ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2.08.160, OF CHAPTER 2.08, OF TITLE 1 OF THE COMMERCE MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO TERM LIMITATIONS WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36502(b) provides that, “…[T]he city council of a general law or charter city may adopt or the residents of the city may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve. Any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only and shall not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the city at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal”; and WHEREAS, there are two primary paths a local ballot measure regarding term limits can take to qualify for placement on an election ballot: (1) citizens can propose an initiative and circulate a petition for signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, or (2) a City Council may pass a resolution to place its own measure on the ballot, thereby bypassing the need to petition for signatures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36502(b), term limitations were implemented in the City of Commerce by initiative in 2011, and a corresponding ordinance was passed by a majority of the voters. Specifically, on March 8, 2011, an ordinance limiting the terms of office for councilmembers was presented and approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 634 was codified as Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, however, as written, certain provisions of Section 2.08.160 are inconsistent and contradictory, and in certain scenarios, not practical to implement; and WHEREAS, further, since 2011 the City Council has changed the City’s election dates twice resulting in the extension of some Councilmember terms for 3 months and one year, respectively; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 684, changing the date of the election from March to June 2017 in order to have a stand-alone election, and not consolidate the City’s election with the County’s election; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 690, changing the date of election from June odd-numbered years to March of even-numbered years to coincide with statewide primary elections in order to comply with the SB 415; and WHEREAS, a reading of the provisions of Section 2.08.160 together and collectively, it appears the intent of the voters was to create a limit of three (3) full terms for city council, while also exempting partial terms that are less than one-half an original term from the term limit calculation; WHEREAS, however, the limitations described in Section 2.08.160(b) would prejudice a person who served less than one-half an original term. A strict application of Section 2.08.160(b) would prohibit a person who has served less than one-half an original term from serving more than two full terms. City Council does not believe that was the intent of the voters; and WHEREAS, to ensure the successful implementation of Section 2.08.160 consistent with the voter’s intent, City Council recommends amending Section 2.08.160 by eliminating Section 2.08.160(b), by deleting the provision that under no circumstances may a person hold office as member of the city council for longer than twelve years total; WHEREAS, all other provisions would remain in effect, including the provision of limiting a council member to serve in office no more than three (3) full terms; and WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 9217 states in pertinent part, “No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance”; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 634 implementing term limitation was done pursuant to Government Code Section 36502, which was done by the required initiative process. Therefore, consistent and in accordance with Elections Code Section 9217, amendment to Ordinance No. 634, which codified Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code, would require the ordinance amending Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code to be submitted to the voters; and WHEREAS, Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code as currently drafted is inconsistent and contradicts itself; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify and correct the contradictory language and provisions by submitting this Ordinance amending Section 2.08.160 of the Commerce Municipal Code to be submitted to the voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Commerce hereby finds and declares the recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein and by this reference are made part of the findings.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends Section 2.08.160 of Chapter 2.08 of Title 1 of the Commerce Municipal Code to read as follows:
2.08.160 – Term limitations
a. A person is ineligible to hold office as a member of the city council if that person has served in the office for three (3) full terms. A full term may exceed a four (4) year period if authorized by State law. b. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), under no circumstances may a person hold office as member of the city council for longer than twelve years total. b. For the purpose of term limitation, a person who was appointed or elected to a vacant office for an unexpired term of more than one-half the original term shall be deemed to have served a full term. c. For the purpose of term limitation, all offices of member of the city council elected at large shall be considered as one office.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be submitted to the electorate of the City of Commerce for approval at the November 8, 2022 Special Municipal Election, to be consolidated with the November 8, 2022 statewide election.
SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this title; it being hereby expressly declared that this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof, would have been prepared, proposed, adopted, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any single section subsection, sentence, clause, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance requires the majority vote of the electorate voting in its favor in order to become a valid and binding ordinance in the City of Commerce. This Ordinance shall be considered adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body and shall thereafter become effective pursuant to and consistent with the Government Code and Election Code.
ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE ELECTION, HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022. ______________________________
Oralia Y. Rebollo
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Lena Shumway
City Clerk