City of Redondo Beach
December 19,1995
I
Report of Charter Review Committee, 1994-1995
TO Mayor and City Council
FROM: Charter Review Committee
SUBJECT: REPORT OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, 1994-1995
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept the attached Report of the Charter Review Committee, 1994-1995.
SUMMARY:
The Charter Review Committee herewith presents the Report of its activities to the Mayor and City Council. The Committee held its first meeting on January 25,1994 and its last meeting on November 18, 1995. During that time, it considered, evaluated and made recommendations to the City Council on many significant issues affecting the City Charter, which is the Constitution of our City. The Report should serve not only to apprise the City Council of the work done by the Committee but also as a historical document for use by the government and citizenry of our City in the years to come.
The members of the Committee express their appreciation to the Mayor and City Council for this opportunity to be of service to the People and government of Redondo Beach and the confidence shown by the Mayor and City Council in their integrity and judgment.
Submitted by:
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
DAVID SERENA
Chairman
Jme
;stan\chartrev\agenda.fi n
REPORT OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
1994-1995
.
The City Council at its meeting of July 20, 1993 decided to create a Charter Review Committee to review the City Charter and recommend amendments thereto by March, 1994. It should be observed that there had been a previous Charter Review Committee formed in May, 1981 that had made recommendations for Charter changes, but it had ceased to exist after December, 1984.
The City Council determined that the Committee would consist of one appointee and an alternate from each ofthe five Council districts selected by each council member and a non-voting chairman appointed by the Mayor. (Council meting July 20, 1993, p. 20) The Council subsequently decided to eliminate the veto power ofthe chairman and, instead, provided that he should have the right to vote and to make and second motions. (Minutes of Council meeting August 23, 1994, pp. 7-8) The initial appointees were as follows: David Serena, Chairman, with the Mayor as alternate; Pat Dreider with Linda Kauffrnan as alternate from District 1; Phil Toomey with Lucille Holland as alternate from District 2; Frank Bostrom with Frank O'Leary as alternate from District 3; Kurt Schmalz with Archie Snow as alternate from District 4;Larry Cote with John Parsons as alternate from District 5. On May 30, 1995, Mr. Bostrom was replaced by Pam Lemke. On June 20, 1994, Ms. Holland resigned and was replaced by Dallas Covington.
The Committee first met on January 25, 1994. At that time and at it's next meeting on February 12,1994 it orgarized itself and adopted rules of procedure. The Committee determined to conduct regular meetings on the fourth Saturday of each month from 9:00 a.m. to l2:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. (Committee meetings of January 2 4, 1994, pp. l -8 and February 26, 1994, p 17) The Committee has generally followed such schedule, except that it held no meeting I
in December, 1 994 or in May or October of I 995 . However, it held additional (special) meetings on February 12 and June 18, 1994. It held its last meeting on November 18, 1995, at which time it approved this report.
The Committee was mindful that it was a public body subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Govemment Code Section 54950 et sequitur), the so called "sunshine law" that requires its deliberations to be held in public, that the agenda for each meeting be posted at least 72 hours in advance and that the public be given an opportunity to speak on all issues that come before it. The Committee adopted rules of procedure which would give the widest latitude to public input and it determined that its meetings would be televised. (Minutes of Committee meetings of Ianuary 25, 1994, pp.2-10 and February 12, lgg4,pp 1-9) The Committee believes that it has lived up to the spirit as well as the letter ofthe sunshine law.
From the beginning, the Committee solicited and received input from elected and appointed city officials, boards and commissions, as well as from elected bodies and community organizations.
The Committee at its first meeting requested the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer to report back with items that they believed were necessary measures which should be placed on the ballot as soon as possible. (Minutes of Committee meeting of January 25, 1994, pp. 4-8) Assistant City Attorney Stanley Remelmeyer was assigned as staffliaison to the Committee commencing with the March 19, 1994 meeting. Mr. Remelmeyer is an experienced municipal attorney, having been City Attorney of Torrance, a charter city, for many years. Also, he is an independent contractor, not a City employee, who, it was believed, would be able to function impartially on matters concerning the City Attorney's position or office. (Minutes of Committee meeting, February 26, 1994, p. 17)
.t
Thereafter, Mr. Remelrneyer (oined sometimes by Assistant City Attomey Robert V. Wadden , Jr.) authored a considerable number ofreports as set forth in attached Exhibit "A". These reports are well researched opinions written to guide the Committee through diflicult areas of study, but they also have a value beyond such use. They will serve as a pemranent database to guide the city oflicials and concemed citizens in dealing with subjects which can be expected to arise again in future years.
For example, the report regarding the financial management structure ofthe City and the opinions . regarding state preemption versus local control in the areas of concealed weapons permits, exposure offemale breasts and the election and compensation of members ofthe Board ofEducation should prove especially valuable.
Approimately $80,000 has been spent on the work of the Committee to date. This includes the work of Mr. Remelmeyer and other attomeys. and of legal secretary Jennifer Espinoza, in the City Attorney's office, the work of minute secretary Kim Chafin and Deputy City Clerk Alice Muller, and the costs ofpreparing, printing and distributing the agendas. It is estimdted that an additional $12,000 remains to be spent thereon, including the costs associated with placing the proposed Charter amendments on the Marc[ 1997 municipal election ballot. A breakdown of the past and future costs is outlined in attached Exhibit "B".
MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF ELECTORATE
The following Charter amendments recommended by the Charter Review Committee were submitted by the City Council to, and approved by, the electorate at the March 7, 1995 Municipal Election:
I
J
A. Organization Date for Commissions
An amendment to Section 15.4 of Article XV of the City Charter was approved by the electorate which provided that each board or commission shall meet as soon after the first day of October (rather than the first day of luly) of every year as practical for the purpose oforganizing. (Recommended by Committee May 28,1994)
This change was suggested by City Clerk, John Oliver, for the reason that appointments to the various boards and commissions are made in September of each year, so that in fact they reorganize at their first meeting in October ofeach year rather than in July as required by the existing Charter provisions. (Memorandum from City Clerk Oliver dated January 25, 1994; minutes of Committee meeting May 28, 1994, p. l1)
B. Substitution of Reqistered Voter for Elector
An amendment to Sections 6.1, 8.1, 10.3, 15.7, 15.8, 15.10, 16.l and 19.l I was approved by the electorate which substituted the word "registered voter" or similar term for the words, "elector", "qualified elector", "resident elector" and "qualified voter" where they appear in said sections. (Recommended by Committee May 28, 1994)
This change was also suggested by City Clerk Oliver who pointed out that the term "elector" was conf.rsing to the public and that the generally understood operable words were "registered voter" rather than "elector." It was also noted that the change would allow the City Clerk more readily to determine whether a candidate for a City office is actually living within the City or the district at the time nomination papers are filed. (Memorandum from City Clerk Oliver dated tanuary 25,1994; minutes of Committee meetings, February 26, 1994, pp. 8-12, March 19, 1994, pp.6-8, April 23, 4 1994,p.7,May28, 1994, pp. 10, 11) The City Attomey's ofiice provided the Committee with an analysis of the terms "elector" and "registered voter" to.clarifu their meaning, (Memorandum from Stan Remelmeyer dated March 19, 1994) and with an opinion concluding that the 30 day durational residency requirement for candidates for public office now in the Charter could not be lengthened by the city's electorate, such period being a matter preempted by federal and state law. (opinion of Stanley E. Remelmeyer dated May 28, 1994.)
C. Aopointment of City Officers
An amendment to delete from the City Charter Sections 14 and 14.2-14.8 inclusive of Article XIV, which require the appointment ofcertain officers ofthe City, was approved by the electorate. (Recommended by Committee June 18, 1994)
This amendment removed a source of misunderstanding in the interpretation ofthe Charter.
Sections 14 and l4.2to 14.8, adopted in 1949, required the appointment ofthe city Engineer, street superintendent, Building oflicial, chief of Police, chief of Fire Department and Director of Recreation. Section 14.1, which was subsequently adopted by the people, stated that the city Council may provide for the creation, consolidation, alteration or abolition of departments and appointive officers after consideration ofthe City Manager's recommendation thereon. In the opinion ofthe city Attorney, the adoption of Section 14. I rendered Sections 14 and, 14.2-14.g obsolete by giving the City Council-City Manager the authority to consolidate or abolish the said positions. (Memorandum from Assistant city Attomey Remelrneyer dated May 28, 1994) However, the failure to repeal those sections at the time Section 14.1 was adopted teft a potential for argument that only the appointive oflices not listed in Sections 14 and 14.2-74.8could be abolished. The adoption of 5 the subject amendment in 1995 removed this problem and clarified that Section 14.1 was the goveming provision. (Minutes of Committee meetings of March 19, 1994, pp. 2,3, Apil23, 1994, pp.3-5, June 18, 1994)
D. Name of School District
The electorate approved an amendment to Section 16 of Article xVI to substituie the "Redondo Beach Unified School District" for the "Department ofEducation ofthe City ofRedondo Beach" as the body having jurisdiction over the public schools ofthe City and retitling Article XVI to reflect such change. (Recommended by Committee, October 22, 1994) There is and was no City Department of Education having jurisdiction over Redondo's public schools. Before the November, 1994 election, the elementary schools were under the Board of Education of the Redondo Beach Elementary School District and the high school was under the Board ofEducation ofthe South Bay High School District. The November, 1994 election dissolved said High School District and cbnsolidated the City's elementary schools and high school into the Redondo Beach Unified School District, governed by its Board of Education. The subject Charter amendment was made to reflect this fact.
E. Issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits
In addition to the above referenced approved Charter amendments, the electorate at the March 1995 Municipal Election voted on and rejected an advisory measure, proposition E, conceming the issuance ofconcealed weapons permits. Penal Code Section 12050 provides that the county sheriff or chief of police may issue a concealed weapon permit to residents of the county 6 (excepting members ofcertain prohibited classes) "upon proofthat the person applying is ofgood moral character" and "good cause exists for the issuance." The sheriff or chief of police has the discretion to determine the existence of"good moral character" and "good cause." A considerable number ofpersons residing both in and out ofthe City requested that the Committee recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance or place on the ballot a Charter amendment to require the Chiefof Police to issue such permit to any person who passdd an approved firearms training course, unless such person is othenwise prohibited by law therefrom or poses a serious danger to the lives or personal safety of others. (Minutes of Committee meetings, May 28, 1995,pp.2,3,June25, 1994,pp.3-7,August27,1994,pp.3-18) However,theCityAttorney wrote an opinion, verified by the Legislative Counsel, that the State Constitution preempted the City Council from adopting an ordinance or the people from adopting a Charter amendment to change or interpret Section 12050. The Charter Review Committee, after extensive public input and discussion, accordingly recommended that such Charter amendment not be piaced on the ballot. (Minutes of August 27, 1994 meeting, pp. 3-18)
The City Council as a compromise, instead of placing the issue before the voters as a proposed Charter amendment, put on the ballot Proposition E as an advisory measure. Proposition E directed the City Council to ask the State Legislature to modify Section 1250 as requested to liberalize the issuance of concealed weapons permits. However, the measure wag rejected by the City's electorate at the March 7, 1995 municipal election. 7 NOTE: Write-In Candidate at RunoffElections
The electorate at the March 7, 1995 municipal election also voted on and approved an amendment to Section 18.4 ofArticle XVII ofthe Charter to provide that when any person qualifies as a write-in candidate for a runoff election for a city office, except elections for members of the Board ofEducation, the candidate who receives a plurality ofthe votes cast for that office shall be elected. This amendment was approved for inclusion in the ballot by the City Council at its meeting of July 20, 1993, at which time it also decided to form the Charter Review Committee.
Consequently, the Committee had no part in the placement ofthis measure on the ballot.
MEASURES TO BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE OF ELECTORATE
The following Charter amendments considered by the Charter Review Committee have been approved by the City Council for submittal to a vote ofthe electorate at a future election:
A. Term Limits for School Board Members
.
The Committee recommended that Section 16-7 be added to Article XVI of the City Charter to impose a two term limit on members of the Board of Education as embodied in Resolution No. 3. (Minutes of October 22, 1994 Committee meeting, pp. 6-10 and November 19,1994 meeting, pp. 1-4) This recommendation was initially rejected by the City Council, along with certain other proposed resolutions pertaining to the Board of Education. (Minutes ofDecember 6, 1994 Council meeting, pp. 12-19).
II
8 The Committee reconsidered this item at its meeting of lune 24, 1995 and again voted to recommend tlnt the City Council place on the ballot a proposition providing for a two term limit on members of the Board of Education as embodied in Resolution No. 3. (Draft Minutes of June 24, 1995 Committee meeting, pp. 6-10) The City Council accordingly reconsidered this item at its meeting of July 18, 1995 and approved placing on the ballot at a future election the recommended two term limit as embodied in Resolution No. 3, but modified the proposed amendment to strike the last sentence thereofwhich provided.that previous and current terms ofoffice shatl be counted toward the two term limit. Acting on the recommendation of the City Attorney's oflice, the Council also directed that the City file a declaratory reliefaction in the Superior Court to determine the legality ofthe proposed amendment before placing it on the ballot for approval by the People. The work is progressing thereon. (Minutes of July 18, 1995 Council meeting, pp. 16, l7) It was the view of the Committee that the members of the Board of Education should hold office under the same two term limitation as those imposed on the Mayor and city councit by the People ofthe City when they adopted Section 26 ofthe Charter in 1949. Also, considering the recent decision of the People of California to impose a two term limit on State Legisiators, it was believed that the electorate was motivated to prevent professional politicians from indefinitely retaining the power oftheir offrces.
B. Exposure of Female Breasts
At the request of Chairman Serena, the Committee considered the deletion of Section 21.3 ofthe City Charter prohibiting the exposure of female breasts on the grounds that the provision was unconstitutional and was preempted by State law. Councilman Pinzler had recommended its repeal 9 for the same reason. (Pinzler memorandum re Article X)fi) The City Attorney's offrce wrote an opinion on this issue for the Committee in which it was concluded that Section 21.3 was invalid in that it is effectively preempted by the statutes of the Legislatuie and Rules of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control goveming sexual conduct, which is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, and its application would probably be an infringement of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. (Opinion of Stanley E.
Remelmeyer dated April 23, 1994)
After considerable deliberation, the Committee voted to retain this provision in the Charter, Member Bostrom citing that the voters had twice before rejected such repeal, which is reflective of how the people feel about the subject. However, members Cote and Schmalz, later joined by Chairman Serena, filed a minority report. (Minutes of Committee meetings of February 19, 1994, pp. 3-5, March 19, 1994, p. 3; April 23, 1994, pp 6, 7, 9; May 23, 1994, pp. I 0, 1 1) Thereafter, the City Attomey's office attempted to compromise these divergent points of view and recommended the enactment of a revised Section 21.3 embodied in Proposition Y which expanded the scope ofthe section to encompass all adult entertainment, but emphasized control by zoning and land use restrictions rather than outright prohibition. Chairman Serena and member Cote then recommended the adoption ofthe proposed revision rather than outright repeal of Section 21.3, but the Committee majority @reizler, Toomey, Bostrom, Schmalz) rejected the revision (Minutes of Committee meeting, April22, 1995, pp. 2-3) However, the City Council adopted the minority view and subsequently voted to place Proposition Y on the ballot. (Minutes of Council meeting of June 6, 1995, p. l0)
l0
C
The Committee recommended and the City Council approved a Charter amendment to remove the supervisory authority ofthe City Manager over the three elected department heads, the City Attomey, City Clerk and City Treasurer.
