Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-2016 Charter Committee Agenda & Backup City of San Bernardino Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee Agenda Time: 5:30 p.m. Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 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 at(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 item, comments to be received from the public before discussion of the item by Committee members. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS (LIMIT 30 MINUTES) ACTION ITEMS (subject to time available with meeting scheduled to end by 8:00 p.m.) 1. Approval of minutes from February 9, 2016 meeting (attached) 2. Special Presentations 3. Procedural Matters a. Review Timeline (attached) b. Discuss Committee role and responsibilities for education and advocacy C. Discuss Public Forum results d. Review feedback from Mayor and Common Council on Progress Report 4. Work on Specific Language for Charter (Charter Draft #2 previously provided) ADJOURN Unless changed at the March 8th meeting, the next meeting of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 15, 2016, 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. DRAFT Charter Review Committee Tuesday, February 9, 2016 Minutes Committee Members Present: Gloria Harrison, Michael Craft, Gary Walbourne, Vicki Lee, Casey Dailey (arrived at 5:55 p.m.), Phil Savage, Hillel Cohn, Thomas Pierce, and Dennis Baxter. Staff/Committee Consultants Present City Attorney Gary Saenz, City Clerk Gigi Hanna, Cathy Standiford, of Management Partners, and City Manager Mark Scott. Chair Savage called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Gary Saenz introduced Mark Scott, the new City Manager, who said he believed that governance matters and the group is doing governance matters at the highest level and thanked the community for the work they are doing for the community. Public Speakers Jim Smith, of San Bernardino, said he wanted to emphasize the community forums as a way to get the public educated about the Charter review process and read the dates for them. Barbara Babcock, of San Bernardino, said the committee needs to find creative ways to get the message out. Minutes A motion was made by Cohn, seconded by Lee, to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 2016 meeting, with an amendment to indicate that the special presentation by Dr. Milton Clark included specific language the library board wanted to be included in the charter. The motion passed unanimously. Special Presentations Curtis Stout, Vice Chair of the Civil Service Board spoke about the desire of the Civil Service Commission to remain in the Charter. Without the protection of the Charter, the Commission could possibly be terminated with a majority vote of the council, a possibility that concerns the Commission, he said. He and Chief Examiner Rebekah Kramer answered committee questions regarding functions, make-up and terms of the board. Action Items The Committee: • Made final arrangement for the public forums, to be held February 10, February 22, February 24 and February 25. Each are to begin at 6:30 p.m. • Agreed to refer to the Charter-in-progress as a Preliminary Charter rather than call it a draft. • To adopt Article 3, Section 307 of the Preliminary Charter: The Council shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and the grounds for forfeiture of their office. Motion by Cohn, second by Baxter. Carried unanimously • To strike the word"elected" from Article 3, Section 308: Officers of the Council (other than the eleetes� Mayor), the time,place and the method of calling meetings, the rules of order for the conduct of proceedings by the City Council and the order of succession in the event of a vacancy in the office of Mayor shall be as established by ordinance of the Council. Motion by Baxter, second by Harrison. Carried unanimously. • To replace Article 3, Section 309 (a) (b) (c) (d) with the following language: The council shall have the power to adopt and publish ordinances consistent with state law. Motion by Dailey, second by Harrison. Carried unanimously. • To delete Article 3, Section 310 and place the language into the Municipal Code, Motion by Cohn, second by Dailey. Carried unanimously. • To adopt the following language for Article 4, Section 400:...The City Manager shall be appointed on the basis of education and experience in the accepted competencies and practices of local government management. The Council shall establish and communicate clear expectations for the City Manager and shall conduct an evaluation of the City Manager's performance at least annually. Motion by Cohn, second by Harrison. Carried unanimously. Next Meeting Date and Time The next meeting date of the Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee will be 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 23, 2016. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Gigi Hanna City Clerk Charter Committee Working Timeline— March 8, 2016 Following is an excerpt from the Working Timeline showing recent outcomes and future activities and dates only. Meeting Date Task or Activity Comments/Status 2/10 Public Forum, 6:30 p.m. Middle College High School Multi-use Room (Ward 3) -- Held 2/16 Present progress report at Continued to February 29 special meeting Mayor/Common Council meeting 2/22 Public Forum, 6:30 p.m. Chavez Middle School Multi-use Room (Ward 5)-- Held 2/23 Continue working on specific language Meeting not held due to lack of quorum Discuss future role and responsibilities of the Charter Committee once report has been presented Discuss content and format for Committee's report to Mayor and Common Council 2/24 Public Forum, 6:30 p.m. San Bernardino High School Cafeteria (Ward 2)—Held 2/25 Public Forum, 6:30 p.m. San Gorgonio High School (Ward 7)-- Held 2/29 Present progress report at Presented Mayor/Common Council meeting 3/3 Public Forum, 6:30 p.m. Urbita Elementary School (rescheduled for Ward 3) 3/8 Continue working on specific language Discuss future advocacy and education role and responsibilities of the Charter Committee once report has been presented Review public forum results Discuss Mayor and Common Council input from Progress Report 3/15 Continue working on specific language (if necessary) Discuss draft report to Mayor and Note: Report contents will contain summary of Committee Common Council; discuss presentation recommendations and rationale (for use during education format and outreach); Management Partners studies (white papers) will be attachments to the report 3/22 Review and finalize draft report and Report due to City Clerk by April 6 to meet new advance presentation posting deadline for 4/18 meeting 4/18 Present Final Report and recommendations to Mayor and Common Council 4J► 40 Management S Partners To: Volunteer Citizen-Based Charter Committee From: Cathy Standiford,Partner Subject: Public Forum—February/March and Aggregated Results Date: March 8, 2016 The Charter Committee is developing recommendations for a new Charter to be brought to the Mayor and Common Council for consideration. Three public forums were held in November 2015 to share information about the charter review effort and gather public input on the Committee's preliminary recommendations. Additional public forums were held in February and March 2016 to gather additional input. Each public forum was held in a different ward. The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit the common themes and ideas expressed during the February and March public forums, as well as the aggregated themes for all seven forums held. Forum Schedule, Attendance and Format The public forums were held on November 4(Golden Valley Middle School), November 5 (Arroyo Valley High School) and November 9 (Indian Spring High School), February 22 (Middle College High School),February 24(San Bernardino High School),February 25 (San Gorgonio High School) and March 3(Urbita Elementary School). (Note:A forum scheduled for February 10 attracted only three participants, each of whom had attended a public forum before.At the request of the Councilmember representing that ward, the forum was rescheduled for March 3.) Each public forum began at 6:30 p.m. and ended by 8:00 p.m. The November public forums attracted a combined attendance of approximately 85 people,not including members of the Charter Committee or City staff. The number of participants ranged from 25 to 30 for each. The February/March public forums also attracted a combined attendance of approximately 85 people, ranging from a low of 7 participants(March 3) to a high of 35 (February 22). The cumulative total for all seven forums is 170,or an average of approximately 24 participants per meeting. Some of the participants attended more than one. Each forum followed the same basic agenda as follows. • Welcome by a member of the Charter Committee • Review of the agenda • Overview of the role and responsibilities of the Charter Committee, what a charter is, why it is important, and why San Bernardino's charter is under review 1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI,OH 45206 • 513 8615400 • FAx 513 8613480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM 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 2221082 • FAx 408 453 6191 Public Forum—Summary Results Page 2 • Review of the Committee's preliminary recommendations for a proposed governance structure (the charter "skeleton") • Large group discussion and comments about whether the Mayor should be allowed to vote • Small group breakouts to allow time for additional discussion on the question of Mayoral voting as well as the following topics • How to avoid tie votes if the Mayor is allowed to have a vote • Whether the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer should be elected or appointed • Review of next steps and how to stay involved and informed The February/March public forums also asked participants to share their opinions on whether the Charter Committee's preliminary recommendations for a Council-manager form of government, the preparation of a completely new charter, and changing the election cycle to even numbered years were on track. The Charter Committee developed these preliminary recommendations subsequent to the November public forums. The following is a summary of the common themes. Themes from the February and March public forums are presented first, followed by the aggregated results for all seven