Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-2000 Minutes MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING MAYOR AND COMMON COllNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JULY 20, 2000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD ROOM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino have called a special meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission for 4:30 p.m., Thursday, July 20, 2000, in the Economic Development Agency Board Room, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. The purpose for which this meeting was called was to discuss and take possible action relative to the draft City Charter and reports from the law firms of Richards, Watson & Gershon and Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, LLP. The special meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Valles at 4:46 p.m., Thursday, July 20, 2000, in the Economic Development Agency Board Room, 201 North "E" Street, San Bernardino, California. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson, McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Wilson. Absent: None. CLOSED SESSION (1) The Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission did not recess to closed session during this meeting. DISCUSS - POSSIBLE ACTION - DRAFT CITY CHARTER - REPORTS FROM LAW FIRMS - RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON - GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TILDEN, LLP (2) Mayor Valles asked the members of the Charter Review Committee to stand up and be recognized and thanked them for all their hard work. She stated that the Committee had submitted their final draft, and expounded on the methods used by the 1 7/20/2000 Committee to gather information, such as meeting with various focus groups, reviewing numerous charters from other cities, and gathering information from the internet. The Committee's final draft was then reviewed by the San Francisco law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. Following this review, the Committee incorporated many of the suggestions recommended by Richards, Watson & Gershon into the final document which was being given to the Council today. The Mayor continued, stating that the local law firm of Gresham, Savage. Nolan & Tilden, LLP, had also looked at the final draft, comparing it with the existing City Charter; and that City Attorney Penman, who has lived and worked with the current Charter for 13 years, had done his own analysis of the draft document. She stated that she had also asked City Clerk Clark for her input relative to elections. Mayor Valles stated that what she was distributing to the Council today was the final draft--a document which she and City Attorney Penman had worked on for many many hours. She explained that they had taken all four documents--the analyses of the two law firms, the recommendations submitted by City Clerk Clark, and the draft prepared by Mr. Penman--and did a comparison to the existing City Charter. She stated that she and Mr. Penman had made a few changes; however, they were not substantive. She advised that the purpose of this meeting was to give all of this information to the Council Members--the final document put together by herself and Mr. Penman, based on all of the input received. Mayor Valles pointed out that some issues were still pending in the final draft such as the age limitation for some of the offices and the transfer of funds from the Water Department (language concerns due to Proposition 218). She advised that at various locations in the draft document it would say "Section Reserved," which indicates that the recommendation is to keep the existing language of the current charter, even though the words are not in the draft. This was done in several places, based on either Proposition 218 or School Board concerns. The Mayor noted that she and Mr. Penman felt that this was a good document; however, Mr. Penman did have a concern relative to Section 600. She advised that if the language in the draft document was to retain an elected City Attorney, recognizing that it could be pulled out and put to a separate vote of the voters, that he would have no objection to the entire document. City Attorney Penman clarified that he had said this with regard to the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, and the Civil Service Board. If these items remained in the charter as they now exist, he would have no trouhle with the entire document. 2 7/20/2000 The Mayor pointed out, however, that she could not do that because she has to honor all the work and the hours that the Committee put in; therefore, they have left the language as it is being recommended by the Committee. She also advised that the Civil Service Board is a hearing board now, and that would remain its only function. She continued, stating that the City Attorney felt more checks and balances were needed in Personnel. However, Ed Raya, Director of Human Resources, had indicated this may not be necessary if some strong personnel rules are adopted by the Council through an ordinance. Mr. Penman was still not comfortable with that and felt that the following verbiage should be included under the City Clerk: "The City Clerk shall determine that all hirings and promotions in the City personnel system comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, resolutions, procedures and orders. The City Clerk, in making this determination, shall consult with the City Attorney if such consultation is deemed advisable by the City Clerk." The following information was distributed to the Council members: 1) the comments submitted by Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk, in an interoffice memorandum dated July 19, 2000; 2) the comments submitted by Allen B. Gresham of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, LLP, in a letter dated July 17, 2000; 3) the comments submitted by Gregory W. Stepanicich of Richards, Watson & Gershon in a letter dated July 5, 2000; and a final draft charter dated July 20, 2000. City Attorney Penman stated that since the City received the letter from Richards, Watson & Gershon, he and Mr. Stepanicich had discussed the issues associated with Proposition 218 and that portion of the analysis that dealt with the Council being able to approve certain orders not involving financial matters and quasi- judicial hearings by a majority of the quorum. He explained that this would mean that if you have four members present, you would have a quorum and three members could make a decision. Under the present City Charter, it takes four members to make any decision. Mr. Stepanicich indicated that this is done most frequently when there are five-member councils and you have a three-member quorum and two members could make the decision. Mr. Stepanicich feels that it is legal to do this, but indicated that this was an issue really left to the Mayor and Council. City Attorney Penman stated that he had expressed concern about this because of a provision of the Brown Act, and ultimately he and the Mayor were in agreement on this matter. 3 7/20/2000 Some of the Council members wanted to be sure that they were not bound by the Committee's recommendations; yet expressed concern that the Committee might feel unappreciated if the legislative body disagreed with them on certain issues and chose to follow another course of action. Others noted that they would be looking at this document not only as it will be used by this Council, but by others to come, and how it could be used or misused in the future. Mayor Valles acknowledged the concerns expressed by the Council, stating that every section of the document had been given a great deal of thought. She stated that the document was based on some fundamental principles, and every section had to abide by that--it had to be flexible, functional, accountable, responsive, etc. She conceded, however, that ultimately the decision is the Council's as to what is included in the document presented to the voters. City Attorney Penman advised that he had three major areas of concern, all of which fall under the umbrella of checks and balances. He stated that he believed that the City Attorney and City Treasurer should be elected positions, and that there should be an active Civil Service Board. He stated that he believed this document would work with the current mayor and council; however, the City has not always had a good mayor and a good council at the same time, and he feared that a document without these checks and balances leaves some exposure. He advised that he and Mayor Valles had both agreed to disagree on some of these items. Mayor Valles pointed out that the current charter has served the City well, but even with all the checks and balances, there were an awful lot of crooked dealings going on in the City, so something wasn't working. She urged the Council not to forget the history that we have had with the current charter. She pointed out the fallacy of believing that a document will guarantee honesty and integrity--that this guarantee comes only from people and who you elect into office. Discussion ensued regarding upcoming meetings and how the Council would address any questions they might have. Members of the audience expressed their hope that the public would be part of the deliberations as the Council continues its discussions and that the meetings would be held in the Council Chambers. Also discussed was Charter Section 605, Outside Legal Counsel, and Municipal Code Section 2.20, Special Counsel Services, and how changes to the charter would be reconciled with current ordinances, resolutions, etc. 4 7/20/2000 ADJOURNMENT (3) At 5:40 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. The next joint regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission will be held at 8:00 a.m., Monday, July 24, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. RACHEL G. CLARK City Clerk By~E~ Linda E. Hartzel Deputy City Clerk No. of Items: 3 No. of Hours: 1 5 7/20/2000