HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2015 Charter Committee Agenda & Backup City of San Bernardino
Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee
Agenda
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Date: Tuesday,August 25, 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. Public comments
for agenda items are limited to three minutes per person, a total of 15 minutes per item, 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 August 28, 2015 meeting (attached)
2. Special Presentations
3. Procedural Matters
a. Receive and Report on Communications & Questionnaire responses.
b. Review Timeline (attached)
C. Discuss plans for progress report to Mayor and Council
d. Decide on next meeting date and consider lengthening time of meetings;
e. Present and Review Preliminary Governmental Skeleton (2 alternatives attached)
4. Complete Development of Skeleton Mayor, Council and City Manager Provisions (PMS
Supplemental Thoughts re Mayor& Manager attached; White paper on Operating Practices
for Good Government and Results of Elected Official Interviews previously provided)
a. Process for Modifying Number of Voting Districts (attached)
b. Consider adopting additional Operating Practices into the Skeleton
5. Development of Skeleton City Attorney Provisions (PMS Supplemental Thoughts attached)
See also Operating Practices white paper and Interview Results of elected officials)
8. Development of Skeleton City Clerk Provisions (PMS analysis previously provided)
9. Development of Skeleton City Treasurer Provisions (PMS analysis previously provided)
ADJOURN
The next meeting of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be 5:00 p.m., Tuesday,
September 15, 2015 in the EDA Board Room, 201 N. E. Street.
1
Charter Review Committee
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Minutes
Committee Members Present: Phil Savage, Dennis Baxter, Tom Pierce, Michael Craft, Gloria
Harrison, Gary Walborne, Hillel Cohn, Vicki Lee
Committee Members Absent: Casey Dailey
Staff/Committee Consultants Present: Cathy Standiford, Management Partners; Deputy City Attorney
Steven Graham and City Clerk Gigi Hanna
Chair Savage called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Public Speakers
Tim Prince, of San Bernardino spoke in opposition to giving the Mayor full voting rights.
Barbara Babcock, of San Bernardino spoke in favor of a full-time mayor.
Minutes
A motion was made by Baxter, seconded by Craft to approve the Minutes of the July 28, 2015 meeting.
The motion carried, with Savage abstaining because he was absent for that meeting.
Action Items
The committee voted to:
• Approve a preliminary recommendation that the Mayor have the same voting privileges as
Common Council members
• Incorporate the recommend roles of Mayor as outlined in the Operating Practices for Good
Government (Items 1-6 in the Management Partners white paper dated August 11, 2015 on the
interrelationship between Mayor, Common Council and City Manager) into the Charter Skeleton
Next Meeting Date and Time
The next meeting of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be 5:00 p.m., Tuesday,
September 15, 2015.
The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Gigi Hanna, CMC
San Bernardino City Clerk
2
m s C..
.a 3 c
a w .0 0
co a v �, �.. o c 44)
N a c r.+ to d m m m m m a 0 0 cc CU
s 'C
_ a
= y � a(D C0 0) O 0 L �• � �` (O�fl
7E O o t` N N
0 . L N00
`M co .O O O
0 ON M (O vi
M
m 0 7 C d d =
_ +r d O Q 3 E c > l0
V V V O 0 a o E c 0 r
CO) �, to Cl. a o �a is
o n a c ��' >_ a� a) c E > N =
d o ea v a r o �, . m
o a >
> a
E
.0 c". (D i 4) a) tm o aNi
r m CO) N � 3 ° o a' � .o °> .o r .o r rn a
= 3 0 o L. �a aci �+ c � = as 0 .ay >• 0. � a � a > o � y � 0 3 0
N O +�+Z ` C� ` '_ at 3 V Z � Q � Q + Q -pQ m �—>+' C OZ Z
y o V o_ two CL a) fAo 3o do Co V o _0 V duo .0o
O(`') dIq U mC\l O lCtn E � M Q � � N 'QO dN U ,Z >
(o m V (6 O (j = d M M w d o �' O C co
LO L N y to 41 M (,� M d M (�. N = N 'O
> O d ` C C1 .0 L � d a>'+ O V
Y r t +�+ O td d d d d o (!! () a y
O 'D 3 d w y m
r>' (s 0 0 rn >0 0 oO 0 c 0 O 4c td)
m
> c o s 4)
� =
>4 0 m = mm e �
y a V t t c d m m 0 U>
+
�a
` 0) Cl) M d 'aca w °: U) r .0 � .0 r .0 ern -OD stn Syr
> > cu J m d E c as m U) m
'0 d � � � 'Ca � a � a 5 V a 7 N � 7- > >-
a�
O ?�o L- rn t dm cn t m tM tr. tM trt y +� o y OUto y (c
D a ti: Q tt? CO U y a r y L? co � y r? y ca v �' 0 0 o M
CL h- M M M E ess N co rr- O Q> r 0 t ui N v
N 00 N 00 M C7 t[3 00 O .- d' w I' I- w w to CD to V d h- r � .r+ to r 1�
LO ..