forums. February and March Public Forum Results The public forums held in February and March generated similar responses to those received in November, although there was more disagreement expressed during the forums held on February 24 and March 3. In fact, opinions expressed during those two particular public forums were almost evenly split. Following are the common themes from the February and March public forums. Charter reform is perceived to be necessary. The majority of participants agreed San Bernardino's charter needs to be changed. Of the 85 total participants, only 7 questioned the need for charter reform. Common themes from those who support charter reform were similar to those previously expressed during the November public forums. Common themes from those who oppose charter reform include the following: • The Charter is not the reason the City has been poorly run. • The Charter has worked for more than 100 years and does not need to be changed now. Assuming the Charter is a problem, it is important to discuss and focus on why. • The current organizational structure provides important checks and balances that should be preserved. • The charter itself cannot fix personality conflicts and problems between elected and appointed officials. Proposing a new charter is preferable to amending the existing charter. Most participants indicated support for considering a completely new charter, although some felt amendments to make minor changes as necessary would be better. Public Forum—Summary Results Page 3 The Mayor should be allowed to vote. The majority of participants indicated support for the Mayor being given an equal vote as Council members. However, several participants indicated it would depend on the kinds of powers the Mayor would continue to have. Some disagreed the Mayor should vote, and expressed concerns about how Mayoral voting would impact the checks and balances currently in place. The options for avoiding tie votes if the Mayor is allowed to vote generated the greatest disagreement. In fact,there was stronger consensus about what not to do. For example, there was little to no support for adding an 81h Council member at large or rotating the Mayor position among the Council members, even though this would allow the current number of wards to stay the same. Participants were almost evenly split between reducing the number of wards, increasing the number of wards, or maintaining the status quo as alternatives. Concerns over the redistricting process and how ward boundaries would be adjusted were frequently cited. The Mayor should continue to be directly elected. Consistent with the results from the November public forums,the majority of participants in February and March favored directly electing the Mayor. As previously mentioned, there was little to no support for having the Mayor be selected from among the Council members. The majority support a Council-manager form of government. However, several participants expressed concerns about giving the City Manager greater authority than the Charter currently allows. At the March 3 public forum concerns were specifically expressed about changing the reporting relationships for the Water, Library and Civil Service departments from their respective independent boards to the City Manager. A few participants indicated changing the reporting relationships could be detrimental to those functions. The majority support appointing the City Attorney and City Clerk and either appointing the City Treasurer or delegating treasury functions to professional staff. Although it was not unanimous,participants in February and March tended to favor appointing these positions rather than electing them. There is strong support for changing the election cycle to even number years. Participants indicated this could help increase voter turnout, and reduce election costs. Aggregate Results for the Seven Public Forums The February and March public forum results did not significantly change the aggregated public forum results previously reported,even though the degree of consensus was lower for certain areas. Following are the aggregated results for all seven public forums. The Mayor should be allowed to vote. Despite the disagreement recorded at two of the February/March public forums, there was still strong support overall for allowing the Mayor to Public Forum—Summary Results Page 4 vote on matters coming before the Common Council. Comments expressed about allowing the Mayor to vote included the following: • Because the Mayor is elected by the community as a whole, the Mayor should have a voice in representing the interests of the entire community. • The Mayor has the most knowledge and is most informed about the City as a whole. • Whether or not the Mayor should be allowed to vote depends on the roles and responsibilities expected,the roles and responsibilities of the Common Council and City Manager, and whether the Mayor continues to be a full-time position. • The mayor should not have a vote unless the powers of the office are reduced to avoid undue influence. The Mayor should continue to be elected at large. The majority of participants indicated support for retaining the practice of electing the Mayor at large. There