The plain language of Section 12.3 states that the City Manager as the chief administrative oflicer ofthe City, is responsible directly to the City Council "for the proper administration of all affairs of the City, and he shall have power and be required to: (a) Supervise and direct the activities of all department heads and employees of the City and coordinate the activities of all of the departments and commissions and the entire administrative affairs of the City of Redondo Beach.,' This is strong language without any exception being made for elected department heads. Presumably, if the framers ofRedondo's charter had intended to exclude the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer from the city Manager's supervision, they would have so stated. It may simply have been an oversight.
Sections I I and 1 1. I listing the powers and duties of the City Clerk and City Treasurer respectively correlate only in part with Section 12.3 which defines the powers and duties ofthe City Manager. Section I1 provides that the Clerk shall "(f1 Have charge ofthe administration ofthe financial affairs ofthe city under the direction ofthe city Manager..." The city Manager, however, is not given such authority over the City Clerk in the performance ofthe latter's record keeping and other functions. Also, Section I l. I does not grant the City Manager any authority whatsoever over any ofthe activities ofthe City Treasurer, including the collection of City taxes and license fees.
The administrative interpretation ofthe said elective oflicers as department heads under the jurisdiction of the City Manager is also ambiguous. The City's lgg4-lgg1 budget lists the City Clerk, 11 City Treasurer and City Attomey as departments of the City along with the departments whose heads are appointed by the City Manager. Contrariwise, they are not included as department directors in the Pay Plan and Benefits Plan for Employees in the Management and Confidential.Unit; instead, along with the City Council, they are classified as "separate units".
Resolution of this ambiguity and indecisiveness is probably found in long administrative practice of the City which has excluded the City Clerk, City Treasurer and City Attorney from administrative control by the City Manager. Gordon Phillips, who was City Attorney from l98l to 1993, has stated that it was his opinion that the said elected offrcers were not department heads for the purpose ofany exercise ofcontrol over them by the City Manager and that this interpretation of the Charter has been followed in practice so long as anyone can remember. This result also corresponds with the rationale for the election of these three o{ficers, which is that they be independent ofcontrol by the Mayor and City Council. Inasmuch as the City Manager is appointed by and responsible to the City Council, they should also be independent ofthe City Manager.
The same independence from the City Manager's control traditionally has been accorded the assistants and deputies in the office ofthe City Attomey, City Clerk and City Treasurer. The Charter expressly provides that the City Attomey may appoint Assistant and Deputy City Attorneys who shall be subject to removal by him and not included in the classified service. (Section I I 2(g)) Similarly, the City Treasurer may appoint deputies who shalt hold oflice at his(her) pleasure. (Section 1 l 1(g) There is no corresponding provision in Section I I goveming the powers and duties ofthe City Clerk.
The present Deputy City Clerk, Alice Muller, holds her position, which is classified under the civil service system, by appointment of City Clerk Oliver. However, she performs her duties under the sole direction ofthe City Clerk and the rationale for exclusion ofthe Deputy City Attorneys and 12 Deputy City Treasurers from control by the City Manager was believed by the Committee to be applicable to the Deputy City Clerk(s) as well.
This conclusion, however, is not applicable to the employees in the offices ofthe City Clerk, City Treasurer and City Attorney. The clerks, secretaries, clerk-typists and like classifications are hired as employees ofthe City generally and not ofany particular department or office, although they fill a vacancy which has arisen in a particular department or office. Mr. Phillips has informed the Committee that historically the employees, whether permanent, temporary or part time, have been considered to be under the ultimate control and supervision of the City Manager and that the administrative practice traditionally has followed this concept. The Civil Service Rules and Regulations reflect and confirm this vesting ofauthority in the City Manager.
The question ofthe City Manager's control over an elected department head and the deputies and employees in such department became a matter ofconcern and dispute within the last few years..
Alice Delong was the City Treasurer for many years before she was replaced by Ernie O'Dell following the March 1995 municipal election. During the last years of Ms. Del,ong's tenure, it became apparent that the relationship between her and the City Manager, William Kirchhoff, had deteriorated to the point where the media regularly informed the public ofdisputes between them on investment policies, keeping and showing ofrecords, treatment ofpersoru:el, inter alia. Mr. Kirchhoff informed the City Council that it was impossible for an appointed City Manager to supervise and control an elected department head. As a result, he asked the City Council to relieve him of any supervisory authority over the Treasurer, assuming he had such authority, which the Council did. Ms.
Delong informed the Committee that she believed he did not have such authority. (Minutes of Committee meeting, June 18, 1994, p. 9) Ms. Delong subsequently brought suit in the Superior l3
Court against Mr. Kirchhoff, the City Council, the City Attorney and others alleging a conspiracy against her in the performance ofher duties. Under these exigent circumstances the Committee decided that the Charter should be amended to clarify the authority ofthe City Manager over the elected department heads and their offices.
