotating from council members, etc.) C. Other 2. Manager a. Powers-Duties-Responsibilities b. Relationship with Mayor, Council, Department Heads C. Other 3. Other Offices (their manner of selection,powers, relationship with Manager, Council, Mayor, etc.) a. Attorney b. Treasurer C. Clerk 4. Election Process 5. Fiscal Management 6. Departments - (consider being specific vs leaving open to ordinance by Council) a. Police&Chief b. Paramedic/Fire &Chief C. Finance d. Water e. Library f. Planning g. Human Resources-Civil Service h. Other i II-b ADDITIONAL TOPICS - (For discussion and drafting) 7. Preamble 8, Powers of the City 9. Severability, Transition and Municipal Code Issues Resulting from Charter Revisions 10. General Provisions - a. Charter Amendment b. Franchises? C. Initiative, Referendum and Recall? d. Code of Ethics Item 2d Timeline 3 Charter Committee Timeline #I a May 26, 2015 Dates Tasks Deadlines Comments 5/12 Develop Input Questionnaire By this meeting Approve it 5/26 Receive Input from Questionnaire By this meeting Develop Timeline for Committee Draft by this meeting Approve it Request Council approval for professional input Deal with Charter Topics Skeleton, not details 6/9 Receive professional input on approach, etc. By this meeting Deal with Charter Topics Skeleton, not details 6/23 Deal with Charter Topics Skeleton, not details 7/14 Deal with Charter Topics Skeleton, not details 7/28 Complete approval of Charter Skeleton By this meeting Submit to professional Consultant for review and input 8/11 Consider Consultant's input &revise Approve skeleton to such extent as deemed appropriate 8/25 Hold Public Forum on Skeleton 9/8 Develop specifics as to each Topic 9/22 Develop specifics as to each Topic 10/13 Develop specifics as to each Topic 10/27 Develop specifics as to each Topic I1/10 11/24 12/8 12/22 1/12 1/26 2/9 2/23 3/8 Complete Specifics as to each Topic By this meeting Submit to professional Consultant for review and input 3/22 Hold Public Input Forum 4/12 Review and Revise Charter change proposal 4/26 5110 Make final review and approve proposal for By this meeting presenting to Council 5/16 Present Recommendations to Council for their consideration and approval for putting to vote of citizens. Item 2f C eo"� Excerpts from SB's Plan of Adjustment Relevant to Charter Change A. From City manager's &Attorney's Recovery Plan Recommendation Memo: 1. The Recovery Plan's terms make clear that the City needs to streamline governance and operations and move into the mainstream of modern organization and service delivery for a city of our size. 2. This report also describes the past practices and history of the City prior to the adoption of the Operating Practices for Good Government (OPGG), an interim operating agreement signed by the Mayor, City Council, City Attorney and City Manager on April 6, 2015. The adoption of the OPGG is a significant step forward for the City. This was done based upon the recommendation of the Strategic Planning Core Team (Core Team), a group of distinguished community residents, asked by the Mayor and Common Council to help the City chart a plan for the future. The Core Team, along with municipal government experts hired by the City to assist in preparation of this plan,believe that until fundamental government and management issues fully explained in this report are resolved, it will be difficult for the City to operate in a modern and efficient manner. The City will prepare a draft of a new Charter for consideration by the voters and this draft will be presented to the voters on the first available date on which such vote can be held. This report and the Plan notes in several places that the Core Team has identified a need for changes which lead to Charter reform, recommended Charter reform, and indicated that individual Core Team members intend to support a Charter reform initiative. 3. The Core Team and other constituencies, including outside experts,have concluded that decades of questionable management and inefficiency are very much the result of a convoluted City Charter that complicates daily management and generally neutralizes executive authority. The City's governance structure is highly complex and unique compared with any other city in California. Overlapping authority and ambiguities in the City's Charter create operational uncertainty and ineffectiveness because the role, responsibility and authority of the Common Council, City Manager, City Attorney and Mayor are unclear and at times, contradict each other. No other city in California has followed this peculiar governmental approach. The Charter itself has grown and progressively become more unwieldy as a result of City initiated amendments in 1992, 1995 (twice), 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2014. With a system of diluted authority, many previous City employees with named responsibility have sought employment elsewhere, creating an untenable 24% annual turnover rate in executive management positions over the last ten years. The outcome was best summarized in a recent Atlantic article, by the well-known writer and journalist James Fallows: "San Bernardino has a uniquely dysfunctional city-governance system, sort of a metropolitan parallel to the current zero-sum gridlock of national politics. Some cities we've seen run on I the "strong mayor"principle; others, "strong city manager." Because of San Bernardino's unique and flawed charter, it has in theory a "strong mayor" but in reality a "strong nobody" system of government, and an electoral system so discouraging that turnout rates are extremely low even by U.S. and California standards." 