Alameda City Council
City
of
Alameda
2263
Santa
Clara
Avenue
Alameda,
California
94501
July 7, 2026
Re: Agenda Item 7-B–Proposed Charter Amendment Measure for the November 3, 2026 Ballot
Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am particularly concerned about Agenda Item 7-B and the proposed Charter Amendment measure
described
as
a
“cleanup”
measure
to
amend
or
repeal
outdated
Charter
provisions.
This
is
a
second
letter
I’m
sending
to
you
that
raises
legal
questions
around
the
proposed
framework
of
such
a
ballot
measure.
I understand that the City of Alameda, as a charter city, possesses broad authority under Article XI
of
the
California
Constitution
to
propose
Charter
amendments
and
submit
them
to
the
voters.
However,
California
courts
have
afforded
charter
cities
substantial
discretion
in
determining
how
legislative
Charter
amendments
are
presented
to
the
voters.
In
particular,
courts
have
distinguished
between
voter
initiatives
and
legislative
Charter
amendments
and
have
recognized
that
the
Legislature’s
single-subject
limitations
applicable
to
initiatives
do
not
automatically
apply
in
the
same
manner
to
Charter
amendments
placed
on
the
ballot
by
a
city
council.
However, that authority is not unlimited and discretion must still be exercised consistently with fundamental
principles
of
fair
elections,
informed
voter
consent,
and
the
requirement
that
voters
be
given
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
approve
or
reject
significant
governmental
changes.
My concern is that Agenda Item 7-B does not merely eliminate obsolete language or correct outdated
provisions.
Instead,
it
combines
numerous
unrelated
and
substantive
policy
decisions
affecting
separate
areas
of
municipal
governance—including
executive
authority,
civil
service
protections,
City
Attorney
powers,
public
utility
governance,
financial
oversight,
and
historic
preservation—with
minor
technical
amendments
into
a
single
ballot
question.
This creates a significant legal risk that the measure could be challenged as an improper bundling
of
unrelated
governmental
changes
that
deprives
Alameda
voters
of
the
ability
to
make
an
informed
and
independent
choice
on
each
significant
Charter
amendment.
The ballot question asks voters to approve amendments to more than twenty Charter sections and
repeals
two
additional
sections.
Although
the
City
describes
the
proposal
as
updating
“outdated language and provisions,” several amendments represent substantive changes in governmental
authority.
Some examples here–
1. Section 8-2 — Expansion of City Manager Authority Over City Litigation The proposed amendment to Section 8-2 would authorize the City Attorney to commence actions
not
only
with
authorization
from
the
City
Council,
but
also
through
“written
instruction
of
the
City
Manager.”
This is not merely a technical correction. It changes the allocation of authority between elected officials,
the
City
Attorney,
and
the
City
Manager
regarding
litigation
decisions
affecting
the
City.
Whether the City Manager should possess such authority is a significant policy question deserving
independent
voter
consideration.
A
voter
may
support
modernization
of
obsolete
Charter
language
while
opposing
a
transfer
of
litigation
authority
from
the
elected
Council
to
an
appointed
administrative
officer.
Under
the
current
structure
of
Agenda
Item
7-B,
voters
are
not
provided
that
choice.
2. Section 2-3 — Creation of Additional Exempt Positions Outside Civil Service The proposed amendment to Section 2-3 would allow the City Council to establish positions that are
exempt
from
Civil
Service
requirements
and
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
appointing
authorities.
This is a substantial change affecting municipal employment structure, accountability, and employee
protections.
It
is
unrelated
to
other
proposed
amendments
concerning
publication
requirements,
historical
boards,
or
obsolete
Charter
provisions.
3. Sections 10 and 12 — Public Utilities Board Governance and Financial Oversight The amendments concerning the Public Utilities Board represent another independent policy area.
These provisions would alter:
● Board composition ● professional qualification requirements ● employee restrictions ● financial reporting requirements ● audit responsibilities.
Most notably, Section 12-4(B) would change responsibility for selecting the annual auditor from the
City
Council
to
the
City
Auditor.
The question of who controls independent financial oversight of a public utility is a matter of public
accountability
and
fiscal
governance.
It
is
not
logically
connected
to
the
removal
of
obsolete
Charter
provisions
elsewhere
in
the
proposed
measure.
4. Sections 28-2 through 28-4 — Historical Advisory Board The proposed amendments concerning the Historical Advisory Board alter the composition and qualifications
of
a
City
advisory
body.
