HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-2000 Minutes
MINUTES
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 4, 2000
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor and Common Council and
Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino have called a joint
special meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development
Commission for 5:00 p.m., Friday, August 4, 2000, in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
The purpose for which this meeting was called was to discuss and take possible
action relative to the proposed charter.
The joint special meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community
Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor
Valles at 5:12 p.m., Friday, August 4,2000, in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
300 North "D" 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, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCamrnack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Director of Human Resources
Raya. Absent: None.
DISCUSS & TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION - PROPOSED CHARTER
(1)
Mayor Valles provided an overview of the events of the last meeting and the
documents submitted for the meeting tonight. She advised that one of the handouts was
titled, San Bernardino City Charter Summary of Changes dated 8/4/00 (blue document)
which summarized all the changes made as a result of the last meeting on July 26.
Subsequently, those changes were incorporated in the draft San Bernardino City
Charter, 3" Revision dated 8/4/00 (blue document) given to the Council today. Also
distributed was a grid depicting the Powers of the Mayor and Council as they exist now
and what is being proposed in the draft charter, as well as an analysis of the latest
charter revision (yellow document) prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
1
8/4/2000
She stated she would like to hear from the Council members first--any
comments or questions they might have. She informed the Council that some of the
members of the Charter Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee")
were in the audience to answer any questions they might have, as well as Mr. Nolan
and Mr. Gresham from the law firm of Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, LLP.
Council Member Estrada expressed concern over the number of documents
given to the Council over the past couple of days, stating that she had not had an
opportunity to digest all this information. She stated that even though the Council had
voted to accept the charter, in concept, given the number of changes made to the
document, it appeared that they were being given a whole new document,
Council Member Estrada stated that her biggest concern was the balance of
power relative to the Mayor and Council. She stated that she supports a strong Mayor
form of government; however, she felt the recommended changes go too far in giving
power to the office of the Mayor, while taking away from the authority of the Council.
Ms. Estrada questioned the method being recommended to fill a vacancy on the
Council; stated that she did not support an appointed City Attorney; expressed concerns
regarding the authority of the Civil Service Board and the proposed shift in power; and
also expressed misgivings regarding recommendations for the appointment of a Mayor
Pro Tem.
Council Member McCammack read a prepared statement into the record
wherein she advised that she had worked diligently to read and understand as much as
possible about the charter and the recommended revisions; yet also expressed concern
at how fast the process has moved. She stated that, in her opinion, the process should
have been different--that the Council should have been able to lay all of their concerns
out on the table first, with much more Council conversation, such as that which has
taken place at the last few meetings; then the process would continue with the
assimilation of the document, followed by many puhlic hearings; and once consensus
was gathered from the public and the Council, the document would be sent to the
voters, She did not agree with the document being written by individuals who were not
elected by the voters and who, therefore, have no responsibility to the taxpayers of the
city.
Ms. McCammack stated that the major items which worry her are those items
which shift the balance of power to the Mayor, including all of the personnel functions
now overseen by Civil Service, and taking away the voters' rights to elect a City
Treasurer and a City Attorney. She mentioned the hard work of the previous Charter
Review Committee and indicated that she would like the Council to be able to review in
depth the recommendations made by this committee for possible consideration.
2
8/4/2000
Mayor Valles stated that she would like to clarify that these were not all brand
new documents which were being given to the Council. She noted that the first
document was given on July 10 (first draft submitted by the Committee and given to
members of the Council), Since then there have been some revisions and amendments
,
but these have not been substantive; and it is not as though these documents have just
descended today as brand new documents on members of the Council.
Council Member Anderson stated that in discussing and reviewing this
document, she did not believe that the Council was looking at it in terms of the people
now filling elected positions in the City, but rather as a document that will withstand
the test of time and people far into the future. She stated that she likes the idea of a
strong Mayor form of government; however, she feels that some of the changes will be
making her position as a Council member more ceremonial than one involved in the
legislative business of the City. She also expressed agreement with Council Member
Estrada that more time was needed to absorb and understand the contents of the draft
charter.
At this time Mayor Valles asked Mr. Tom Pierce, a member of the former
Charter Review Committee and a member of the current Committee, to share some of
his thoughts on how the previous committee functioned versus how the current
Committee performed its tasks.
Tom Pierce, a resident of San Bernardino for 24 years, acknowledged that he
was a member of both the previous and current Charter Review Committees. He stated
that the two processes were quite different and, in his opinion, a lot better this time
because there was a lot more interaction with the public.
He advised that the previous committee conducted two-hour meetings twice a
month for approximately 18 months and then put together a document that was then put
on the City Council agenda. Subsequently, the Council accepted the report and that
was the end of it.
Mr. Pierce noted that the previous committee did have visitors at their meetings
such as the Police Chief, Fire Chief, union representatives, and civil service
representatives, but there were very large differences between the last time and this
time in terms of public interaction. He noted that there were no workshops with the
Council the last time; this time the Committee began having workshops in January.
Furthermore, this Committee met with focus groups in six of the seven wards and
received input from residents in those wards.
In terms of interaction with the public, during the previous exercise, there were
no meetings with the public. The committee members met in the EDA Board Room,
and although there were visitors from various groups, there were never any public
visitors to speak of. This time, in addition to the focus groups, there were three town
3
8/412000
hall meetings, the goals of the Committee were sent out in the utility bills, and there
was a presentation on TV about the Committee's work. In addition, there have been
subcommittees which have held meetings and done various kinds of work, He stated
that he served on the Personnel Subcommittee, and typically the number of visitors to
those meetings was greater than the number of people on the subcommittee.
In summation he said that there was no comparison between the two committees
in the amount of interaction with the public. He stated that he would be very surprised
if any other member of the previous committee had a different recollection of the
amount of interaction the first committee had with the public, which was minimal.
Relative to the document itself, Mr. Pierce stated that on a few occasions people
have inquired about what the previous committee did--what was its document like. He
stated that the previous document never went through the scrutiny that this document
has gone through, where the City Attorney and outside attorneys have reviewed it. He
advised that the City Attorney, or his assistant, Mr. Barlow, did attend most of the
previous committee meetings; however, the document, as such, was just
recommendations turned over to the Council.