4-a
OCD
it
vi
n� CC)
.c
y "'
co
W �_
Q Q. O y
.v Q N
4 E E CCD: o c
O m o o ( �
a- a _0
N CO y .>>
1,to M
Charter Committee Working Timeline—August 25, 2015
The purpose of this Timeline is to document the San Bernardino Charter Committee's progress and capture
additional tasks and activities that should be considered by the Committee in the future.
Meeting
Date Task or Activity Comments/Status
5/12/15 Developed Input Questionnaire (Survey) Complete
5/26 Receive Input from Survey Agreed to continue to receive input on survey
Request Council approval for professional Complete; professional assistance provided effective 7/7/15
input
Discuss plan to develop Timeline Draft was available, but was not discussed
Discuss plan to deal with Charter topics Draft was available, but was not discussed
6/9 Discuss approach to Charter Review Agreed upon approach, including focusing on Charter skeleton
before specific topic details
Received and reviewed information on Discussed
professional and public input
Approve plan for disseminating survey Complete
Review working timeline Complete. Timeline will be updated regularly as changes occur
Consider form of Government for Charter Preliminary Recommendation: Council—Manager Form of
skeleton Government in Charter Skeleton
Discuss skeleton City Council structure and Preliminary Recommendation: Maintain a Ward System
powers Council representation for Charter
skeleton
6/23 Meeting Cancelled
7/7 Discuss professional advisors and scope of Complete
work
Introduce new participants to Charter Welcomed Committee Member Vicki Lee
Committee
Complete discussion of skeleton City Preliminary Recommendation: City Council powers should be
Council structure and powers 1 limited to legislative and policy making, not administrative and
operational
Discuss skeleton Mayor provisions Preliminary Recommendation: Mayor should be elected at-
large.
Powers,voting privileges and impacts on ward system deferred
to next meeting
7/14 Continue discussion of skeleton Mayor Preliminary Recommendation: Retain the current number of
provisions wards(7)
Preliminary Recommendation: Mayor should have no
administrative, appointment or removal powers except as
otherwise provided in the Charter
Deferred consideration of Mayor's voting rights until input is
received from the Mayor and Council members
Agreed to provide meeting summaries to Mayor and Council
following each Committee meeting.
Agreed to periodically provide progress reports to the Mayor
and Council at their regularly scheduled meetings
4
San Bernardino Charter Committee Timeline
Meeting
Date Task or Activity Comments/Status
Begin discussion of skeleton City Manager Preliminary Recommendation: Majority vote of all
provisions members of the Common Council and Mayor required
for appointment of City Manager
7/28 Continue discussion of City Manager Charter Discussed. Recommendations deferred until August 11
Skeleton Discussions meeting (to consider results from elected official
interviews)
Begin discussion of skeleton provisions for City Discussion regarding City Attorney begun;
Clerk, City Attorney, City Treasurer recommendations deferred until August 11
8/11 Review common themes from Elected Official Reviewed
Interviews
Review applicability of Operating Guidelines for Discussion continued, but not completed.
Good Governance to Charter Skeleton Preliminary recommendation that the Mayor have the
Complete discussion on Mayor, Council, City same voting privileges as Common Council members.