4. The Core Team, along with outside municipal government experts hired by the City to prepare this plan, have expressed strongly and clearly that San Bernardino must address the reform of its system of governance and management. San Bernardino is an outlier in comparison to other cities of its population size in the State as it does not employ a true Council/Manager form of government. It also has an elected City Attorney, a peculiarity shared by only eleven other cities in California(mainly very large cities), and an unusual and unwieldy Charter. All of this has led the Core Team to recommend that the existing Charter be repealed and replaced with a Charter that clearly spells out responsibilities for policy(Mayor and Common Council) and administration and management(city manager) so the government can operate effectively and efficiently. The current Charter so impairs the operation of the City that it has been forced to seek an interim operating agreement(see Attachment 1) even to be able to develop and implement this Plan. This fact was dramatically illustrated by a strategic planning committee which unanimously told the Mayor, majority of the Common Council, City Attorney and City Manager, that operations and management needs fundamental reform. The City intends to establish a Charter committee to draft a new Charter and place that new City Charter on the November 2016 ballot for consideration by the voters, or sooner if possible. 5. The Core Team concluded that a significant barrier that could prevent San Bernardino from becoming a modern and sustainable organization involves its governance structure. The Core Team has expressed that the City needs a form and system of governance proven to support satisfactory performance by other municipal corporations of comparable size and complexity. The Core Team believes that the application of this principle requires that the existing City Charter be repealed and replaced with a much simpler charter approach embodying a standard council-manager form of government. As noted, the Mayor, the Common Council (all who voted yes or no on the issue), the City Manager and the City Attorney have agreed to and signed an interim resolution outlining the way they intend to work together going forward until a new charter can be considered by voters. 6. The Core Team has expressed the concern that until the City Charter is replaced with a better approach based on best industry standards, and empowered,professional city management is established, full implementation of the long-term recovery described in the Recovery Plan will be challenging. While the City Charter provides for the position of city manager, the City organization actually operates under a type of quasi strong mayor-city manager(not council-manager),which is an unusual hybrid not found in other cities in California. Combined with these peculiarities is the presence of an elected(as opposed to appointed) city attorney. This is highly unusual, and the resultant confusion about roles and responsibilities makes day-to-day management much more complex. Typically in California, only the very largest cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, and Long Beach) have an elected city attorney, and just 11 of 482 cities in California use this structure. Other cities operate under a strong mayor(not to be confused with directly elected mayor) or council-manager form of government. In San Bernardino, some municipal functions report to the Mayor and/or Common Council, others to advisory bodies (Component Boards), while still others report to the city manager. In some cities with a directly elected mayor with specified authority as well as a city manager(such as the City of San Jose), there are clear delineations about who has the force and authority of the chief administrative officer of the city; e.g., the city manager in San Jose. l In San Bernardino, the mayor is designated as the chief executive officer and the city manager is designated as the chief administrative officer of the City. The police and fire chiefs are under the general supervision of the Mayor, yet the city manager is the immediate supervisor and accountable for the organization and operation of two of the most costly and important municipal functions. The Core Team, along with outside local government experts, has expressed a concern that these concepts are at odds with the basic precepts of management and public administration and that effective management requires assignment of responsibility and the delegation of sufficient authority to allow management to obtain results consistent with the assigned responsibility. The ambiguity so effectively created by San Bernardino's Charter, in the view of the Core Team and outside experts, dilutes the ability to manage the organization. The Core Team along with other experts believe that this has had a highly corrosive effect on the organization's ability to implement