Accordingly, the Committee recommended a Charter amendment which would make such clarification by removing the authority ofthe City Manager over elected department heads. The recommendation, however, was embodied in proposed Proposition A which also included a recommendation to transfer the financial duties of the City Clerk to the City Manager. (Minutes of Committee meetings ofJune 24, 1995, pp. 4, 5 and September 23, 1995, pp. I -8) The City Councit rejected that part ofProposition A regarding the transfer ofthe City Clerk's financial duties to the City Manager (See Section III C of this report), voted to place on the ballot that portion of Proposition A removing the authority of the City Manager over elected department heads. (Minutes of City Council meetings August 22, 1995, p. 6 and November 7, 1995,Item 37) This ballot measure amends subsection (a) of Section 12.3 ofthe Charter setting forth the powers and duties of the City Manager to read as follows:
t4
'departments.
However, the City Council directed that this measure be amended to retain the City Manager's authority to direct the performance of the City Clerk's financial duties as set forth in Section 11(D of the Charter. (Minutes of Council meeting, November 7,lggs,Item 37) ru.
MEASI,]RES APPROVED BY COMMITTEE BUT REJECTED BY CITY COUNCIL The following measures were approved by the Charter Review Committee for submittal to the electorate but were rejected by the City Council:
A. Election of Members of the Board of Education
The Committee approved a series ofCharter amendments affecting the Board ofEducation which were rejected by the City Council. These recommendations included:
(a) A proposed amendment requiring that members of the Board of Education be elected and appointed by trustee areas coterminous with City Council districts, establishing their qualifications and for their initial election. This amendment was embodied in Resolution No. 2. (b) A proposed amendment providing for election ofthe members ofthe Board ofEducation by majority vote except at runoffelections with a write-in candidate. This amendment was embodied 15 in Resolution No. 4.
(c) A proposed amendment providing for the filling ofvacancies in the membership ofthe Board of Edubation. This amendment was embodied in Resolution No. 5.
These proposed amendments, together with Resolution No. 3 imposing a two term limit on board members, were approved by the Committee at its meeting of October 22, 1994 (Minutes, pp. 5-8) and November 19, 1994. (Minutes, pp. l-3) They were rejected by the City Council at its meeting of December 6, 1994. (Minutes, pp. 12-19) They were presented to the City Council a second time at its meeting of July 18, 1995, at which time the Council again rejected these three measures, although they voted to place Resolution No. 2 on the ballot. (Minutes, pp. 14-17) One of the difficulties the Committee experienced with this subject matter was the reluctance ofthe Board ofEducation to commit itselfto its position thereon until the issue finally appeared on the City Council agenda. Chairman Serena appeared personally at the March 7, 1994 meeting of the Board to announce that the Committee was studying the provisions of Article XVI of the City Charter governing the election of members of the Board and offered the Board members an opportunity to address the Committee on this subject. The Board answered that it had no statement to make at this time. (Letter from Superintendent Beverly Rohrer, Secretary to the Board, dated April 7, 1994) At the direction of the Committee, Mr. Remelmeyer wrote a letter to Dr. Rohrer dated May 2, 1994 informing her that the Committee at its April 23rd meeting considered the proposed amendments to Article XVI set forth in the above three resolutions as well as Resolution No. 3 and a proposal to deprive the Board members oftheir compensation and requested that the Board have its attomey deliver an opinion on the legality of these proposals. Dr. Rohrer on May 18th igain answered that the Board had no position on these proposals. l6
At its meeting of October 22, 1994, the Committee studied these proposals for election of Board members from trustee areas coterminous with Council districts in the same manner and with the same qualifications as Council members. At that time, the Committee received an extensive legal opinion from Mr. Remelrneyer (dated October 22, 1994) in which he concluded that these proposed amendments were not preempted by state law and so were within the authority ofthe electorate to adopt, but because ofthe lack ofjudicial precedent, he recommended that the City file a declaratory reliefaction in the courts before submitting them to a vote ofthe People. The Committee at this meeting still had not received any legal opinion or other input from the Board on this subject matter.
After debating this subject matter at length, the Committee decided to recommend that the City council place on the ballot for a vote ofthe People, Resolutions No. 2, 4 and 5 (together with Resolution No. 3) set forth above. (Minutes of Committee meetings, October 22, 1994, pp. 5- 10 and November 19, 1994, pp. l-4)
The City Council considered this issue at its meeting ofDecember 6, 1994, which was the first time that the Board of Education made its views on these issues known to City government. David Miller, an attomey representing the Board, told the council that the Board opposed these propoied charter amendments, as well as the proposal to place a two term limit on Board members. (See Section II A ofthis report) The Board, he said, believed that there was no good educational reason to make any changes in the manner of their election. Mr. Millei further stated that it was his opinion that the proposed ballot measures were invalid because the Education Code provisions governing the election of Board members prevailed over the City Charter. Mr. Miller had incorporated these arguments into a letter which was presented to the city council as a "red folder,, item on the day of the hearing on this matter, December 6th. At the conclusion ofthe hearing, the City Council decided t7
to reject the Committee's recommendation to place these measures on the ballot. (Minutes of City Council meeting ofDecember 6, 1994, pp. 12-19)
NOTE: The City Council at said meeting did vote to place on the ballot the question of changing Article XVI to reflect the unification of the City's elementary schools and high school. (See Section I D ofthis report)
The matter, however, did not end there. At the Committee meeting of June 24, 1995, Member Cote requested that the Committee reconsider this subject because of the failure of the School Board to make its position known until the delivery ofthe red folder letter to the Council on the day of the hearing. The Committee did reconsider,n. n.. and, on motion of Member Cote, voted to re-refer to the City Council Resolution No. 2 re election by trustee areas, Resolution No. 3 establishing a two term limit, Resolution No. 4 re runoffelections and Resolution No. 5 re filling of vacancies. (Minutes of Committee meeting, June24,1995, pp. 10, l l) The City Council responded afiirmatively by considering this recommendation anew at its meeting of July 18, 1995. Attorney Miller again spoke for the Board of Education and informed the Council that the Board unanimously opposed these recommended measures. He further stated that, in his opinion, the City is precluded from adopting them for the reason that pducation is a matter of statewide interest, not a municipal affair, so the provisions of the Education Code govern over contrary provisions ofthe City Charter.