He noted that the perception of some seemed to be that most of the changes
submitted by the previous committee were not substantive; however, in any big
document most of the changes are not substantive. He advised, however, that there
were some substantive changes, such as their recommendation that Section 247 (relative
to Civil Service) of the existing charter be changed by eliminating the last two
sentences. He stated that this change would have eliminated the Office of Chief
Examiner and Secretary and the power of the Board, so that the Civil Service and
Personnel Departments could be combined.
Council Member Suarez stated that the current Committee has spent countless
hours to try and come up with this revised charter and here at the last minute all of
these questions arise. He stated that he had a feeling that there was a fear amongst
either the Councilor the powers that be, of letting the voters decide what is good for
our city.
Mr. Suarez advised that the one thing he would not compromise was Section
186 of the current charter--he believed it should stay in the charter. He expressed fear
that if the Council did not come to some kind of consensus as to what to put before the
voters, it could be changed and revised by various citizens until it does not resemble
anything that the Committee has so diligently worked on.
Council Member Lien pointed out that the Council had approved a document in
concept on Monday that they had been working with regularly since August 10. She
noted that the changes contained in the document today are exactly what they had
agreed upon and what was expected, She stated that she did not share the opinion that
4
8/4/2000
she was rushed in looking at the current document. She noted that it is no secret that
the Council as a whole does not agree on every item in the draft document; however,
she has watched a process over the last 17 months which has been outstanding, she has
had ample opportunity to express her differences of opinion with the Committee, and
she has found that there have been changes incorporated as they have discussed it.
Council Member Lien stated that there were a few changes she would like to see
made to the document, which were actually suggested by the Committee in response to
some recent changes made by the Council, which the Committee felt weakened the
document. She distributed her recommendations in a document titled, "Motion to
Amend the 8/3 Revision as Follows:" noting that her changes were based on a letter
dated July 27, 2000, sent by Mr. Morris, co-chair of the Committee, to each Council
member. At this time, Ms, Lien proceeded to review her recommendations with the
Council and asked that her colleagues act on these changes as they finalize the draft
charter document.
Council Member Lien made a motion that the Council incorporate her
recommended changes into the draft and that the Council finalize the language in the
8/4/00 draft Charter and move forward with the resolutions prepared by the City
Attorney's Office. (Note: The motion failed for lack of a second.)
Mayor Valles noted that the changes being recommended by Council Member
Lien were in essence going back to the draft charter document of 7/10/00, originally
submitted by the Committee, and Ms. Lien acknowledged this to be so.
Mayor Valles noted that in order to keep the process as organized as possible,
the Council should take each one of Council Member Lien's recommendations and vote
on them separately.
City Attorney Penman advised that the changes being recommended by Council
Member Lien were substantial changes with numerous legal consequences associated
with them. He stated that his office had received numerous documents, and before the
Council votes on anything, his office has a lot of legal information to tell them. He
stated that he found it difficult to believe that the Council members could have read all
the documents presented to them. According to Mr. Penman, the first document
presented to the Council had a lot of illegal material in it, despite the Committee's
statement that they would not give the Council anything illegal. He advised that just
today his office had discovered that Section 2103 (Municipal taxes) was a new
Proposition 218 problem,
Mr. Penman continued, stating that the lawyers had not had enough time to
review this document, the Council had not had time to read the latest reviews, and now
there is talk about changing it for the third time in two days, He stated that the purpose
of the Council is to put a document before the voters, on which they will vote either
5
8/4/2000
"yes" or "no," that they have carefully looked at and made sure that it is a cohesive
document. He stated that the process is flawed and has been flawed since the
beginning, that the voters have a right to expect the Council to give proper attention
and present a proper document, and that this document was not proper. He stated that
if it is approved, with the changes being made and items being put back in the
document, the Council would be doing away with all the hard work done by the
reviewing attorneys relative to these sections of the charter.
Mayor Valles reminded everyone that she and Mr. Penman had gone over the
document, and on July 20 it was a good document--yet all of a sudden it had become
flawed. She stated this disturbed her. She stated that the City Clerk, Mr. Penman and
her office had also worked on the document given to the Council this evening dated
8/4/00. She added that Ms. Lien had a perfect right to make the recommendations she
was making--that she (Council Member Lien) felt the document dated 7/10/00 was a
legal document, based on the legal opinion received from the firm of Richards, Watson
& Gershon in San Francisco and also comments made by Gresham, Nolan, Savage &
Tilden, LLP. The Mayor advised that staff had tried to incorporate as many of their
suggestions as possible.
Mayor Valles stated she was offended by the fact that Mr. Penman was saying
the process is flawed, when every effort had been made to communicate with everyone,
including the City Attorney's Office. She stated that several members of the
Committee were in the audience and they had given a great deal of time and effort to
prepare a document that would enable the City to move efficiently and effectively, with
accountability and representative of the people, into the future. They had looked
forward to the year 2053, leaving out personalities; and in her opinion they had
provided a document that would do exactly that.
Mayor Valles requested that the Council members look at the document before
them. She pointed out that it included the revisions which were made and approved by
the Council. She advised that the additional revisions that Council Member Lien would
like to make were being recommended because Ms, Lien believed the document of July
10, submitted by the Committee, was a sound one. She advised that they could refer to
the blue document (draft charter dated 8/4/00) which was approved in concept by the
Council, which included changes requested by the Council during their last meeting,
and which had been reviewed by City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, and herself.
She advised that she had raised an issue brought forth by Mr. Gresham relative
to the Elections Code and what is stated therein regarding the shortening of an elected
official's term by more than 12 months. She stated that she had asked Mr. Penman for
his opinion, because she wanted to make sure that what we put in the document would
be legal. She advised that this relates to the section of the charter regarding the
appointment of the City Attorney and the City Treasurer, and if this was approved by
the voters, what the implication would be for their elected term--whether we can in fact
6
8/4/2000
do this, The Mayor asked City Clerk Clark to tell the Council what she had found out
regarding this matter.