Manager interrelationship, roles and authorities Preliminary recommendation that the roles of Mayor as
reflected in the Operating Practices for Good
Government be incorporated into the Charter skeleton
Complete Charter skeleton discussion regarding Presentations by City Treasurer Kennedy and Mayor
City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer Davis
8/25 Complete discussion on Mayor, Council, City
Manager interrelationship, roles and authorities
Complete Charter skeleton discussion regarding
City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer
Charter Skeleton Discussion on Establishment of
City Departments, Commissions and Committees;
City Officers and Fiscal Management
Discuss plans for progress report to Mayor and Suggest scheduling for September 21 M/CC meeting
Council on skeleton
9/8 Meeting Rescheduled to September 15
9/15 Discuss Charter skeleton provisions related to
Civil Service, Elections, Ethics
Review and Discuss survey results
Presentation and discussion of General Law vs. Goal: Understand implications for becoming a General
Charter City Issues Law city
Finalize plans for progress report to Mayor and
Council on skeleton
9/21 Present Progress Report at Mayor Common
Council Meeting
9/22 Complete Charter Skeleton Discussion, Incorporating input from Mayor and Council
incorporating input from Mayor and Council
Discuss content and format for public forum Suggest holding week of Oct 5
TBD Hold Public Forum re:Skeleton
10/13 Begin work on specifics for each skeleton topic
10/27 Continue work on specifics
11/10 Continue work on specifics
5
San Bernardino Charter Committee Timeline
Meeting
Date Task or Activity Comments/Status
11/24 Continue work on specifics Thanksgiving Week—confirm meeting
12/8 Continue work on specifics
12/22 Christmas/Hanukah—confirm meeting
1/12 Continue work on specifics
2/9 Discuss public input forum on Charter specifics
and/or progress report to Mayor and Council
2/23 Complete specifics on each topic
3/8 Discuss content and format for Committee's
report to Mayor and Common Council
3/22 Hold Public Input Forum
4/12 Review and revise Charter Change proposal
4/26 Review draft report to Mayor and Common Note: Report contents should contain summaries of each
Council; discuss presentation format Committee recommendation and rationale (for use
during education and outreach)
5/10 Finalize draft report to Mayor and Common
Council; presentation format
5/16 Present recommendations to Mayor and Request approval for putting to a vote of the citizens
Common Council
1Additional issues to be discussed include interrelationship between Mayor, City Council and City Manager;term limits?
2Additional skeleton topics to consider(in no particular order): Departments, Commissions, Committees, Agencies and
Reporting Relationships; Preamble; Municipal Powers/Authority; Elections; Fiscal Administration (i.e.,fiscal year, budget
submission,tax limits, public works contracts, claims, audit; Franchises; Code of Ethics; Initiatives, Referendums and
Recalls; Severability,Transition and Municipal Code Issues Resulting from Charter Revisions,Charter Amendments;
Charter violations
6
SAN BERNARDINO GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE PRELIMINARY SKELETON
(8/17/15) - Alt Form
I. Council - Manager Form of Govt.
IL City Council
2.1 Based on present 7 Ward System
2.2 Policy Making& Legislative, not Administrative
111. Mayor
3.1 Elected from Citizens at-large
3.2 To have no administrative, appointment or removal powers except as otherwise
provided in Charter
3.3 Majority vote of all members of Council and Mayor required for appointment of
Manager
3.4 The Mayor should have a full vote with the Council.
3.5 The Mayor will build consensus with the Common Council to create and
implement a shared vision and plan of implementation to restore the City's fiscal
integrity.
3.6 The Mayor will establish and maintain partnerships and regional leadership roles
to advance the City's interest.
3.7 The Mayor will be the key"face" and chief spokesperson for the City.
3.8 The mayor will be the presiding officer at meetings of the Common Council and
will fully participate in discussions.
3.9 The Mayor will not interfere with the discretion of the City Manager in the
exercise of his powers and performance of his duties.
3.10 The Mayor will work with the Common Council and City Manager to coordinate
goal setting and the performance evaluation of the City Manager.
SAN BERNARDINO GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE TENTATIVE SKELETON
(8/12/15) [changes from 7/14 draft shown in bolded italics]
I. Council - Manager Form of Govt.
IL City Council
2.1 Based on present 7 Ward System
2.2 Policy Making & Legislative, not Administrative
III. Mayor
3.1 Elected from Citizens at-large
3.2 Defer consideration of Mayor's Council voting rights until receive input from
Mayor& Councilpersons
3.3 To have no administrative, appointment or removal powers except as otherwise
provided in Charter
3.4 Majority vote of all members of Council and Mayor required for appointment of
Manager
3.5 The Mayor should have a full vote with the Council.
3.6 The Mayor will build consensus with the Common Council to create and
implement a shared vision and plan of implementation to restore the City's
fiscal integrity.
