Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24- City Clerk CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Rachel G. Clark, CIVIC Subject: Request for Proposed Charter Amendment Dept: City Clerk Council Meeting: 6/7/99 Date: May 25, 1999 03FT Synopsis of Previous Council Action: 1/23/92 Mayor and Council approved Resolution 92-26 Proposing an Amendment of the Charter Changing the Dates of the City Primary and General Elections and the Dates on which City Officers Assume Office Commencing in 1995 Recommended Motion: That the City Attorney be directed to prepare a proposed Charter Amendment to be placed on the November 2, 1999 ballot that would amend Sections 10 and 14 of the Charter and incorporate the following points: (Motion continued on following page) Signature Contact person: Rachel G_ Clark, City Clark Phone: 384-5002 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward:Citywide Est. savings: 65,000-85,000 for Citywide runoff election FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Arrt_ DPSCrI to icn) Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. 9 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Page Two From: Rachel G. Clark, CIVIC Subject: Request for Proposed Charter Dept: City Clerk Amendment Date: May 25, 1999 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: Recommended Motion: (Continued) • Give the City the option to request that a general (runoff) election be consolidated with the County if an election should fall within 60 days of a County-conducted election. • Elected officers' terms of office remain the same for those elected in the primary election, i.e., candidates who win in the primary will assume office on the first Monday in March of the following even numbered year. • If a general (runoff) election is required, the winner of that election will assume office on the first Monday in April of the following even numbered year. Signature Contact person: Phone: Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct nescrintinn) 3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Staff Report g 3 DATE: May 25, 1999 TO: Honorable Mayor& Members of the City Council FROM: Rachel G. Clark, CMC, City Clerk SUBJECT: Request for Proposed Charter Amendment BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As a result of a Charter amendment approved by the voters on June 2, 1992, our municipal elections changed from a primary election being held in March of odd numbered years to being held in November of odd numbered years. Additionally, General elections were changed from being held in May of odd numbered years to being held in February of the following even numbered year. The Charter amendment presented to the voters in 1992 was advanced with the idea that consolidation of our city election with the UDEL election would result in estimated savings to the City of up to $75,000 per election year. In a stand-alone election conducted by the City, the City bears the entire cost of an election; however, in a consolidated election, the costs are shared 3 with all participating entities, thereby greatly reducing the city's share of an election. The Charter amendment approved in 1992 provided that the change in election dates would occur in 1995; therefore, in November 1995, the City consolidated its primary election with the Uniform School District Elections (UDEL) conducted by the County Registrar of Voters. Since 1995 all regular city primary elections have been conducted in November of odd numbered years and the general elections in February of the even numbered year. PROPOSED CHANGES: As a result of recent changes in legislation, I would like to recommend that the Mayor and Council consider placing on the November 2, 1999 ballot a charter amendment that would give us an option with regard to holding a general (runoff) election if one is required. Recent changes in legislation have moved the date of the Presidential Primary election from June 6, 2000 to March 7, 2000. This means that if a City of San Bernardino general (runoff) election is required in February for any of the city offices up for election in November, voters could be facing back to back elections early next year. The County has already indicated that because of the Presidential Primary election, they will not be able to conduct a stand-alone election if one is required for the City. Under the existing Charter, the City would then be required to conduct a stand-alone election at a considerably higher cost than if it could be consolidated with the County. For example, if a run-off election is required in any of the Citywide races, the cost of consolidating the election is estimated to be between $45,000 to $50,000 versus the estimated 1 cost of$110,000 to $135,000 to conduct a stand-alone citywide election. Considering the budget deficit we are facing, I believe it would be in the best interests of our citizens to propose a charter amendment that, if approved, may result in election cost savings to the City and increased voter turnout. Following is a chart showing two scenarios. Scenario A shows the election schedule if a runoff election is required and a charter amendment is not placed on the ballot or is not approved. Scenario B shows the election if a runoff election is required and the proposed charter amendment is approved. SCENARIO A SCENARIO B City-conducted Runoff election Consolidated Runoff Election (No Charter Amendment) (With proposed charter amendment) 1 City Primary Election 11/2/99 1 City Primary Election 11/2/99 2 City General (runoff) 2/1/2000 2 City General (Runoff) 3/7/2000 election—stand-alone election (consolidated with Presidential Primary) 3 Presidential Primary 3/7/2000 3 Election 4 Estimated cost to City for $110,000 4 Estimated Cost to City for $45,000 to runoff election (citywide) to citywide runoff election $50,000 $135,000 consolidated with County Additional reasons for requesting a charter change are: 1. If we have to hold a runoff election, there will be overlapping elections thereby creating confusion with the voters. With only a 30 day difference between the City's general election and the Presidential Primary election, voters will be receiving two sample ballots, possibly different polling place locations, two sets of laws governing absentee voting, two different applications for absentee ballots, etc. 2. Recruitment of poll workers will be increasingly difficult and possibly confusing as both the City and the County will be attempting to hire poll workers for two separate elections within a short time span. 3. The City depends on the support; services, and equipment provided by the Registrar of Voters Office and the Registrar's full resources will be committed to the Presidential Primary election, thereby making it increasingly difficult for both entities to conduct the two elections. 