Assistant City Attorney Remelmeyer gave his opinion that the election and appointment of members ofboards ofeducation was a municipal atrair and, although there were no governing judicial precedents, the proposed Charter amendments should prevail over provisions ofthe Education code 18 to the contrary; however, the subject of term limits was more diffrcult, but he believed that the City had a reasonable chance ofprevailing thereon.
After hearing from the public and debate on the subject, the city council again decided against placing Resolutions Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the ballot. Councilman Hill believed that their passage would not benefit the students. councilman Gin said he was opposed because it impacts the operation ofanother independent legislative body. (Minutes of council meeting of July l g, 1995, pp. 14-17)
However, the City Council at the same meeting voted to place on the ballot Resolution No. 3 which imposed a two term limit on members of the Board of Education. (See Section II A of this report)
BD
The Committee at its meeting of Apn|22, 1995 recommended that the City Council place on the ballot Proposition X which would increase the number ofCouncil districts from five to six and deprive the Mayor of the veto power but, instead, give the Mayor the right to make and second motions and to vote. Mnutes of committee meeting of April 22, lggs,pp. l-2) The city council at its meeting of May 30, 1995 rejected the committee's recommendation by taking no action to approve it. (Minutes of Council meeting of May 30, 1995, p. 25) councilman Pinzler, among others, had recommended that the oftice of Mayor be abolished and that the duties ofthe Mayor should be assigned to members ofthe City Council on a rotating basis for terms of nine months. (Memorandum from councilman pinzler dated February 21, 1994, p. 1); letter from Robe Richester read into minutes of February 26, 1994 meeting, pp. 14, 15) Frank 19 Ol,eary had suggested that the number ofcouncil districts be increased from five to six, pointing out that each Council member now represented approximately 12,000 citizens instead of 5,000 as inthe early days of the City, which ratio was too high for a truly representative government. (Letter from Frank O'Leary dated February 21, 1994)
Instead of abolishing the ofiice of Mayor as an elective position, however, the Committee adopted the recommendation ofJohn Parsons to keep the ofiice as a city wide elective position, but deprive the Mayor of his veto power and give him the right to vote and make motions the same as a member of the City Council. The Committee agreed with Mr. O'Leary that the citizenry would be better served by increasing the number of council districts from five to six. The Committee observed that increasing the number of Council mernbers to six would not result in a tie vote if it, as a corollary, the Mayor was given the right to vote as a member of the City Council. (Minutes of Committee meeting of Febru ary 25, 1995, pp. 2,3) These recommendations regarding the Mayor and council districts were incorporated into the Committee's Proposition X, rejected by the City Council.
The Committee recommended that the financial management structure of the City be reorganized by transfening the financial management duties of the City Clerk to the City Manager, but the City Council rejected the recommendation.
The Charter Review Committee voted unanimously at its meeting of June 24, 1995 to adopt its Resolution No. 95-3 regarding the financial management structure of the City. Resolution No. 95-3 embodied Proposition A, the passage of which would transfer the financial duties ofthe City C
20 Clerk to the City Manager, delete the accounting course requirements for candidates for the office of City Clerk and delete the requirement that the City Clerk post a bond. The passage of proposition A would also amend Section 12.3 ofthe City Charter governing the powers and duties ofthe City Manager by removing.the supervisory authority of the city Manager over the city clerk, city Treasurer, City Attorney and their assistants and deputies and over the day-to-day work assignments ofthe other employees in the offrce ofthe three elected department heads.
This recommendation of the Charter Review Committee was placed on the agenda of the City council for its meeting of July 18, 1995. This item was tabled to the Council meeting of August 15t[ at which time it was continued to August 22nd. During the Council discussion of this subject, Council member Hil[ commented that the suggestion of establishing a controller position was a good one and Council member Pinzler concurred. After discussion, the Council approved Council member Pinzlel's motion to refer back to the Charter Review Committee the issue of transfering the financial duties ofthe City Clerk to the City Manager and to direct the Committee to provide the Council with a list ofrecommended options, including the creation ofa controller position; and to place on the next available ballot the issue ofthe supervisory authority ofthe City Manager over elected department heads. (Council minutes of Augu s|22, 1995, pp.3-6)
Accordingly, the Charter Review Committee met on Septemb er 23rd to reconsider the issue in light of the Council's direction. Assistant City Attorney Remelmeyer made a presentation of the financial management structure of other cities, including those with an auditor or controller. City Clerk Oliver and City Treasurer O'Dell then gave the Committee their views conceming creating an elected or appointed controller position. Thereafter Member Schmalz moved, seconded by Member Lemke, to recommend that the City Council place a measure on the ballot concerning the creation 2l
ofan auditor/controller position with a series ofoptions, including (option 5 was added later):
1 . An Auditor/Controller appointed by the City Manager;