needed changes over the years. The organization is in disarray as it does not know who really is in charge: the Mayor, City Attorney, Common Council, independent authorities (not elected) or the City Manager. The results are self-evident. A number of operational impacts result from the confused lines of authority as provided in the current San Bernardino City Charter, including the following: • Internal service functions struggle to modernize, streamline and provide valued, costeffective service to the community and the organization. • Significant and unnecessary allocation of staff time and severely constrained resources are trying to bring various municipal functions into a unified, goal-oriented team with a common vision and strong commitment to public service. • Compromised problem solving and strategic planning due to fragmented and conflicting lines of authority. This has been highlighted in the decades-long power struggle between the elected mayor and city attorney positions. • An inability to make informed management or policy decisions A Singular City Charter The San Bernardino City Charter was first created in 1905. Today, it is a 46 page document with 133 sections. Beginning in about 1988, city attorney opinions began to be issued regarding certain sections. There are now over 80 of these referenced,with 28 separate opinions on the Office of Mayor alone. In the early 2000s, City leaders ostensibly recognized the need to begin to create a professional city management structure. In November 2004, the voters of San Bernardino approved a ballot measure (Measure G)that repealed the City Charter in effect at the time and replaced it with a new one. According to the Impartial Analysis by the city attorney, the major differences between the old Charter and the new "revolve around the creation of the position of city manager, and to make it easier to file initiatives and recall City-wide elected officials."The new Charter became effective in March 2006. Some provisions related to overall management of the City in the new Charter included: • Designating the Mayor as the chief executive officer of the City of San Bernardino. • Creating a"position of city manager and the eligibility, requirements to be appointed to that position." • Designating the city manager as the chief administrative officer of the City to be responsible for the administration of all City departments, except the offices of the Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer, the Water Department, the Free Public Library and the Civil Service System. • Setting forth the authority and duties of the city manager relative to supervision, appointment and removal of certain full-time, temporary and part-time City employees. • Designating the Mayor as the person who appoints and removes the city manager, acting city manager,police chief and fire chief, subject to Council approval. • Maintaining the Mayor's present general supervision of the police chief and fire chief. The Core Team and the City expert consultant team believe that the Charter revision effectively made a bad situation untenable. As a result, the City has had five city managers since 2004. Clearly, trying to "manage" San Bernardino is extremely difficult. As it exists today, Figure 5 shows the confused reporting and authority relationships of the City of San Bernardino municipal organization. 7. While amendments to the Charter created the position of city manager, an important step toward a council-manager form of government, the new Charter continued provisions that impede the city manager from exercising full responsibility and authority for effectively and efficiently delivering services throughout the entire city organization. Specifically, the City Charter as amended: • Did not formally establish a council-manager form of government for the City of San Bernardino. Unlike many city charters, no form of government was specifically stated. • Designated the Mayor as the chief executive officer of the City(strong Mayor),with responsibility for general supervision of the police chief and fire chief. While the city manager was designated to have day-to-day supervision of these functions, the new Charter did not achieve the objective of having a city manager position with full responsibility for managing the City. • Maintained three separate departments under the administrative and operational direction of three advisory bodies (Component Boards) appointed by the Mayor and Common Council, not the city manager. The Mayor,however, lacks the authority to remove members from each of these boards. As a result, the water utility, library and civil service functions are not accountable to the municipal operation. • Retained the authority of the Mayor and Common Council to appoint and remove department heads, division heads, and all unclassified City employees. Only classified employees within city manager-directed departments may be removed upon the recommendation of the city manager, without the additional required consent of the Mayor and Common Council. Due to contradictions within the Charter, it is unclear whether the city manager can remove department or division (classified employees)heads without the expressed consent of the Mayor and Common Council. There are 482 incorporated