City Clerk Clark quoted from case law which states, "Change in or abolition of
office. If done by an authority possessing the requisite power, frequently the municipal
legislative body, municipal officers can be changed, consolidated, or abolished in the
absence of restraint. Thus, while the legislature may not statutorily abolish a
constitutionally established office, a statutorily established office may be abolished by
statute, And where a municipal corporation by charter or legislative act has power to
create an office by ordinance, it also has power to abolish it. Similarly, a charter office
may be abolished by amendment of the charter, even though the effect may be to curtail
an incumbent's unexpired term."
Ms. Clark stated that when she first analyzed the entire document she shared
with the Mayor and Council various concerns she had about different sections. One of
the concerns she had was that one of the Charter Committee's initial recommendations
would, in effect, result in increasing or decreasing the offices of the City Attorney and
the City Treasurer by more than 12 months. The reason she expressed this concern is
because Elections Code Section 10403. 5 (b) states, .' As a result of the adoption of an
ordinance pursuant to this section, no term of office shall be increased or decreased by
more than 12 months." She sought information from Mr. Penman's Office as to
whether her reading on this was correct or was there something different which would
allow the suggested language, since it was her understanding that neither law firm that
reviewed the charter raised this as an issue. She stated that when she checked with the
co-chair of the Charter Review Committee, she was provided with the information she
just read.
City Attorney Penman responded that his office had never given the OK to any
version of these charters--with every version his office has continued to put out their
written opinions and everyone has raised questions. For example, they have never said
the document of July 20 is OK, but now it isn't. He stated that when the Council voted
earlier this week to approve the document in concept, with the inclusion of an appointed
City Attorney, he felt at that time it was not appropriate for him to give legal advice on
whether or not the term of the City Treasurer and City Attorney could be extended,
Therefore, when this issue came up, he repeated that information.
Mr. Penman advised that he was pressed to give an opinion, and at that time
stated that he had scanned it and that he disagreed with Ms. Clark--he did not believe
that it applied, but he could be wrong, he hadn't researched it. He stated that he
referred the issue to Mr. Nolan, who is at tonight's meeting, and he was sure Mr.
Nolan could provide an answer. He acknowledged that what Ms. Clark had just
indicated, he believed, was the understanding of the City Attorney's Office, and it was
not raised by anybody because it was not an issue. He stated that he believed all
municipal lawyers know that the voters who create an office can de-create it.
7
8/4/2000
He stated he did not want the viewers at home to be misled. The City
Attorney's Office has never given an approval to any of these versions of the charter--
they have found problems with every single version, and if they had more time, they
would probably find more. He advised that they found a problem today which needed
to be discussed, and he believed Mr. Gresham's firm was prepared to make some
comments on that. He advised that his office has worked extremely hard, including late
meetings with the Mayor and other attorneys, and they have tried to keep up in order to
give me Council and staff an ongoing, up-to-date analysis. He stated he would never
presume to say that Ms. Lien could not go back to the 7/10/00 document; what he was
saying is that the item is on the agenda for today and it is on the agenda for Monday,
and a week from today is the very last day to get the item to the County to be placed
before the voters, and in the opinion of the City Attorney's Office, none of these
documents, are ready to go to the voters.
Mr. Penman advised that the City Charter is more than a tool; it is the
constitution of the City, and this document changes the way this City is run. He stated
he had no concerns with the current mayor; however, he has worked with other mayors
who, if they had the power that will be given to the mayor if this document passes,
would be horrendous. He asked the Council that as they are reviewing the document
not to think of Judith Valles as Mayor, but to think of other individuals--to think
beyond their tenure. He advised that these documents were not ready to go to the
voters; that the Council had not finished its work. He stated that they did not
understand the relations between the various sections and had not responded to all the
concerns raised by the different attorneys. He advised that the document was simply
not ready to go and the Council would do a grave disservice to the public if they put it
on as the blue document (dated 8/4/00); and would be committing an even worse crime
if they go back and make these changes, because these are substantial, significant
changes.
Council Member Suarez asked Mr. Penman who would make that decision as to
when the document is ready to go to the voters.
Mr. Penman stated that ultimately the Mayor and Council will make it--when
they feel that they understand it, when they feel that they know how it is going to work,
when they have had the opportunity to have all their questions answered, when they feel
comfortable they can go to the public and the public can ask questions about the
document and they can answer them--then they will be ready to make that decision. He
noted that at the last meeting, Mr. Suarez had indicated he was very confused.
Council Member Suarez acknowledged this to be true, but noted that his
confusion comes from getting so many legal viewpoints, which are opposing
viewpoints. He stated that he must look at both viewpoints and decide in his heart
which one suits this document the best.
8
8/4/2000
Mayor Valles noted that the ultimate decision is the Council's. She believed
that some people may have underestimated the members of the Council and their
understanding of the document. She stated she was now going to ask for public
comments from those who had indicated they wanted to address the Council and then
proceed with the motions. She stated she would read out loud the recommendations
made by the Council at the last meeting, so they could proceed.
Ruth Mercer, 1934 North Kenwood Avenue, San Bernardino, stated that the
Library Board is concerned with Section 1404 (Title to property) where it states that, "
. . , acquisition, title to all real and personal property, . . , for the purpose of use of the
public library system, shall vest and be and remain in the name of the City." They are
concerned that donations made to the library could very easily be taken by the City.
Council Member Lien pointed out that in the analysis received from the City
Attorney today, he informed the Council that this section is identical to Charter Section
209 which currently exists--that this is not a change and is the same language that has
always been in the charter.
Ms, Mercer replied that this has always been a concern and an ongoing issue for
a number of years.
Maxine Kraft, 2830 North Mt. View Avenue, San Bernardino, CA, was
opposed to placing the new charter as one document on the November ballot, stating
that it is too much, too soon; and questioned whether the new charter will do something
for the City,
James Tate, 1391 Andreas, San Bernardino, CA, asked the Council not to send
a "rush document" to the voters; that it was clearly evident that this document was not
ready.
Ed Keller, 1696 Mesa Verde, San Bernardino, CA, spoke regarding Sections
1401 and 1404 of the revised charter relative to the Library. He stated that he was
concerned with the recommended language for removal of a Library Board Member
and also by the fact that everything will belong to the City rather than the library. Mr.