3.7 The Mayor will establish and maintain partnerships and regional leadership
roles to advance the City's interest.
3.8 The Mayor will be the key `face"and chief spokesperson for the City.
3.9 The mayor will be the presiding officer at meetings of the Common Council and
willfully participate in discussions.
3.10 The Mayor will, consistent with the separation of powers contemplated by a
reasonable reading of the City Charter, not interfere with the discretion of the
City Manager in the exercise of his powers and performance of his duties under
the City Charter.
3.11 The Mayor will work with the Common Council and City Manager to
coordinate goal setting and the performance evaluation of the City Manager.
s
Supplemental Thoughts of PMS re Skeleton Manager Provisions
8/17/15
10. My Thoughts - (A) Manager should be appointed by council, without need for Mayor's
appointment but including the vote of the Mayor, and (B) Manager should have all
administrative and appointment powers except as otherwise specifically provided in Charter.
Adopt the Good Government Practices language for the Manager.
9
Supplemental Thoughts of PMS re Skeleton Mayor Provisions
8/17/15
10. My Thoughts
Mayor should (A) be elected directly by voters and (B)have full voting rights at council
table, not tie breaking only or veto. I still favor reducing wards to 6. If wards left at 7,
I'd favor mayor having power to vote to pass an item if otherwise there are insufficient
votes to do so. However, to avoid problems of changing the number of Wards or having
a truly unique equal number of voting members on the council, do give the Mayor the
vote to break a tie, but not any veto power. The "Consensus bujilding"cncept of the
Good Government Practiceds document can sufficiently deal with the equivalent of the
Mayor having a full vote. (C) Mayor's specific powers should be set forth in charter, but
no administrative or appointment powers EXCEPT as otherwise specifically set forth in
Charter as to such items. City Manager should be selected by majority vote of whole
council and Mayor.
Have as apart of our Skeleton the essence of the Good Govt. Practices agreement
approved by the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, and all but one of the City Council.
10
Management
Partners
To: Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee
From: Cathy Standiford, Partner
Subject: Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards
Date: August 25, 2015
At its August 11, 2015 meeting,the Charter Committee directed Management Partners to
research the process for changing the number of wards and the implications of such a change.
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit the results of our research. It is organized into
the following sections.
• Background
• Laws for Establishing or Modifying the Number of Wards
• Process for Modifying Ward Boundaries
• Best Practices
• Financial Implications
Each is discussed in detail below.
Background
The existing City Charter vests all legislative power in the Common Council. The Mayor's
voting privileges are limited to breaking ties between Council members present, which has
occurred only 14 times since 2000. A review of the charters of comparable cities indicates the
common practice is for the Mayor to have the same legislative powers as City Council members.
In 15 of the 17 agencies studied, the Mayor's voting privileges are identical to those of City
Council members. Only Riverside and Bakersfield limit the mayor's voting to breaking a tie
vote of the City Council.
On August 11, 2015, the Charter Committee approved a preliminary recommendation to give
full voting powers to the Mayor. Doing so,however, would result in an even number of voting
members. Alternatives that have been discussed include retaining the same number of wards
(i.e., seven elected Council members), or changing the number of wards to avoid the possibility
of a tie vote.
The Implications of Tie Votes
It is appropriate for the Committee to be concerned about establishing a governing body with
an even number of voting members. Not only is it virtually unheard of in local government, the
1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI,OH 45206 • 513 8615400 • FAx 513 8613480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM 11
2107 NORTH FIRST STREET,SUITE 470 • SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95131 • 408 437 5400 • FAx 408 453 6191
3152 RED HILL AVENUE,SUITE 210 • COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 • 949 222 1082 • FAx 408 453 6191
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 2
National Civic League Model Charter recommends against it. The primary reason is to prevent
the public's business from being stalled or stopped in the event of an even split between elected
officials. In fact, San Bernardino's current charter provision giving the Mayor the power to
break ties is intended to resolve this potential problem.