cities in California. Among these, 121 have their own charters. Most of the cities with a charter(like San Bernardino)were incorporated during the first half of the 20th century, or earlier. About 75% of California cities operate under the general laws of the State of California rather than their own charter. The council-manager form of government is the predominant form of local municipal government in California, although some cities operate under a strong mayor system. Charter cities typically designate the form of government within their charter, which is more often than not the councilmanager form of government. The San Bernardino City Charter does not. Of 28 cities in California with populations between 150,000 and 400,000, 27 use the council-manager form of government. In most municipalities in California, and under the council-manager form of government, the council, elected by the public, is the governing body of the city. The city manager is hired by the council to carry out the policies it establishes. The council generally provides legislative and policy direction while the city manager is responsible for administration of day-to-day operations based on council policy. However, in San Bernardino, the Common Council and Mayor have an extensive list of executive powers. Most critically, the Charter sets forth crippling ambiguities with respect to the authority of the city manager, the Mayor and the Common Council regarding the management of a $211 million municipal corporation. A group of community residents and leaders invited to a strategic planning summit on March 18 and 19, 2015 felt so strongly about this matter that they devoted at least a quarter of their total time to understanding the issue and developing ways to address it. Experts hired by the City, including the national consulting firm of Management Partners, who have been engaged repeatedly by the City, and the Core Team concluded that the high rate of turnover is a direct result of poorly functioning and confusing management authorities, structures and reporting relationships embodied in the City Charter. No city can be effectively managed with this amount of management and leadership turnover. In fact, it is unheard of in such a broad scale in other municipalities. Further, this period includes only two years of bankruptcy, which is obviously a highly stressful environment to manage a municipal organization. However, in 2009, the City experienced over 50% turnover of executive leadership. As noted by the Core Team and the City's expert consultants, there are many reasons—including an ineffective City Charter, management instability,poor financial policies, and the lack of strategic planning—that explain why policy makers and City managers are struggling to make resource allocation choices in support of basic municipal services. 8. Public Safety Compensation - City Charter Section 186 The basic standard for fixing salaries, classifications and working conditions of the safety employees in the City's Police and Fire Departments is provided under City Charter Section 186. In essence, Section 186 eliminates the collective bargaining process regarding the setting of public safety salaries and inhibits City management's ability to address the full range of factors that impact public safety salaries. Past attempts to reduce salaries have resulted in litigation with adverse results to the City. Section 186 requires the comparison of base salaries for each of seven public safety classifications in ten California cities (which have been reduced from 50 cities)with populations between 100,000 and 250,000. (Comparison cities are not based on the region which is a typical public sector practice.) Salary ranges for each of the seven classification levels are then established, and salary adjustments are effective annually on August 1. Section 186 has been the subject of numerous legal opinions generated by the City Attorney's Office which have affected, in part, its implementation. The result of the implementation opinions has created established practices that have impeded the City's ability to control how Section 186 surveys are conducted. As a consequence, the City's ability to exercise any fiscal control over safety salaries has been curtailed and the salary increases as well as the increases to salary-driven benefits such as pension benefits have been significant. 9. Charter Impact In March 2007, Management Partners, a local government consulting firm, reported the results of an organization review of the City of San Bernardino and in March 2010 provided a status update to the 2007 organization review. The 2007 report concluded that the current state of operations within the government was not the result of wastefulness but, ...rather the natural result of the historical development of a government that has outmoded information systems, inadequate management support and a multitude of convoluted low value processes. Compounded by a serious (and now urgent) fiscal situation, the primary recommendation of the report was that the government must modernize... and the political and management superstructure needs to be streamlined. The Core Team, along with Management Partners, which was retained to assist the City in preparing this plan after Judge Jury