Keller submitted revised language which he felt was more appropriate for Sections 1401
and 1404.
Gene Boisvert, 3740 Palm Crest, San Bernardino, CA, stated he was not sure
of all the changes being proposed and felt the process was being rushed; felt the Mayor
and Council deserved a raise, but it should not take effect until the next term; felt it was
unclear how Section 186 would be resolved; was opposed to an appointed City
Attorney; concerned with a loss of checks and balances; and requested that the charter
not be placed on the ballot at this time.
9
8/4/2000
David Child, 4965 North "G" Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated he was a
member of the Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA); that the Association
had adopted a resolution regarding San Bernardino Charter Reform, which he submitted
to the Mayor and Council; and expressed MAPA's support of the San Bernardino
Charter Review Committee's recommendations.
Kathleen Devlin, 350 East 18th Street, San Bernardino, CA, spoke against the
proposed changes for Civil Service; spoke against an appointed City Attorney and City
Treasurer; and voiced concern with the balance of powers and the selection process for
a mayor pro tem.
Mayor Valles stated that she felt compelled to remind the viewers that as the
Committee reviewed every single section of the charter it was driven by five
fundamental principles--this charter had to be representative of the people, responsive
to the people, accountable to the people, functional as a document of governance, and it
had to be flexible and efficient. She stated that these decisions were not made in a
vacuum--the creation of this document was driven by those five fundamental principles.
The Mayor stated that she recognized that many of the speakers that have come to
address the Council have not been privy to the deliberatbns that have taken place for
the last 17 months, and she expressed regret they were not a part of those deliberations
because if they were, their comments may be different.
Lee McConahy, P.O, Box 5006, San Bernardino, CA, a local businessman,
stated that things are not great for local businesses in San Bernardino, and it is time for
some changes. He stated that he did listen for 17 months to the Committee, and there
were things he did and did not agree with; yet now, after all this time, people are
coming forward and basically recommending to just throw everything out and start
from scratch. He advocated changes to the current Charter Section 186 and agreed
with the recommendation of better pay for the Mayor and Council.
Robert Rego, 607 East 20th Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that one of the
most important votes the Council will make could be the one they pass today. He
expressed his opposition to the revised charter and expounded on those issues which he
believes fall short of the test of flexibility and accountability to the people, usurping
those rights into an elected body.
Charles Brame, P.O. Box 521, San Bernardino, CA, stated he was on the
previous charter committee and commented on some of their decisions; noted that there
is always a hidden agenda; and advocated a system of checks and balances.
Russell Wathby, Sr., 1487 North Morse, San Bernardino, CA, expressed
opposition to the new charter and provided his reasoning for same.
10
8/4/2000
Gary Saenz, 623 East 39th Street, San Bernardino, CA, expressed his concerns
and opposition to Section 1401, specifically the language which provides that any
person appointed to the Board of Library Trustees may be removed by the affirmative
vote of at least five members of the Common Council, except for purposes of
censorship.
Juanita Scott, 1734 West Virginia Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that she
attended many of the Committee's meetings, including some of the focus meetings.
She stated that she is opposed to an appointed City Attorney and City Treasurer;
opposed to changes in Civil Service, as it removes checks and balances; expressed
concern that the process seemed to be going on and on and on; and stated she believed
it should be presented to the voters next year, rather than rushing to present it this
November.
Freddie Spellacy, 3420 North Beverly Drive, San Bernardino, CA, a member
of the Charter Review Committee, clarified that the City Council had been receiving on
an ongoing basis everything relative to the Charter Review Committee, including
agendas, notes, and minutes of the meetings. She expressed disappointment at the
potshots being taken at Jim Morris, co-chair of the Committee, and noted that there
were some really deep thinkers on the Committee. She stated that there were no
preconceived agendas among the Committee members, but noted that there appeared to
be many personal agendas everywhere else. She stated that this city will be changed
around when we quite trying to protect the eastside, northside, westside, southside or
whatever and decide to band together as a city. She stated what the Committee wanted
most of all was to get this into the hands of the voters and let them make the decision.
Oscar Gonzalez, 635 East Evans Street, San Bernardino, CA, stated that he has
attended every Committee meeting since the first of the year, he has asked questions,
and he has been told to address his concerns with the Council. He stated that he has
waited for the Council to discuss each section of the charter, but he was never asked for
his opinion. He stated he was disappointed that public input was never asked of the
public, He expressed his belief that the Council would be making a terrible mistake
sending this package to the voters.
Jim Morris, 776 Bernard Way, San Bernardino, CA, co-chair of the Charter
Review Committee, stated that the Committee had written and published a very detailed
explanation of its reasoning for the major proposals it had made. He added that it was
a public document which has been available for review, and he would not attempt to
repeat its contents tonight.
Mr. Morris advised that he did not ask to serve in the position of co-chair; that
he had intended to serve as a committee member, hut was then asked to be co-chair,
and he assumed this position only in an attempt to further this process. He advised that
he is a lifetime resident of San Bernardino, born and raised here, and he is proud of this
11
8/4/2000
community. His intentions and motives were no different from any of the other
Committee members, which was simply to put forth a document that best represented
the guiding principles the Committee had adopted.
In response to concerns that he was positioning the law firm for which he works
to be somehow vested in the City, he pointed out that the section of the charter relative,
to an appointed city attorney requires that the position be a full-time position. Although
the committee discussed using a law firm as the City Attorney, they decided it was an
important position and needed to be a full-time position. He pointed out that this
excludes his firm from ever being appointed as City Attorney, and that he certainly has
no intention of asking anybody for such an appointment.
Mr. Morris stated that he would like to address some other issues that were
raised by several folks. He stated again that he would not try to recite the Committee's
rationale for the appointed City Attorney, but he did want to respond to those folks who
keep pointing to our County government as a model of what will happen if we appoint a
City Attorney--that by changing an elected official to an appointed official that it
somehow brings with it bad government. He reminded those folks to look at the next
level of government and our current elected state commissioner of insurance. He stated
that there are numerable instances where elected offices have their problems.
