HomeMy WebLinkAbout31- City Attorney CITE' OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: James F. Penman Subject: 1)Clarification of ballot item; directions to the City
City Attorney Attorney from meeting of the Mayor and Common
Dept: City Attorney Council of June 24, 2)Role of the City Attorney,
Date: July 3, 1996 OI L 3)Discussion of case of Scott v. Common Council
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
June 24, 1996 - Direction to City Attorney to prepare ballot language.
Recommended Motion:
Discussion of possible action to further direct the City Attorney in relation to ballot items.
Signature
Contact Person: Dennis A. Barlow Phone: 5255
Supporting Data Attached: Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
7 JS /996
Agenda Item No. 31 D
SDE\dm\actfonn
STAFF REPORT
Council Meeting Date: July 15, 1996
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Dennis A. Barlow, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
DATE: July 3, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: 1) Clarification of ballot item; directions to the City Attorney from meeting
of the Mayor and Common Council of June 24, 2) Role of the City Attorney,
3) Discussion of case of Scott v. Common Council
At the adjourned meeting of the Mayor and Council held on Monday June 24, the Council
on a 4-3 vote directed the City Attorney to prepare the technical language to place a measure on
the ballot relating to the veto of the Chairman of the Community Development Commission
(Mayor). Apparently the issues to be presented were whether to leave the situation as it now
stands, where the Chairman does not have the veto, or to give the Chairman the same veto as now
exists for the Mayor in the City.
In attempting to prepare the requested language certain questions arose which need
clarification from the Council:
1. Was the intent of the Council that the ballot measures be mandatory or advisory? As
we advised the Council at the June 24 meeting, the current State statute precludes City action
which would mandatorily make a change in the veto process. There is also no clear law which
would allow the voters of the City to provide advice to the Legislature, which is where the
legislative action must occur.
2. The direction of the Council seemed to be that there should be two ballot measures:
one to indicate whether the veto situation should remain the same, and one to indicate whether
the Mayor, while sitting as the Chairman of the Community Development Commission, should
have the veto. The difficulty with putting such conflicting items on the ballot is if they both pass
the legal question arises as to which controls. Did the Council mean to just present one item to
the voters asking whether the Mayor as Chairman should have the veto? If it did not pass then
the power would remain the same.
We would appreciate clarification on these matters.
DAB/tbm[Electl.Rpt]