imposed the May 30 deadline, determined that virtually nothing has been done to address these issues since the report was issued. The Core Team identified the City's organization and policy structure as one of the foremost obstacle to developing the organization into a unified,well-functional operating team. After review, the Core Team concluded that to accomplish this critical objective will require major changes to the City Charter. This is a difficult process but the Core Team believes it is absolutely necessary for recovery. The Core Team also believes that the consequence of making little or no change in the governance structure will sidestep one of the most important issues to be addressed to allow the City to become a costeffective,progressive and sustainable government delivering valued services to the community. As previously noted, the Mayor, a strong majority of the Common Council, the City Manager and City Attorney have agreed to and signed an interim resolution outlining the way they intend to work together going forward until a new charger can be approved. Out of five cities with comparable populations in the state who also operate under a city charter, only San Bernardino does not operate under a council-manager form of government or close equivalent. In fact, it is difficult to define the type of government contemplated in the Charter, as it presents a mish-mash of overlapping and conflicting provisions. Management Partners, the Core Team, and other experts hired by the City are all cognizant that no other city follows this particular approach and the condition and performance of the municipality strongly suggested to them that it is not an effective approach. The council-manager form of government is the predominant form of government in California, although some cities operate under a strong mayor system. A 2004 City Charter change created the position of city manager; however, it did nothing to create a council-manager form of government or any other recognizable structure. The charter change created the position of city manager,but designated the Mayor as the chief executive officer providing, among other things, general supervision of the police and fire chiefs. The city manager as the chief administrative officer is responsible for all City departments, except the Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer, the Water Department, the Free Public Library and Civil Service. The Mayor and Common Council can appoint and remove all unclassified City employees except for"deputies, assistants... holding office at the pleasure of an elective officer." Incredibly,the Common Council can also override, amend or revise any decision made informally or formally by the Mayor with a 2/3 vote. Neither the community or the City organization or business understands who is really in charge and can reliably make decisions. This structure is not even remotely comparable to any other found in a California city. For a true chief executive officer(city manager) of San Bernardino to be able to manage and lead the operations of the City government, mandate and implement efficient and effective services to the community, and be held accountable for such operations by the Mayor and Common Council, s/he needs to have authority to: • Hire, discipline and terminate all department heads (effectively) and employees (following collective bargaining agreements, state and federal laws, and a merit-based personnel system). • Direct changes for efficiency and improvement in all City departments. • Recommend to the Mayor and Common Council policy changes and improvements regarding all City operations and implement them with consistency and professionalism across all municipal functions. By having a position called city manager(which has been the job title used since the 1930s to define the chief administrative officer for professionally managed cities), the residents of San Bernardino should expect professional management. As stated by International City/County Management Association (ICMA), under the council/manager system, a professional city manager is hired by the governing body to provide the following: •Administration ofpersonnel:Provide direction and leadership to department heads and those that provide direct services to the community. • Management of public funds:Ensure the cost-effectiveness of programs, balance budgets, and secure the financial health of the city. • Implementation of programs and policies: Work with elected officials and community leaders to achieve common goals and objectives for the community. • Coordination of service delivery:Anticipate future needs, organize work operations, and establish timetables to meet community needs. Under the council-manager form of government, the council is the governing body of the city, elected by the public, and the city manager is hired by the council to carry out the policies it establishes. The council generally provides legislative and policy direction while the city manager is responsible for administration and day-to-day operations based on council policy. The mayor and council set city policy, community goals and objectives, make land use decisions, and authorize a municipal budget. The city manager is responsible for managing the affairs of the city, recommending