There are numerous examples of polarized governing bodies whose elected officials appear to
cast votes based primarily on political or personality differences. (This is not to suggest such
behavior is appropriate,but to acknowledge it sometimes happens.) While a tie vote may seem
acceptable for significant(i.e., controversial) decisions, it has the potential to create chaos for
routine government operations such as the payment of warrants. Consequently, it would be
better for the Charter Committee to either recommend changing the number of wards or
recommend retaining the current charter provision (i.e., the Mayor as tie-breaker).
Laws for Establishing or Modifying the Number of Wards
San Bernardino Charter Article I, Section 3 gives the Mayor and Common Council the authority
to establish wards by ordinance and states the area of the City shall be divided:
into seven (7) wards of approximately equal population and thereafter shall periodically
change the boundaries of the wards to maintain them in compact form and as nearly
equal in population as possible, provided that such changes shall not be made more than
once in any two (2)year period nor within ninety (90)days of any general municipal
election.
The rules for modifying the number of wards are governed by federal and state law, and are the
same as those for establishing wards.
Applicable Federal and State Laws
The United States Constitution, as implemented through the California State Elections Code
Section 21620, requires electoral districts to, "be as nearly equal in population as may be
according to the latest federal decennial census." These laws are what trigger redistricting for
cities such as San Bernardino every 10 years. "Population" is defined as the total population
residing in the proposed districts,not the voting age population, the number of legal citizens or
the number of voters.
City councils may give consideration to additional factors in establishing district boundaries, as
authorized by Elections Code Section 21620. These factors are "(1) topography, (2) geography,
(3) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity and compactness of territory, and (4) community of
interest of the districts."
The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevents denial of the right to vote on account of race or
color. Section 2 of the Act requires districts to be configured such that persons of color have
equal power to elect candidates of choice and prohibits racial gerrymandering. In 1993 the U.S.
Supreme Court held that race may be considered as evidence of a community of interest,but
12
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 3
may not be the sole consideration for district boundaries, absent highly unusual circumstances
(Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 1993). The U.S. Supreme Court has identified and approved the
following justifiable reasons for small deviations from equal population within districts.
• Communities of Interest. These are shared problems or concerns as defined by the
community, such as schools, public safety services, parks, street lighting, and new
development.
• Visible Boundaries. Visible man-made or natural boundaries make it easy for residents of
a district to understand its borders and to engage in precinct walking or other election
activities.
• Compactness and Contiguity. These features also make it easier for voters to understand a
district's borders.
• Population Growth
• Ability to Provide Voters the Opportunity to Retain their Elected Representatives, if they choose.
State law and the City Charter authorize the Mayor and Common Council to establish ward
boundaries, and this responsibility may not be delegated to others. However, an advisory body
may make recommendations.
Process for Modifying Ward Boundaries
Management Partners was unable to identify a recent occurrence of a California city that has
reduced the number of districts or wards. However, a number of cities are transitioning from
at-large to district elections in response to lawsuits filed pursuant to the California Voting
Rights Act(CVRA). The CVRA made changes to minority voting rights law in California,
making it easier for plaintiffs to challenge allegedly discriminatory voting practices. The CVRA
places a lighter burden of proof on plaintiffs to establish a violation and mandates the award of
costs, attorney fees and expert expenses to prevailing plaintiffs. The law is less applicable to
cities and special districts that elect governing board members by district.'
Cities transitioning to district elections include Anaheim, Whittier, and Palmdale. The City of
Santa Clarita was sued under CVRA,but in a settlement agreed to change the date of elections
to November of even numbered years effective in 2016 and implement cumulative voting (i.e.,
voters have three votes and may allocate more than one vote to a candidate if desired.) The
City of Highland was similarly challenged and put the matter to voters in November 2014. The
voters rejected a by-district electoral system election. (Note: There is at least one legal opinion
that the rejection of a by-district electoral system by voters may not protect a jurisdiction, "if the
by-district system was rejected in an election characterized by a racially-polarized vote."2
Management Partners reviewed the processes being used to establish districts in Anaheim,
Whittier, and Palmdale,using publicly available sources. We also conducted interviews with
13
'The California Voting Rights Act,White paper by Marguerite Mary Leoni and Christopher E.Skinnell.League of
California Cities website,accessed August 13,2015.