He advised that every Committee member will tell you that no charter, no form
of government, no form of constitution could prevent bad persons from doing bad
things in government. This is the responsibility of the voters. If the Mayor and City
Council appoint a bad City Attorney, then it's the responsibility of the citizens to
remove the officials who made that appointment. That's the accountability. The
accountability is there. He urged those people to look at this document to remember all
the different circumstances where the Mayor's exercise of power is checked by and
subject to the confirmation of the Common Council.
Mr. Morris stated that his second point has to do with the balance of powers,
and the perception that there has been this massive shift in power away from the
citizenry and away from the Council to the Mayor. He urged the Council and the
public to carefully go through the chart that the Committee prepared relative to the
Powers of the Mayor and Common Council, because he believed they would see that
although there were some changes, most of them dealt with personnel matters and the
removal of certain appointed officials. He advised that the Committee felt all along that
the administration of the City belongs with the person whom you elect to be the chief
executive officer of the City, and that's the Mayor. If the Mayor appoints bad people
to those positions, then remove the Mayor. He reminded the Council, however, that all
those appointments are subject to confirmation of the City Council. He urged them to
carefully look at the chart.
12
8/4/2000
Mr. Morris noted that there were circumstances where they shifted power to the
City Council. However, the vast majority of the issues listed are mere clarifications,
which make certain what has been continual, historic practices of the City, It doesn't
change things. Many of these are powers that the Mayor already exercises, pursuant to
the existing charter. The Committee simply made clear what they thought was unclear
when they read the document. They wanted a document that the average citizen could
sit down and read and understand. He challenged people to read the existing charter
and understand the form of government to which they have consented. He stated that
the Committee attempted, and he believes they were successful, in using plain English
and straightforward language so someone could sit down and read and understand what
is going on. He stated there was no hidden agenda and no intent to try and
subversively stick in language which would somehow shift power unbeknownst to the
people. In fact, their intent was just the opposite of that.
Finally, he addressed those people who have said the document is legally flawed
and suspect and that they have problems with it. He stated that the Mayor authorized
and sought out other legal counsel, other than those who served on the Committee, to
review this document. He stated that the firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon is one
of the top three most respected public law firms in this state, who are experts in
municipal governance. They looked over this document in great detail and came back
and told the Council that there were not any legal problems with this document--it is
legally sound in all respects.
Council Member Estrada noted that the existing charter states that when a
Council member goes off the Council during their term, for whatever reason, there is a
special election. The problem is the recommended change, which states that there will
not be a special election immediately and the Mayor will now appoint a person to serve
in that capacity until an election is held. That is a major change; not a little change,
and she stated that she did not agree with it.
She spoke regarding the role of the Committee, stating that she did not believe
that the Committee was ever told that their work was going to be received and used
carte blanche by the Council. She stated that the discussion taking place around the
dais is what it is all about--they were elected by their constituents to sit and review and
examine and look at a lot of different things because their constituents don't have the
time. She stated it was not her intent to tear apart the document the Committee
prepared because it provides a basis from which to begin discussion and deliberations
for potential changes.
Mr. Morris noted that the Committee repeatedly mentioned that the document
they made was a mere recommendation to the Mayor, and the only reason some of
them were before the Council now, was to simply clarify what their thought process
was during the many months they deliberated. The Committee did not expect of intend
that their recommendation would see the ballot as is. They understand and are thankful
13
8/4/2000
that this is a decision of the Council. They were simply a group of volunteers
appointed by the Mayor to give the Council a recommendation.
He explained that a number of individuals had raised the concern that in the
interim period when there is no Council person, there is no representation of their
ward, and that prior to the special election they would not be represented. In trying to
address that concern, they decided to allow the Mayor to appoint, again, with
confirmation of a majority of the Council, someone to that office.
Mayor Valles pointed out that this would also maintain the consistency of all the
elected offices should they become vacant.
Council Member Lien stated that she had presented a number of minor changes
based solely on a letter Mr. Morris provided to the Council relative to the ramifications
of some of the minor changes the Council had made. She added that there has been an
assertion that she has gone back to the 7/10/00 document, and she requested that Mr.
Morris clarify that these were some specific items which he felt would flaw the
document,
Mr. Morris advised that the letter the Council received on July 27 was simply
an information piece to the City Council to let them understand how the changes they
made would affect the document. It certainly was not taking the document all the way
back to 7110/00, and if they compared the document they received tonight to the
document of 7/10/00 this would be apparent. The changes the Committee proposed
were simply some clarifications that they thought were important to maintain
consistency in the document and to address some concerns that they had relative to
language that was taken out that they thought might cause potential problems down the
road.
Council Member McGinnis commented on the issue of checks and balances and
inquired whether there was any official in the City that the Mayor could appoint
without confirmation of the Council. When Mr. Morris stated that he could not think
of one, Mr. McGinnis pointed out that in actuality the Mayor does not decide, but a
majority of the Council makes that decision.
Mr. McGinnis then inquired whether the Mayor could get rid of an official of
the City without the Council's approval, and Mr. Morris answered in the affirmative,
as in the case of removal of department heads and the removal of the City
Administrator. He explained that the feeling of the Committee was that the Mayor is
the elected official accountable to the people for the administration of the City.
Council Member McGinnis then asked whether the Mayor could get rid of
anyone else. Mr. Morris explained that she could dismiss an employee, but only on the
recommendation of the department head, Even then, if the employee disagrees with the
14
8/4/2000
decision, he can then take his case to the Civil Service Board. She does not have the
sole power to reach down and pluck someone out for dismissal.
Mr. Morris advised that the removal power was given to the Mayor so the
Mayor could have a staff she could work with. He explained that when a Mayor is put
into office that Mayor is charged with, and held accountable, that people do an efficient
job administering the City. The Committee felt it was important that if there are
persons with whom the Mayor cannot work, the Mayor should have the power to
remove that person. If the Mayor should remove someone inappropriately, such as a
department head, then the Council has the ability to demand that the person who is
appointed to replace that department head is equally qualified,
Council Member Suarez asked Mr. Morris how much attention the Committee
paid to the input of the citizens during the preparation of the document.