a budget, directing day-to-day operations, hiring and firing personnel, and serving as the council's chief advisor. The city manager serves at the pleasure of the council. Under the council-manager form of government, the council is the governing body of the city, elected by the public, and the city manager is hired by the council to carry out the policies it establishes. The council generally provides legislative and policy direction while the city manager is responsible for administration and day-to-day operations based on council policy. The mayor and council set city policy, community goals and objectives, make land use decisions, and authorize a municipal budget. The city manager is responsible for managing the affairs of the city, recommending a budget, directing day-to-day operations, hiring and firing personnel, and serving as the council's chief advisor. The city manager serves at the pleasure of the council. Given the policy of non-intervention in distressed cities or counties by the State of California, the experts hired by the City and the Core Team have strongly recommended that San Bernardino must now move forward to bring its system of governance within generally accepted principles and modern municipal management practices by putting forth a major charter change for consideration by the voters. In the meantime, the City adopted an interim operating agreement, OPGG, to outline how it plans to operate. The City intends to place a new City Charter before the voters and is forming a committee charged with drafting one and placing it on the November 2016 ballot, or earlier if possible. The Core Team and other constituents have indicated that placing Charter reform before the voters should be one of the highest priorities for the City. 10. As a result of discussion around this issue, these community leaders identified that poor governance and inadequate management was a core problem for the City, stemming, in their view, from the highly unusual and cumbersome system set up by the City Charter. Knowing that a true fix to this problem would be time consuming, the unanimous recommendation of the Core Team was to ask the Mayor and Common Council to agree to a document entitled Operating Practices for Good Government(OPGG) that would require them to adhere to a list of good-governance behaviors commonly found in high functioning cities. Recognizing that adoption of the document by the Common Council on April 6, 2015 was an interim solution that may not be adopted by subsequent Mayors and Common Councils, the Core Team also recommended that City pursue outright replacement of the current City Charter. 11. Efficiency Improvements The City has struggled for at least the last two decades with governance issues and management systems codified in the City Charter. As has already been observed,this has led to a generally low level of City services and a pronounced lack of satisfaction from residents as validated in the Strategic Planning process. Item 3 PMS ANALYSIS OF SKELETON FORM OF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE#2b Descriptions of Alternate Forms of Government: A. Mayor-Council: Mayor is elected at large, is CEO, makes most appointments (usually subject to Council confirmation), holds veto or voting rights with Council, and may appoint a City Administrator. Council established legislation and policy. Council persons are elected and some other City Officers may be as well. B. Council-Manager: Councilpersons are elected at large or by district. City Manager is CEO,with Mayor having no administrative powers. Mayor may be selected from Councilpersons or may be separately elected. Other City Officers may be all appointed or some elected. Mayor may have some commission and committee appointment powers. C. Mixed: Various mixtures of above two forms. 1. Input Received from Questionnaire-From 11 responses received, 8 of whom are registered to vote in SB, 6 said SB should be a General Law City, 5 said Charter City, 1 said revise present charter, 7 said replace present charter, and 9 were in favor of a Council-Manager form of govt. 2. National Civic League Model City Charter & Guide Council-Manager Recommended in Guide and that responsibilities and duties of Mayor should be included in Charter. Discusses other forms as well. Model Charter Article III contemplates Council-Manager form of govt. Provides alternatives for Mayor to be elected at large or from Council. Recommends spelling out Mayor's responsibilities and powers. 3. Other Similar California Cities (SB is about 214,000) 4 other cities of populations between 200,000 & 299,999 have charters. a. Irvine uses Council-Manager form [Specific per its Article III] - Mayor&4 councilpersons all elected at large. No statement as to responsibilities &powers of Mayor except presiding over meetings.) b. Chula Vista uses Council-Manager [not specific] (see it's sec. 300 Mayor and 4 councilpersons elected at large, sec. 304 specific powers of Mayor to be City leader& Article IV as to powers of Manager C. Modesto uses Council-Manager [Specific per its Article IV] -Mayor elected at large and 6 councilpersons elected by district; all have 1 full vote; responsibilities &powers of Mayor&Manager set forth; d. Stockton uses mostly a Council-Manager [not specific]. -Mayor elected at large with full vote as a councilperson; 6 councilpersons nominated from &reside in Districts,but elected at large; sets forth powers of Mayor; City Manager is Chief Administrative Officer. 