These provisions represent a separate policy decision regarding historic preservation governance
and
community
representation.
They
have
no
reasonable
relationship
to
amendments
involving
City
Attorney
authority,
utility
governance,
or
municipal
employment.
Although California law does not prohibit every Charter amendment from containing multiple provisions,
courts
have
repeatedly
emphasized
that
election
measures
must
be
presented
fairly
and
in
a
manner
that
allows
voters
to
understand
what
they
are
approving.
California courts have recognized that governmental bodies may not structure ballot measures in
a
manner
that
undermines
the
electorate’s
ability
to
make
an
informed
choice.
In Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12 , the court recognized that legislative
bodies
have
broader
authority
than
initiative
proponents
when
placing
measures
before
voters.
However,
that
decision
does
not
grant
unlimited
authority
to
combine
unrelated
policy
decisions
into
a
single
measure
or
eliminate
the
requirement
that
elections
be
conducted
fairly.
Similarly, California courts have emphasized in election cases involving ballot presentation and voter
understanding
that
the
electorate
must
not
be
confronted
with
misleading
or
confusing
choices.
The
principles
discussed
in
cases
such
as
Californians
for
an
Open
Primary
v.
McPherson
(2006)
38 Cal.4th
735
and
related
election
jurisprudence
reinforce
that
voters
must
be
allowed
to
meaningfully
understand
the
governmental
action
on
which
they
are
voting.
The concern here is not that the City lacks authority to propose Charter amendments. The concern
is
that
the
City
is
exercising
that
authority
in
a
manner
that
combines
fundamentally
different
governmental
decisions
into
one
up-or-down
vote.
The practical effect of Agenda Item 7-B is that voters who support one portion of the measure may
be
required
to
approve
other
unrelated
provisions
they
oppose.
For example:
● A voter who supports deleting obsolete Charter language regarding outdated employment
provisions
may
be
forced
to
simultaneously
approve
a
change
to
City
Attorney
authority.
● A voter who supports updating historic preservation provisions may be forced to approve changes
to
public
utility
financial
oversight.
● A voter who supports administrative modernization may be forced to approve changes to civil
service
protections.
This is the classic concern of “ logrolling ”—combining separate issues into a single measure so that
support
for
one
provision
carries
unrelated
provisions
across
the
finish
line.
While California law recognizes that some Charter amendments may appropriately address multiple
related
provisions,
the
amendments
contained
in
Agenda
Item
7-B
do
not
share
a
common
purpose
beyond
the
broad
characterization
that
they
are
“cleanup.”
A
broad
label
cannot
transform
unrelated
substantive
policy
decisions
into
a
single
coherent
amendment.
The staff report indicates that the Charter Review Subcommittee directed staff to bring forward three
separate
Charter
amendment
proposals,
including
this
cleanup
measure.
That
approach
demonstrates
that
the
City
itself
recognizes
that
certain
Charter
changes
involve
sufficiently
different
subjects
to
warrant
separate
consideration
by
voters.
If three separate measures are appropriate for Charter amendments generally, then combining more
than
twenty
distinct
Charter
changes
into
a
single
ballot
question
raises
substantial
concerns
about
whether
voters
are
being
given
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
consider
each
proposal
individually.
I respectfully request that the City Council reconsider Agenda Item 7-B and direct staff to separate
the
proposed
amendments
into
distinct
ballot
measures
organized
by
subject
matter.
At a minimum, it would be in the best interest of the City and voters that the Council separate:
1. City Attorney authority and litigation powers 2. Civil service and municipal employment changes 3. Public Utilities Board governance and financial oversight 4. Historical Advisory Board amendments 5. Purely technical Charter cleanup provisions Doing so would protect the integrity of the electoral process, reduce the risk of litigation, and ensure
that
Alameda
voters
are
able
to
make
informed
decisions
on
important
questions
of
municipal
governance.Proceeding
with
the
current
structure
creates
avoidable
legal
exposure,
including
the
possibility
of
a
pre-election
writ
of
mandate
challenging
whether
the
measure
has
been
presented
to
voters
in
a
manner
consistent
with
California
election
law
and
constitutional
principles
of
informed
voter
choice.
I appreciate the Council’s service to Alameda and urge careful consideration of this issue before placing
the
measure
on
the
November
2026
ballot.
Sincerely,
Carmen Reid