2 Ibid.,p.9.
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 4
the city clerks of Anaheim and Palmdale to obtain clarification about a few areas. Table 1
summarizes the characteristics of each of these cities and the changes being implemented.
Table 1. Characteristics of Cities Implementing By-District Electoral Systems
City Current Election Characteristics Changes Being Implemented
Anaheim Mayor and four Councilmembers,all elected Mayor elected at large
at large for four-year terms Six Councilmembers elected by district(increase in
Election in November,even numbered years number of Councilmembers from four to six) j
Palmdale Mayor and four Councilmembers, all elected Mayor elected at large
at large for four-year terms Four Councilmembers elected by district
Election in November, odd-numbered years Election in November,even numbered years
Whittier Mayor and four Councilmembers,all elected Mayor elected at large for a two-year term
at large Four Councilmembers elected by district,four-year
Election in April of even numbered years terms
i
No change in election date
The Whittier and Anaheim City Councils retained their authority to approve the specific district
boundaries in their respective negotiated settlement agreements. The specific district
boundaries in Palmdale were established within the settlement agreement, and were
consequently approved by a judge,not the Palmdale City Council. In hindsight, the City would
have preferred to retain City Council authority to approve the district boundaries.
Transition Plans
Each city has had to establish a "transition plan" to migrate from the current at-large system to
a by-district system. Both Whittier's and Anaheim's transition plans were incorporated into
charter amendments approved by the voters to establish by-district elections. Whittier's
amendment specifies that Districts 1 and 3 will hold elections in April 2016 and Districts 2 and 4
elections will be held in April 2018. The City Council assigned numbers to each district when
they were adopted in May of 2015. The new districts and election cycle commence with the
City's next election in April 2016.
Anaheim's charter amendment increases number of council seats from four to six effective with
the November 2016 election. Two existing council seats that would already be on the ballot,
plus two newly created seats will be on the 2016 ballot. All four will be elected by district.
Following the November 2016 election, one of the four elected council members will be
randomly selected to serve a shorter, two-year term. The remaining newly-elected council
members will serve four-year terms. The two council seats that are not up for election in 2016
will be in November 2018. These two seats will be elected by district, along with the council
seat randomly selected for an abbreviated term following the November 2016 election.
Anaheim's transition plan does not reduce any term of office or impose a district residency
requirement on current City Council members.
14
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 5
Palmdale's transition plan was established through the settlement agreement and resulted in
the cancellation of the November 2015 election, essentially extending the terms of two council
members by one year (i.e., until the November 2016 election).
San Bernardino would need to develop a transition plan if the number of wards is changed.
Whittier, Anaheim and Palmdale offer three different alternatives, with Anaheim's being most
comparable due to similarities in the number of districts.
Best Practices
Based on our review, Anaheim is applying several best practices in establishing electoral
districts. These are recommended for San Bernardino should it decide to modify its current
ward system. Each is summarized below.
Advisory Committee Comprised of Retired Judges
Anaheim's settlement agreement required the City Council to appoint a five-member Advisory
Committee. The purpose of the committee is to assist in developing district boundaries to
recommend for adoption by the City Council. The agreement further specifies that the
Advisory Committee be comprised of retired Orange County Superior Court judges residing
within Orange County, with preference given to those who are Anaheim residents.
The City Attorney's Office conducted a, "notice, inquiry and outreach process" to identify
qualified candidates for the Advisory Committee. Fourteen retired judges submitted
applications to serve, one of whom is an Anaheim resident. This individual was named chair of
the committee. The other four seats were selected by random draw from the pool of applicants.
Two alternate replacements were also randomly selected and will serve only in the case of an
unexpected vacancy. The Advisory Committee members receive no compensation for their
service.
According to City staff, the appointment of randomly selected retired superior court judges to
the Advisory Committee has removed politics from the districting process, and has added
credibility and neutrality that may not have been possible with a committee of residents. The
Advisory Committee's familiarity and knowledge of the law, and experience conducting
hearings and receiving testimony is also proving to be helpful to the process.Anaheim expects
the Advisory Committee to complete its work in September. The City Council is scheduled to
hold required public hearings beginning in October and approve electoral district maps by
December 2015.
Demographic Consultant
All three cities have hired a professional demographer to analyze census data and develop
alternatives for district configurations that comply with applicable federal and state laws.
