CHARTER COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE SUMMARY
Over the past couple months, the Charter Council Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss items to be contemplated by the larger Council for consideration for the March ballot. This was done at the City Council’s direction based on a City Council vote that occurred in June of this year.
The Ad Hoc Committee first reviewed the 2022 ballot proposals of Measures L, M, and N. After review and some discussion, the Ad Hoc Committee saw that some of the ideas from 2022 made sense to include in the current proposals for the March 2024 election. Those will be discussed, along with other proposals brought by the Ad Hoc Committee, and other proposals suggested by Councilmembers at a Council Meeting in July.
We want to give the public an explanation as to what the proposals meant to the Ad Hoc Committee and our reasons for recommendation.
ELECTIONS
Voter ID: this suggestion by the Committee was meant to align with the County’s current process for in-person voting. That is, before entering the voting booth, each in-person voter is asked his or her name and address for verification.
The idea in this proposal is to simply require voters to show ID at the same time they are asked for their name and address. This idea is not to suggest the City take on its own elections, but rather, to merge into, or enhance, the current County practice of verifying voters.
Addition of Polling Locations: this suggestion of 20 new residential locations by the Committee was meant to only add to in-person voting opportunities. Many voters have complained that since the proliferation of mail-in voting, physical in-person polling locations have disappeared thereby forcing them to mail-in their vote. We want to increase in-person voting opportunities.
Inquiries to the County Registrar about logistical or support concerns for these proposed additional locations has been met with no objection. No response, but no objection either.
Drop Box Monitoring: this suggestion by the Committee was meant to build confidence in the drop box voting method. Currently, the County does not provide monitoring of ballot drop boxes and with the stories and concerns seen in past elections, the Committee suggests monitoring either by person, camera, or whatever technology and/or resources allow. This is not meant to discourage or replace mail-in voting and it is not meant for the City to take on conducting elections.
CITY ATTORNEY
The proposals by Councilman McKeon were presented at a Council Meeting in July of this year in response to the presentation that Mr. Gates gave at City Council outlining some of the concerns created between the role and authority of City Council over legal matters in 2021 and 2022. To be clear, the suggested changes do not give the City Attorney anything new, the proposed changes only clarify the role of the City Attorney.
The suggested Charter changes do the following: strike the vague language in Section 304 that (as a matter of law) is presently inconsistent with State law on the attorney-client relationship. The proposed modification to Section 304 clarifies the City Attorney and City Council roles by relying on prevailing State Law and the State Bar of California, i.e., that the City Attorney represents the City in all legal matters and proceedings and that City Council, the Board of the City Corporation, make strategic legal decisions related to litigation and other legal matters.
The proposed changes to Section 309 again clarify that the City Attorney decides what resources the City’s legal department needs to effectively represent the City in all legal matters. Similar to the Long Beach City Charter, this proposal makes clear that the elected City Attorney is the designated attorney for the City by the people and therefore the exclusive legal counsel of the City, as decided by the voters.
The final proposal adds guardrails such that the City Attorney, elected by the people, is allowed to continue with the legal work for the City. There have been two instances in recent Huntington Beach history in which the City Council essentially defunded the departments of other elected officials. It occurred to the Elected Treasurer’s Department in 2010, which was recently restored and rebuilt by this City Council; and in 2012, before Mr. Gates was elected to office in 2014, the City Council undertook to try to “outsource” the City Attorney’s Staff to a law firm, thereby defunding the Elected City Attorney’s Department. Protecting our Elected City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Attorney departments from possible City Council defunding is important. Finally, the changes to Section 309 make it clear that the City Attorney is the protector of the City’s attorney-client and attorney work-product privileged material, unless there is a City Council vote to disclose such material. This too is consistent with State law. These proposals are aimed at cleaner, better, more functional government.
CITY CLERK
Qualifications: this suggestion by the Committee was meant to increase the participation of our community in the City Clerk’s race. In 2010, a Charter Amendment for the very first time in the City’s history required the Clerk to have a “Bachelor’s Degree in Business, public administration, or related field,” yet, there is no such thing as a Bachelor’s Degree in Business. There is a Bachelor of Science in Business Management or a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, but that is not what is currently spelled out in the Charter. In fact, our current Clerk does not have a Bachelor’s in Business.
A review of other city charters throughout California shows that no other city charter requires a four-year college degree to run for City Clerk. To be clear, no other city, among California’s 121 charter cities, requires a four-year degree.
Moreover, beyond the two most recent Clerks, there is no information to confirm that any previous City Clerk had a four-year degree. Because the City’s educational requirement acts as a bar to participation by others in the community, and because such a requirement does not make sense to the City Clerk position, and because Huntington Beach is an anomaly as the only City with such a requirement throughout the entire State of CA, the Committee recommends striking it.
INVESTIGATIONS OF MALFEASANCE
This proposal by Councilman McKeon was presented at a Council Meeting in July of this year and was prompted by the presentation that Mr. Gates gave at City Council outlining some of the concerns created by an outside “independent investigation” requested by the 2020 City Council. The propriety of that investigation has been brought into question and the facilitating of an investigation of an Elected Official by outside counsel or City staff is also inappropriate. Elected Officials are hired by the people of the City by virtue of the election. Those Elected Officials, whether Council Members, City Treasurer, or City Attorney, are not subject to City staff, nor should Elected Officials’ emails and other materials be searched and read by City staff or outside counsel hired by friendly City Councilmembers or friendly City Managers. Investigations should be conducted right, done by another outside agency in order to remove any conflicts of interest and remove any potential for political wrangling or misdeeds. This proposal is aimed at cleaner, better, more functional government.
FLAGS
This suggestion by the Committee was meant to provide Charter authority for the City’s current Flag Flying Policy. It provides exceptions for Olympic Flags and any other Flag the City Council votes to fly by unanimous consent.
BIENNIAL BUDGET
This suggestion by the Committee was meant to make preparing the budget easier for staff, but also to build in more predictability and better planning for future expenses and opportunities to identify revenue streams.
CLERK AND TREASURER ELECTION CYCLE
This suggestion by the Committee was meant to align the City Clerk and Treasurer elections with the City Attorney in the gubernatorial cycle.
PROPERTY TAX REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
This proposal by Councilman McKeon was presented at a Council Meeting in July of this year to address concerns that the City had engaged in real-estate transactions, or real-estate related transaction in 2020-2021 in which the taxpayers are estimated to forego approximately $500,000 in property tax revenue per year. The voters should decide whether transactions should be entered into by the City in which property tax revenue is foregone.
MEASURE C UPDATE
This suggestion by the Committee is borrowed from the 2022 Charter proposals and is meant to update Measure C to be more flexible and permissible for park and beach improvements such as improving and upgrading restrooms, and installing new playground equipment, making repairs to playground equipment, improvements to playground equipment, and the like. When Measure C passed many years ago, it was a citizen-driven ballot initiative. It was not drafted by City staff and approved by a City Council for the ballot. As such, reading and interpreting Measure C has always presented challenges. Measure C, based on previous interpretations is highly restrictive and tied the hands of the City to keep our parks and beaches children-friendly, safe, and aesthetically appealing.
CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS
This suggestion by the Committee is borrowed from the 2022 Charter proposals, which makes sense to cancel Council Meetings if need by in a proper, orderly, and efficient way.