4. Historically, voter turnout is greater in a statewide election than in a stand-alone municipal election. In addition, recent trends in elections indicate that more frequent 2 a a l elections are a factor in producing lower turnout. Consolidating a run-off election would certainly contribute to a higher voter turnout. I have had several discussions with Ingrid Gonzales, the County Registrar of Voters, relative to the possibility that a runoff election might be necessary following the November 2, 1999 election and she shares the same concerns I have expressed. Our goal is to protect the integrity of the electoral process. We enjoy an excellent working relationship with the Registrar of Voters Office and have been successful in consistently reaching our goal while at the same time reducing election costs. Attached is a letter from Ms. Gonzales sharing her concerns about the possibility of a runoff election and reasons why we should explore available options. At this point in time we have no way of knowing whether or not a runoff election will be required in a citywide race or a ward race; however, we need to be prepared and plan for that possibility. Given the above information, I hope the Mayor and Council will agree that it is in the best interest of both the City and County to propose a charter amendment for the November ballot. If you agree, my recommendation would be that the City Attorney's Office be directed to prepare a a charter amendment for the November 2, 1999 ballot that would give the City the option to f request that a general (runoff) election be consolidated with the County if an election should fall within 60 days of a County-conducted election. The reason I say "option" is that in two years we will not be facing a Presidential Primary; however, there will be a gubernatorial statewide primary in March 2002 and could still be a problem if a City runoff election is required in 2002. We do not know for certain whether the circumstances we face next year will be present in the year 2002; however, should similar circumstances be present in the future, at least we will have the option of consolidating with the County. Elections Code Section 1000 calls for a statewide primary in March of each even year. I recommend that the proposed charter amendment include language so that the commencement of elected officers' terms of office remain the same, i.e., candidates who win in the primary will assume office on the first Monday in March as the Charter currently provides. A change in assuming office would occur for candidates who are forced into a runoff election. If a Charter change is approved and we are able to consolidate a runoff election with the Presidential Primary, then the winner of the runoff election will assume office on the first Monday in April. If you concur with my recommendation, I recommend that the following motion be adopted: "That the City Attorney be directed to prepare a proposed Charter Amendment to be placed on the November 2, 1999 ballot that would amend Sections 10 and 14 of the City Charter and incorporate the following points: • Give the City the option to request that a general (runoff) election be consolidated with the County if an election should fall within 60 days of a County-conducted election. 3 • Elected officers' terms of office remain the same for those elected in the primary election, i.e., candidates who win in the primary will assume office on the first Monday in March of the following even numbered year. • If a general (runoff) election is required, the winner of that election will assume office on the first Monday in April of the following even numbered year. Further, that the proposed charter amendment be submitted to the Mayor and Council at its next regular meeting on June 21, 1999." Rache G. Clark, CMC City Clerk i 4 OF SAN REGISTRAR OF VOTERS � ,, COU PUB IC SERVICES GROUP BERNARDINO Co K AD[ iialto Avenue • San Bernardino, CA 92415-0770 (909) 387-8300 INGRID E. GONZALES Fax (909) 387-2022 Registrar of Voters Sy 7 4� May 12, 1999 Rachel Clark, City Clerk City of San Bernardino P.O. Box 1318 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Dear Rachel, In recent weeks we have discussed the possibility that a runoff election might be necessary following the November 2, 1999 election, in which the City of San Bernardino consolidates with the County election for schools and special districts.The City charter mandates that the runoff election be conducted the first Tuesday of February. I was asked if my office would conduct such an election if requested. Unfortunately, I felt there was no alternative but to decline. Conducting this election would not have been a problem in the past. However, because of recent legislation moving the Presidential Primary to March 7, 2000 it creates a major conflict. In my mind, the conflict exists whether my office conducts the election or whether the City conducts the election. However, my first priority must be to the countywide election. For that reason, I encouraged you to explore the options of consolidating with the March 7,2000 election. I realize that such a move requires a charter amendment and is not a simple task. CONCERNS: 1. It is confusing to voters to have overlapping elections within the same jurisdictions. Such confusion can result in challenged elections. With only a 30 day difference, voters are receiving two sample ballots, perhaps two different polling locations,two different applications for absentee ballots,two sets of laws governing absentee voting,two different offices to call for assistance, etc. 2. Poll workers—it is difficult under any circumstance to recruit and train good poll workers.Two elections so close together will compound the problem. In addition, it is likely to confuse the poll workers who might work both elections where the laws are different(and perhaps a different voting system). In close elections where a voter was mistakenly disenfranchised or voted illegally,this could result in an election contest. 3. ROV staff and equipment are in full use during this period. Even though the City might be "conducting"the election, it still requires services of the County—i.e., electronic voter lists, access to computers for signature verification, voting equipment, poll worker and polling place data,etc. Because there is no way of knowing in advance, I must look at the possibility that a runoff election could be citywide. If it were limited to only one ward, it would still be a problem—the difference is that it would simply be a smaller problem. i Page 2 of 2 z i i CONCLUSION: You and I share the same concerns with regard to protecting the integrity of the electoral process. It was because of this shared concern that we worked toward the goal of City elections being conducted by the Registrar of Voters. I believe we have been successful and that the voters have benefited by having a more consistent process at a lower cost. Because of our success, it is with much regret that I must decline to conduct a February runoff. It is also my hope that the City explore whatever options are available that would permit consolidation with March 7,2000. It is my firm belief that this would go a long way towards maintaining the integrity of the process and would also result in lower costs to the City. I realize that there is an argument that consolidation with the statewide primary puts the City race among many other races,which could result in some voters ignoring the race. However, I am not convinced that the drop off is that significant compared to the benefit derived from the higher turnout that results from a presidential primary versus a city runoff election. Please keep me informed of your plans and let me know if there is anything that I can do to be of assistance. Regardless of the final outcome, I know that we will both do everything in our power to provide the best possible service to all voters. Sincer - '."4KZ INGRTD E. GONZALES Registrar of Voters 7 s r in O N O 1� O � C p � O � c� a��•• W y "�U{ y U C C C O z, .0 Tl �•' y � 7, v 00 H s� cn w � o x U z z U U U `•� Q cc x U W6, �- O /Mtea > c = y u C� to LTa � w O A 8 p C c cn y a�ci U U i ION urn .S4 N M v^ �2Y