However, Anaheim's demographic consultant has been asked to provide a higher level of
service than employed by the other two cities. The scope of work for Anaheim's consultant
includes:
15
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 6
• Providing census data to the City, including analysis and evaluation of the population;
• Providing tools to create and comment on district maps and on communities of interest;
• Providing computerized districting programs for public access and review;
• Attending community meetings, advisory meetings, and City Council meetings;and
• Preparing and presenting draft maps based on community input and Advisory
Committee direction for City Council approval.
The interactive, web-based tools created by the demographic consultant are readily available on
the City's website and are impressive in their clarity and ease of use.
The last time San Bernardino conducted a redistricting process, the census data analysis was
performed internally by staff, who presented recommendations for boundary modifications to
the Common Council. This practice may be adequate for minor adjustments,but is not advised
for larger scale electoral system modifications due to the legal complexities and heightened
attention being paid to compliance with the California Voting Rights Act.
Extensive Community Outreach Plan
Whittier and Anaheim engaged the help of a consultant to develop a comprehensive
community outreach plan because of a lack of in-house staff capacity and/or expertise. Because
the outcome of Palmdale's districting was determined by settlement agreement, community
outreach is being conducted after the fact and is focused on informing residents of their
electoral district and its boundaries. Regardless of the level of community outreach, a new state
law requires three public hearings to be held before district boundaries may be approved.
Features of the Whittier and Anaheim communications plans are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of Community Outreach Plan Components
Outreach Plan Component
Contract with demographic consultant X X
Contract with an outreach specialist X X
Hold public outreach and input meetings' X X
Appoint an Advisory Committee X
Have an interpreter at all meetings X
Accept proposed maps from the public X X
Have dedicated email address for voting district communications X X
Provide website and printed materials in multiple languages z X X
Have a webpage dedicated to redistricting X X
Provide an interactive district mapping tool on website X
Partner with various community groups,citywide X X
Issue press releases X X
Use email blasts(subscribers) X
16
Process for Establishing or Modifying Voting Districts or Wards Page 7
Component Outreach Plan
Develop Public Service Announcements X X
Develop YouTube videos about the process X
Have a social media presence(Facebook,Twitter) X
Promote the issue on Community Television X
Provide information in utility bill inserts X
Place information and materials in City facilities X X
'Whittier held two rounds of outreach meetings with the demographer and staff. Three more
community meetings were held at various schools to allow input on the draft proposals and public
submissions prior to the three City Council public hearings required by state law.
2Anaheim provides agendas and other materials in English,Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and
Korean. Whittier released agendas and other districting communications in English and Spanish.
Financial Implications
Modification (and creation) of electoral districts is a labor-intensive process lasting
approximately 12 months,based on the experiences of Whittier and Anaheim. The Whittier
districting process cost approximately $117,000 for the professional demographer and public
outreach efforts. Costs for City staff time could not be determined.
The contract for Anaheim's demographic consultant is a not-to-exceed amount of$75,000,
although the City Clerk estimates actual costs will range between $45,000 and $50,000. The
outreach specialist is being used as needed to produce materials and is estimated to cost
approximately$15,000. Interpretation and translation costs are "significant," but could not be
specifically quantified. In addition, Advisory Committee meetings held outside of City Council
chambers are being videotaped. Not including staff time, total costs for Anaheim are estimated
to range between$150,000 and$175,000. San Bernardino could expect similar costs if it chooses
to modify the number of wards consistent with the best practices of the Anaheim districting
process.
17
Supplemental Thoughts of PMS re Attorney Provisions
8/17/15
10. My Thoughts -Serious consideration needs to be given to the fact that a majority of
the public seem to like the elected city attorney while the vast majority of other similar
cities, the model charter, and professional advisors advise having the City Attorney appointed.
I believe that we should recommend making city attorney appointed by Council and leave
powers up to Code/Council, not be set forth in Charter.
A primary purpose of an elected City Attorney was to serve as a balance to a strong
Mayor, in that form of government. This is not as important with a Council-Manager form
of government. The Good Government Practices document language for City Attorney is
good. Possibly should be stronger: "The City Attorney is to serve as the chief legal officer to
the Mayor, Common Council and City Manager, treating them as his clients." If this is a
part of the Charter, having an elected City Attorney should not be as much of a problem as it
has been.
18