Mr. Morris urged the Council to look at the cover letter sent with the
Committee's recommendation to the Mayor wherein the Committee outlined the
number of hours spent on various aspects of this project, the number of public
meetings, the number of hearings, and the number of focus group meetings the
Committee held to receive public input. He added that although the meetings were held
in rooms big enough to accommodate large numbers of people, usually the turnout was
quite low.
City Attorney Penman advised that his office had concerns relative to Section
2103 (Municipal taxes) and that Attorneys Allen Gresham and John Nolan were present
to address this with the Council.
Attorney Johu Nolan explained that their concern relative to Section 2103, had
to do with Proposition 218, which requires voter approval in order for there to be
assessments and levy. He advised that the wording of Proposition 218 specifically
indicates that its effective date is July 1, 1997, and there is a grandfathering of earlier
activities prior to that time,
He advised that in Section 2203 of the proposed charter there is a blanket
readoption of the existing ordinances and other language that relates to what is in
existence now. He stated that the concern is whether the readoption of these
ordinances, which would otherwise be "218 exempt," would expose them to 218
difficulties--that it is possible that these existing ordinances being readopted by the new
charter could be determined to be newly established, even though they are exactly the
same, and therefore, not entitled to the grandfathering protection. He explained that
there has not been enough time in the evolution of the legal basis or body of law
relative to 218 to find anything that can give them absolute guidance on this.
15
8/4/2000
Mayor Valles asked Mr. Penman, in light of the comments just made by Mr.
Nolan, whether the City would be safe in saying that this section would also be
reserved under Section 2207; and then add Article XXI, Section 2103, to the list of
articles already there.
City Attorney Penman advised that it would certainly be safer to do this; to
include the current language in the current charter as a section that is not amended.
Mayor Valles asked the members of the Council to indicate that Article XXI,
Section 2103, be added to Section 2207 at the end of the paragraph.
Mayor Valles also mentioned that Mr. Gresham's firm had questioned the age
limit contained in several of the articles, and this language had been deleted based on
the firm's recommendations, Also, Mr. Penman had raised another issue relative to
Section 100 (Names and boundaries) and the importance of identifying the existing
boundaries of the city, and this information would be included in the appendix, so at the
time of the adoption of the new charter, the map of the existing boundaries would also
accompany it.
Marvin Scoggin, 860 Glendenning Way, San Bernardino, CA, a member of the
Charter Review Committee, stated that the Committee had retained a great portion of
the existing charter, and it was not a wholesale abandonment of the original document.
He pointed out that the Council was provided with written rationale for decisions that
were made by the Committee, to help them understand the reasoning behind the
decisions, He noted that the Council also had Jim Morris, the Committee co-chair, to
answer their questions in person. Mr. Scoggin spoke very highly of Mr. Morris,
stating mat he felt he was fair in speaking for all of the Committee members, that Mr.
Morris has distinguished himself, and has done so with class.
Mr. Scoggin advised that relative to an appointed versus an elected City
Attorney, or any other position for that matter that has been changed, the Committee
considered these issues very carefully. He spoke regarding the remark made that an
appointed city attorney is a corrupt elected official's dream; however, people seem to
forget that an elected city attorney can be a corrupt elected official. There is no way to
guarantee mat whatever form of charter is put before the people, that it will guarantee
protection against corruption. He stated his belief that on the balance of power issue--
that it may not be an issue at all. He noted that two-thirds of seven does come out to
five votes, and he does not see a problem with this. He noted that even if a problem
arises, there is a provision in the charter to make change.
George Theios, a lifetime resident of San Bernardino and also a member of the
Charter Review Committee, responded to those individuals who spoke relative to
Section 1401 and the removal of a member of the Library Board of Trustees. He stated
that when they met with the Board of Library Trustees their main concern was that the
16
8/4/2000
Council not use their power to remove a member as a way of censorship. Therefore,
they added the terminology relative to censorship. The Committee's concern was that
somebody could be appointed to a commission and if they were not performing then
this body wim at least five votes could remove them.
Council Member Anderson expressed her concern about making the City
Attorney an appointed position, She asked, who has the greatest margin of error--the
one person who appoints an attorney or the 125,000 people who have the option of
electing a City Attorney?
Council Member Lien stated that she believed now would be the time to
consider any changes to the 8/4/00 document before the Council actually voted on the
resolutions.
Mayor Valles stated she wanted to make sure that everyone concurred with the
changes itemized on the blue summary sheet dated 8/4/00, which were based on actions
that the Council took on Wednesday, July 26, 2000. At this time, she reviewed those
changes with me Council, including the language contained in Section 2205 relative to
the sunset of current Charter Section 186.
Discussion ensued regarding those sections which would be retained from the
current charter, and how the content would be conveyed to the voters in an
understandable manner, as to exactly what they were voting on. There was concern
that the voters would not understand the meaning of a section number only, with the
words "(Section Reserved)" next to it.
City Attorney Penman advised that it was his understanding that the City Clerk's
Office intended to mail to each household with at least one registered voter a copy of
the proposed charter. He added that it would be a fairly simple matter to add an
appendix listing what is in those sections that will be retained.
RECESS MEETING
At 8:08 p.m., Mayor Valles declared a five-minute recess.
RECONVENE MEETING
At 8:24 p.m., Mayor Valles reconvened the joint special meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San
Bernardino.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken by City Clerk Clark with the following being present:
Mayor Valles; Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack; City Attorney Penman, City Clerk Clark, Director of Human Resources
Raya. Absent: None.
17
8/4/2000
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
to accept the San Bernardino City Charter Summary of Changes dated 08/04/00, as
submitted. (Note: The vote was taken after discussion.)
Concern was again expressed by some members of the Council relative to
Section 186 of the current charter and how salaries would be guaranteed for safety
personnel.
Mayor Valles read the following language, which was added to safeguard the
changes contained in proposed Section 2205 relative to safety employees' salaries: "In
the event SB402 or similar legislation is repealed, the City of San Bernardino shall
maintain in effect the rules and regulations contained in SB402 or any similar binding
arbitration action from the State."