was little support for rotating the position of Mayor among the seven members of the Common Council, although some thought that doing so might help build or maintain relationships among Council members. Comments expressed about rotating the Mayor position included the following. • The Mayor should be more than a mere figurehead, which seems to be the case when the position is rotated. The Mayor should serve in a larger capacity. • Not all Council members are equally qualified or ready to serve as Mayor. • Letting the Council select the Mayor would take the decision away from citizens. • Rotating the position would be too much of a learning curve each year. • The Mayor needs to be a leader and consensus builder. There is more credibility to the position if it is elected at large. • Rotating the Mayor may be acceptable as long as the powers of the Mayor are limited. To avoid tie votes,changing the number of wards remains preferable to adding a Council member elected at large. There was little to no support for adding a Council member elected at large at any of the public forums. Comments expressed included the following. • Electing an additional Council member could save redistricting costs. • An at-large Council member would be focused specifically on representing the community as a whole, which could be a good thing. • Having an at-large Council member essentially makes two Mayors. • Having at-large Council members in addition to those elected by ward may not be legal under State law. • The at-large Council member is likely to be elected from one of the three wards with the highest voter turnout, and may not truly represent the City as a whole. • This would provide one ward with double representation,even though the Council member would be elected at large. More participants favored reducing the number of wards over increasing them,although the prospect of changing wards causes concern. Most of the concerns expressed by participants were related to uncertainty over the redistricting process and its costs, and how representation Public Forum-Summary Results Page 5 might change if boundaries are re-drawn. Comments related to changing the number of wards included the following: • Having fewer Council members might make reaching consensus easier • Having seven elected officials(including the Mayor)is less cumbersome than having nine of them. • Having six Council members would be less costly than having eight of them • It is easier to hold Council members accountable if there are less of them. Maybe they would be more engaged. • Adding a ward would result in a smaller number of people represented per ward and would be easier Council members to manage. • Adding a ward may be more acceptable to voters. (Decreasing the number may make voters feel something is being taken away from them.) • The current ward boundaries deserve a fresh look because they are "gerrymandered." Changing the number would provide an opportunity to reconfigure the ward boundaries to make representation more equal. • Several concerns were expressed about the potential costs associated with redistricting. • Any proposed change in the number of wards will create more political fights and polarization in the community. The City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer should be appointed,not elected. The consensus at each of the public forums was that the City Attorney,City Clerk and City Treasurer positions should be appointed, although there were a few individuals at each forum who advocated retaining them as elected officials. In the case of the City Treasurer, there was some agreement the functions should be delegated to professional staff. The following comments were captured on the topic of elected vs. appointed officials. • Appointing the City Attorney would make it easier for them to be removed if necessary. It would be great if a bunch of people who were qualified apply. • The City Attorney is like a department head and doesn't do much litigation. There is no need for them to be specialized in municipal law. • Elections don't necessarily produce the best qualified person for the job. Appointing is better. • The Treasurer is like the Chief Business Officer and should be elected. • Having appointed officials doesn't necessarily ensure good management and accountability. • Converting these to appointed positions takes the people's power away. • Based on the City's own history, elected officials can have or develop appropriate knowledge or expertise to perform their functions well. The Charter needs to be changed. The majority of participants supported charter reform. More participants at the February and March forums questioned the need to review the Charter and/or disagreed that it needed to be modernized. They indicated the charter has worked well for a long time, and that if changes are needed,they should be incorporated into the existing document so that the "wisdom of forefathers" is not lost. Only the February and March -,.,.O> Public Forum—Summary Results Page 6 participants were asked whether consideration of a new charter is preferable to amending the existing document. Of these, the majority indicated they were comfortable considering a completely new charter.