5 cities of populations between 300,000 and 399,999 have charters. d. Riverside uses Council-Manager form [Specific per its Article III) -Mayor elected at large, 7 councilpersons elected by and from districts; Mayor has tie vote only as to Council; sets forth some powers of Mayor; City Manager is CEO &holds all administrative responsibilities. e. Anaheim uses Council-Manager form [not specific] - Mayor and 4 councilpersons elected at large - Mayor has full right of vote as a councilperson (sec. 500); sets forth some powers of Mayor(504); Council is the legislative body(505); City Manager is CAO (600 & 604 f. Bakersfield uses Council-Manager form [not specific] - Mayor elected at large & 7 councilpersons by and from districts (sec. 14); Mayor is legislative and ceremonial head of City, not administrative 20(b); & City Manager responsible for administration of city(36) i g. Santa Ana uses Council-Manager form [Specific per its sec. 300]; 6 Councilpersons elected from districts (400); Mayor elected at large with equal vote& is head of govt. but with no administrative duties (404); City Manager is CAO (501). 9 of the 16 cities of populations between 150,000 & 199,999 have charters h. Glendale-Council-Manager[not specific] Mayor from Council &given specific powers i. Hayward-Council-Manager[Specific per its Article III]Mayor from Council&some specific powers i. Lancaster-Council-Manager[Specific per its sec.200] Mayor elected but minimal specific powers k. Oceanside-Council-Manager[Specific per its Article 2] Otherwise like a General Law City 1. Palmdale-Council-Manager[Specific per its sec.2001 Otherwise like a General Law City M. Pomona -Council-Manager[not specific]Mayor elected&given some specific powers n. Salinas-Mixed Mayor elected,powers of City Manager&Mayor left to Council o. Santa Rosa-Mixed Mayor selected from Council &is"executive head",Manager is admin. head p. Torrance-City Manager form[per its section 900] Mayor elected,few specific powers 4. San Bernardino's Charter Reform Principles & objectives (5/15/14) Principle 3 says: "The charter should be designed to enable the city to operate in an efficient businesslike manner." The Charter-Manager for Mayor-Council form of government can do this. Mixed? 5. San Bernardino's Strategic Plan a. Guiding Principle#6 says: "The City must have a form and system of governance that is proven to support satisfactory performance by other municipal corporations of comparable size and complexity". b. SB's Operating Practices for Good Government Agreement moves toward the Council-Manager form. 6. San Bernardino's Current Charter a. Uses mixed Council-Mayor-Manager form. See the following sections (&others): (1) Sections 13 & 14 provide that the Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer& Council are elected to office. (2) Section 30 provides that the Council is vested with the legislative power of the City, except that the Mayor may vote in case of a tie. (3) Section 40 gives specific powers to the Council and Mayor and specifically requires the Mayor's involvement in the appointment and/or removal and general supervision of the City Manager, Acting City Manager, Chief of Police, and Chief of the Fire Department. Section 50 provides that the Mayor is the Chief Executive officer and gives him/her other powers. (4) Section 55 makes the City Attorney the City's chief legal officer. (5) Section 100 says that the City Manager is the City's chief administrative officer responsible for administration of all departments except Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk, Citty Treasurer, Water Department, Library&Civil Service System. (6) Section 102 says the City Manager is to exercise immediate supervision over all Manager-directed departments of the City(with exceptions). b. San Bernardino has had either a Strong Mayor or a mixed Mayor-Council-Manager form of government since its inception. Mayor can still be elected at large and have rights of representation of the City for regional and other matters when using a Council-Manager form of government. Assuring that San Bernardino's Mayor would continue to have such status under a Council-Manager form of government is important. C. Look at chart of San Bernardino's City Structure (to be provided) 7. Other Related Issues - I have none. 8. Charter vs Code Filters a. A city's form of government must be set by Charter or it is not a constitution. b. Commentators seem to agree that a charter established Council-Manager form of i fw"'r ,r► government provides the best structure from which a city can function well. II i III II I i 9, General Law a. Allows for establishment of a"City Manager form of Govt.; does allow for Mayor to be elected at large or selected from amongst the Council; any specific responsibilities and duties of the Mayor would have to be set by Code. b. Over 2/3 of California's Cities are General Law. 10. My Thoughts: I suggest that Council-Manager form be used, with a separately elected Mayor as the head of the city with broad leadership and representation powers,but no administrative powers.