Skip Kulikoff, President of San Bernardino City Firefighters, stated that the
firefighters had an objection to the way Section 186 of the current charter was being
handled relative to Senate Bill 402. He stated that SB402 is an unfinished piece of
legislation, currently in the Senate, and no one knows what the finished language will
be. However, if SB402 passes, regardless of the finished form, Section 186 is gone.
It was noted that Jeff Breiten, President of the San Bernardino Police Officers
Association, had indicated earlier in the afternoon that they had no problem with the
proposed charter changes.
Council Member McCammack noted that in the San Bernardino City Charter
Summary of Changes there were some items which were not discussed by the Council
and she would be voting "no" on these items,
Discussion ensued regarding the nature of the items Council Member
McCamrnack was referring to, and it was pointed out that these were minor changes
made by the City Attorney, City Clerk, and the Mayor. For the benefit of me Council,
City Attorney Penman reviewed the changes contained in the summary which were not
voted on by the Council.
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,
Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members Anderson, McCammack,
Absent: None.
At this time, the changes recommended by Council Member Lien earlier in the
meeting were taken individually and considered and voted on by the Council.
18
8/4/2000
Council Member Anderson stated that she felt very offended that things she had
discussed with the Council and voted on previously were now coming back to the
Council for further consideration.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
that the word "legislative" be deleted from the first line of Section 304 (Powers) of the
draft charter dated 8/4/00,
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Lien,
McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members Estrada, Anderson,
McCammack. Absent: None.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
to reinstate the stricken language in Section 305 E. (Ordinances, resolutions, and orders
_ Date of adoption) of the draft charter dated 8/4/00, which reads, "or the date the
Mayor's disapproval is overridden by the Common Council" and "or in those cases
where the Mayor's approval is not required" to read as follows:
E. Date of Adoption. For ordinances and resolutions, the date of
final adoption shall be deemed the earlier of the date of approval
by the Mayor, or the date when the time for the Mayor's
disapproval expires, or the date the Mayor's disapproval is
overridden by the Common Council. For orders of the Common
Council, or in those cases where the Mayor's approval is not
required, the date of final adoption shall be deemed the date of
adoption by the Common Council.
The motion carried by
McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez.
McCammack. Absent: None.
the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Lien,
Nays: Council Members Estrada, Anderson,
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
to reinstate the stricken language in Section 403 A. (Powers and duties) of the draft
charter dated 8/4/00 that reads, "Exercise management authority, including the
delegation of discretionary functions over all departments, agencies, and employees of
the City."; and that the remainder of Section 403 A" which is double-underlined, be
deleted and replaced with a new subsection, which reads:
"Observe the conduct of all public officials in the execution of their
powers and duties, and protect the public interest by reporting to the
Common Council any willful neglect of duty or official misconduct for
action in accordance with applicable laws."
19
8/4/2000
The motion carried by
McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez,
McCammack. Absent: None.
the following vote:
Nays: Council
Ayes: Council Members Lien,
Members Estrada, Anderson,
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
that the words, "with 2/3 council approval" be deleted from Section 403 D. (Powers
and duties) of the draft charter dated 8/4/00. (Note: The vote was taken after
discussion. )
Council Member Anderson stated that she would not be voting for this because
she thought it was a just and clear decision that she made previously that a 2/3 vote is
needed for a dismissal that is without cause,
Discussion ensued regarding addition of the words "with cause" to this section.
City Attorney Penman questioned how it could be defended in court that the Mayor and
two-thirds of the Council voted to dismiss someone without any cause. He suggested
other language which might cover what the Council was wanting to do.
Mayor Valles pointed out that currently the Mayor, the City Attorney, and the
City Clerk, can dismiss their at-will employees with or without cause; and this can be
done without going to the Council for any kind of concurrence. Therefore, she
questioned why it should be any different in this section of the charter.
City Attorney Penman advised that under the present charter the Mayor can
remove a department head, agency head, or other nonelected officer, with cause,
without going to the Councilor the Commission, However, to remove an at-will
employee with no cause, she would have to have two-thirds vote of the Council.
Jim Morris, co-chair of the Committee, advised that the reasoning for not
having a two-thirds Council approval was that the Committee felt that the appropriate
checks and balances for the appointment of department heads was achieved by requiring
the Council's consent when the Mayor appoints somebody, which ensures that good
people fill these important offices in the City. However, when it comes to removing
those officials, they felt it was important that the Mayor, who is accountable to the
citizens for the administration of the city, be able to remove that person as they deem
necessary to ensure the efficient and effective administration and management of the
city, He pointed out that if you require a Council check on that, it begins to bring the
legislative body into being able to control the administration of the city. The Mayor is
responsible for the administration of the city and needs to be able to have the loyalty
and duty of those officials who will carry out the directions of the Mayor as
accountable officials.
Council Member Anderson stated she was just trying to maintain a level playing
field for all persons involved.
20
8/4/2000
The motion carried by the following vote:
McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council
McCammack. Absent: None,
Ayes: Council Members Lien,
Members Estrada, Anderson,
Council Member Lien made a motion to delete the words, "except employees
serving at the pleasure of an elected official or other city officer" from Section 403 D.
(Powers and duties).
Discussion ensued regarding this matter, City Attorney Penman noted that if
the language remained in Section 403 D., it then harmonizes much better with Sections
503 and 602, where reference is made to employees in the City Clerk's Office and the
City Attorney's Office.
Council Member Lien withdrew her motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON EXCUSED
At 9: 15 p.m., Council Member Anderson left the Council meeting.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
that me entire Section 408 (Chief of Police - Duties) in the draft charter dated 8/4/00 be
deleted and replaced with the following language:
"The Mayor shall appoint, and may discipline and remove, a Chief of Police in
accordance with Sections 403 C. and 403 D. of this charter. The Chief of Police shall
have the powers and duties that are now or may hereafter be conferred upon chiefs of
police by laws of the State of California, and such powers and duties shall in all
respects be promptly executed by police officers and authorized personnel of the Police
Department. The Chief of Police shall enforce the laws of the State of California and
the ordinances of the City, and shall arrest all persons suspected of violation of the
same."
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,
Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Member McCammack. Abstain:
Council Member Anderson. Absent: None.
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON RETURNED
At 9:19 p.m., Council Member Anderson returned to the Council meeting and
took her place at the Council table.
Council Member Lien made a motion to delete the words, "All Deputy City
Clerks and other employees shall serve at the pleasure of the City Clerk" from Section
503 A. and delete the words, "All Deputy City Attorneys and other employees shall
serve at the pleasure of the City Attorney" from Section 602 A.
21
8/4/2000
Discussion ensued regarding this matter and the fact that the Council had just
made a decision to retain language in Section 403 D. based on the fact that the language
harmonized with this language in Sections 503 and 602.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member Schuetz,
that in the second line of Section 902 (Filling vacancy in the Office of the Mayor) in the
draft charter dated 8/4/00, that the word "become" be replaced with the words "serve
as"; and that the last sentence be deleted, which reads, "Upon the Mayor Pro-Tempore
becoming Mayor, said person shall comply with Section 400 of this Charter within a
reasonable period of time not to exceed 6 months,"
The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada,
Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez. Nays: Council Members Anderson, McCammack.
Council Member McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council Member
Schuetz, and unanimously carried, that Section 2103 (Municipal taxes) be changed to
"Section Reserved"; and that Section 2207 (Effectiveness and repeal of former charter)
be amended to read:
"Upon the Adoption Date, the provisions of this Charter shall be in full
force and effect under the law. The former Charter is hereby repealed
except that (1) Charter Section 41 is not repealed or otherwise
amended by this Charter, and said Charter Section 41 shall continue
in full force and effect in this Charter number as Section 2103, (2)
Charter Section 134 and Charter Section 160 through 171, inclusive, .
and (3) Charter Section 190, 191 and 192 . . ..,
City Attorney Penman advised the Council of another concern expressed by Mr.
Nolan relative to Proposition 218, and provided the language in the following motion to
address this concern.
Council Member Suarez made a motion, seconded by Council Member
McGinnis, and unanimously carried, that in Section 2203 (Municipal laws and
regulations) in the first paragraph, after the word "Charter" in the next to the last
sentence, the following language will be inserted:
"It is not the intent to re-adopt said ordinances, resolutions, orders,
rules, or other regulations, but to continue them in effect."
22
8/412000
City Attorney Penman advised that Mr. Nolan had also proposed this same
language for Section 2305 (Effect of invalidity in part); however, as he was reading it
over he did not think Section 2305 needed to be changed.
Discussion ensued regarding the recommended language changes submitted by
Mr. Ed Keller relative to the Library. Said changes would amend Section 1401
(Membership) and Section 1404 (Title to property).
City Attorney Penman advised that Mr. Gresham had pointed out that if the
purpose for the change was to make sure donations made to the library stay with the
library, the first phrase in Section 1404 takes care of that and additional language is not
needed.
No action was taken relative to Mr. Keller's recommendations.
City Attorney Penman advised that because the resolutions refer to the new
charter, he felt it would be appropriate, if it was the intention of the Council to approve
the entire document as the new charter, that the Council vote to approve the document
first and then adopt the resolutions.
Council Member Estrada stated that she supported placing the document before
the voters; however, she did not support this document.
City Attorney Penman encouraged the Council to make sure they understood
everything in the document before they cast their votes on this document.
Council Member Anderson stated that she did not want to minimize the work of
the Committee; however, she felt that she labored in vain for this charter, that it is not
a part of her, contains nothing that she suggested, and she does not know how she could
support such a document.
Council Member Estrada repeated that she did not have an opportunity to
thoroughly review all the documents she had received today. She stated this does not
mean she is not familiar with some of the information in some of the documents;
however, there were changes, She reiterated Mr. Penman's remarks that the Council
did not have a review of this latest document. She stated that she had voted the last
time and approved in concept the document, but she does not have confidence in the
document today with things being taken out and put hack in, etc. She stated she would
vote to submit the document to the voters, but as far as supporting the document, this
she could not do.
Council Member Schuetz made a motion, seconded by Council Member
McGinnis, that the draft charter dated 8/4/00, as amended, be approved.
23
8/4/2000
The motion carried by
McGinnis, Schuetz, Suarez.
McCammack. Absent: None.
the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Lien,
Nays: Council Members Estrada, Anderson,
RES. 2000-231 - RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CALLING A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON A PROPOSED NEW CITY
CHARTER AND REQUESTING THAT SAID CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO'S SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE NOVEMBER 7, 2000 STATEWIDE
PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION CONDUCTED BY THE
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. (IA)
Council Member McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council Member Lien,
that full reading of the resolution be waived; and that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2000-231 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
City Attorney Penman advised that the resolution proposing the new charter
would need to be approved as amended by interlineation due to changes made during
tonight's meeting.
RES. 2000-232 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO PROPOSING A NEW CHARTER. (18)
Council Member McGinnis made a motion, seconded by Council Member Lien,
that full reading of the resolution be waived; and that said resolution be adopted as
amended by interlineation beginning on line 17 to include, "( 1) Charter Section 41 is
not repealed or otherwise amended by this Charter, and said Charter Section 41 shall
continue in full force and effect in this Charter numbered as Section 2103;" and the
appropriate renumber of the remaining items in the paragraph to (2) and (3)
respectively.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2000-232 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
24
8/412000
RES. 2000-233 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF
SAID CITY A PROPOSED NEW CHARTER. (IC)
Council Member Lien made a motion, seconded by Council Member McGinnis,
that full reading of the resolution be waived; and that said resolution be adopted.
The motion carried and Resolution No. 2000-233 was adopted by the following
vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Lien, McGinnis, Schnetz, Suarez, Anderson,
McCammack. Nays: None. Absent: None.
ADJOURNMENT (2)
At 9:56 p.m., the meeting adjourned. The next joint regular meeting is
scheduled for 8:00 a.m., Monday, August 7,2000, in the Council Chambers of City
Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California,
RACHEL G, CLARK
City Clerk
By J2..L ~. Li_+ .p
Linda E. Har~
Deputy City Clerk
No. of Items: 2
No. of Hours: 4.5
25
8/4/2000