2. An Auditor/Controller appointed by the City Clerk;
3. An Auditor/Controller appointed by the City Council and
4. An elected Auditor/Controller.
5. None ofthe above (no change to the Charter)
Member Schmalz's motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Lemke, Schmalz; NOES: Dreizler, Toomey, Cote, Serena; ABSENT: None. (Draft Committee Minutes, Exhibit "C", pp. l-7) The Committee further observed that if the Council went ahead with its plan of bifurcation and placed on the ballot only that part ofProposition A which provided that the City Manager shall not have any authority to supervise and direct the aciivities ofthe City Attorney, City Clerk or City Treasurer (See amended subsection (a), Section 12.3 ofProposition A) it woutd have the unintended effect of depriving the City Manager of his existing authority to supervise the City Clerk in the performance ofhis financial duties. Thereupon, Chairman Serena moved, seconded by Member Cote, that Section 12.3(a) should be amended to say "except as specifically provided in Section l1(f)." Chairman Serena's motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Dreizler, Toomey, Lemke, Cote, Serena; NOES: Schmalz; ABSENT: None. (Draft Committee minutes, pp. 7, 8) Finally, the Committee decided to stand by its original recommendation to place Proposition A on the ballot in its entirety. Member Toomey moved, seconded by Chairman Serena, to forward to the City Council the Corimittee's prwious recommendation as the first option, and that the second option would be to place on the ballot the measure, as approved by the Council, to deprive the City Manager of control over elected department heads, but with additional language to. retain the 22 D
Manager's control of his financial duties. The motion pASsED uNANIMousLy. (Draft Committee minutes, p. 8)
At its meeting ofNovember 7, 1995 the City Council again rejected the recornrnendation to transfer the city clerk's financial duties to the city Manager. At the same time, it reaffirmed its decision to place on the ballot a measure to deprive the City Manager ofhis supervisory powers over elected department heads witrq howwer, the modification proposed by the committee. (See Section rc)
The Committee proposed an extensive revision of Article XV of the Charter governing appointive boards and commissions after prolonged study of the subject. (Minutes of Committee meeting, August 26, 1995, pp. 2-10) The committee had requested and received opinions from Assistant City Attorney Remelmeyer on the identity of boards and commissions required by law (Opinion dated September 24, 1994),and on the necessity for retention ofthe Harbor Commission. (Opinion dated O ctober 22,1994) It had also received input from Councilman pinzler, City Manager Kirchhof[, Assistant City Manager Simmons, Chairman Serena, the chairpersons of various boards and commissions and interested individuals. However, the revision was rejected by the City Council at its meeting of september 26, 1995. (Minutes of ciiy council meeting, September 26, 1995, pp. 2-e)
The charter now requires that there be five commissions, the planning commission, Recreation and Parks commission, Library commission, Taxation and Budget commission and Public Improvement Commission, but the Council can create such additional boards and commissions 23 as it chooses. (Section 15) The proposed revision, which was drafted by Member Toomey, a lawyer, would restrict the required Commissions to the Planning Commission and those commissions required by law. It would reduce the number of Commissioners from seven to five, one appointed by the Mayor from each Council district, rather than at large as now permitted. The revision would also abolish all existing boards, whether advisory, administrative or quasi-judicial, but the Council could create new boards after a hearing. Such boards would have a two year lifespan unless renewed by the Council after a hearing for further successive two year periods. One of the five members of the board with an alternate would be appointed by each Council member from residents ofthe district, with the Mayor selecting.one as chairman. Before a board was created or its term renewed, the Council must approve a restrictive mission statement and program ofproposed work with an enabling budget allocation. The Committee further recommended the creition of a Public Works Commission, a Public Safety Commission, a Recreation, Cultural and Community Services Commission, a Finance Commission and a Harbor Commission. (Minutes of Committee meeting of August 26, 1995, pp. 2-10)
The Corirnittee's rationale was that there were too many boards and commissions, that they were the result ofpolitical appointments and an unneeded expense for the City, using up valuable stafftime without producing work commensurate with their cost. Also, because of their perpetual existence and failure to render regular reports, the Council had lost touch with what they were doing, and in some cases a commission had forgotten what it was created to do. It was also agreed that, except for the Planning Commission and those commissions necessary to the City, that boaids and commissions should be created by ordinance and not by the Charter and that they should be subject to a sunset clause. Further, it was believed that the new method of appointment would preserve a 24 balance of representation from each of the Council districts. (Minutes of Committee meetings of Iuly 23, 1994, pp. 2-7, September 24, 1994, pp. 4-7, October 22, t994, pp. l-3, January 28, 1995, pp. 1-7)
Although the City Council rejected the proposed revision as impracticable, it decided to obtain a better handle on the work done by the existing boards and commissions. It directed that each board and commission provide the council by November 21, lggs with a mission statement, a work program for the next twelve months, a budget, recommendations to accomplish program with less staffassistance and quarterly progress reports. (Minutes of council meeting of September 26, 1995, p l0)
MEASURES CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE BUT NOT RECOMMENDED FOR TI{E IV
BALLOT
The following proposed charter changes were considered by the committee, but were not recommended to the city council for inclusion on the ballot for a vote ofthe people:
A.
I. APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY
The Committee considered at some length a possibte change in the Charter to make the positions ofCity Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer appointive instead ofelective as presently provided, but decided not to recommend such change.
25 Former City Attorney, Gordon Phillips and Councilman Pinzler had recommended thai the City Attomey position be made appointive. (Phillips undated letter received May 25, L994;Pirlzler Memorandum dated February 21, 1994, p. l) It was their belief that in such case the City Council could select the appointee from a large pool ofvery experienced and qualified applicants, which pool was unavailable to the elqctorate. They pointed out, further, that all California cities, except Redondo and 9 others, had an appointive City Attorney.
However, City Attorney Goddard, backed by Councilman Colin, argued that the City was best served having an elected City Attorney based on the City's satisfactory experience with this position and on an elected Attomey's obligation to serve the People as his first priority client, rather than being controlled by a majority of the City Council, as would be the case with an appointed Attorney. They believed that the risk of having an incompetent City Attorney elected could be eliminated by increasing the qualifications. After considerable public input and debate among the members, the Committee voted to keep the position of City Attorney elective. (Minutes of Committee meeting, May 18, 1994, pp. 4-8)
Nevertheless, the subject was not laid to rest by said action. At its meeting of May 27 , 1995, the Committee debated this matter anew. On motion of Member Dreizler, the Committee then voted to make the City Attomey's office appointive. (Minutes of Committee meeting, May 27,1995, p. 5- 6) At its next meeting on June 24, 1995, however, the Committee reconsidered its action of May 27th last and, on motion ofMember Cote, voted to rescind its decision to make the office appointive and to reaffirm its action of May 28, 1994 to retain the oflice as an elected position. (Draft minutes of Committee meeting, June 24, 1995, pp. 2-4)
26 2. APPOINTMENT OF CITY TREASURER
There had been some questioning of retaining the City Treasurer as an elective position considering the compleity of safely and effectively managing the large investment portfolio ofthe city and the presumed n".errity of having an experienced financial manager with appropriate credentials occupying the position. The City Treasurer, in addition to investing the surplus funds of the City, is also the cashier ofthe City, handling its cash flows, and collects City taxes and license fees. (City Chartea sec. 1l) The Charter, however, is silent concerning any qualifications, other than residence in the city, for a candidate for city Treasurer. (city charter, sec. 10.3, I l.l) It was observed that ifthe Treasurer's position was made appointive, the appointing authority could require the occupant to have professional qualifications such as a college degree or advanced degree in finance, economics or related field and have specific experience in managing large investment portfolios and cash flows.
The Committee considered this subject at its meeting of June 18, 1994 at which then City Treasurer- Alice Delong spoke at length on the duties and structure of her oflice and argued vigorously for the wisdom of keeping the City Treasurer as an elective office. She stated that 40oZ of California cities have elected Treasurers, that there was no relationship between the investment success or failure ofCity Treasurer's statewide on the basis oftheir election or appointment, that the People are able to judge the qualifications ofcandidates for the office, and that the city Manager should not interfere with the performance ofher duties. After a great deal of public input and debate by the members, it was decided to recommend that the position of City Treasurer remain elective. (Minutes of Committee meeting of June 18, 1994, pp. 6-18, specifically p. t4) 27 The Committee based its decision largely on the beliefthat the problem of lack ofrelevant qualifications could best be solved by amending the Charter to include such qualifications rather than by making the offrce appointive. After voting to retain the oflice as an elective position, the Committee directed the City Attomey to study the issue ofthe Treasurer's qualifications and report back to the Cornmittee at a future meeting. (Mnutes of Committee meeting of June 18, 1994, pp. l s- 18)
(NOTE: Emie O'Dell succeeded Alice Delong as City Treasurer on March 16, 1995 as a result of the General Municipal Election held on March 7, 1995.)
3. APPOINTMENT OF CITY CLERK
The Committee also decided that the position of City Clerk should remain elective. City Clerk John Oliver informed the Committee that the position should remain elective as it provides a system ofchecks and balances together with an appointed City Manager, elected City Council and elected City Attorney and ensures a fair election process. He was also of the opinion that the electorate would not support changing the position from elected to appointed because they are happy with the system of checks and balances. (Minutes of Committee meeting of June 25, 1994, pp. 7-1,4) The Committee was concerned that the City Clerk as financial oflicer of the City was not required to have a degree or advanced degree in accounting or finance and significant financial management experience which would have been required ofan appointive City Clerk with financial duties, but was required to have only 15 units of accounting courses or rhatching experience. (Section I l, City Charter) However, the Committee recommended solving this problem by transferring the City Clerk's financial duties to the City Manager, thus leaving the incumbent to handle only the normal duties ofa City Clerk such as record keeping, election officer and secretary to the 28 B
City Council, boards and commissions, and thereby obviating the need to make the Clerk's position appointive. (See Section II D ofthis report)
The Committee decided not to recommend any changes in the qualifications for the positions of City Attomey, City Clerk and City Treasurer as presently delineated in the Charter, assuming that they remain elective positions and that the City Clerk retains his authority as financial officer ofthe City.
The Charter now provides that the City Attorney shall have been admitted to the Calilornia bar and have engaged in the active practice of law in California for at least five years before appointment or election. (Section 11.2) The City Clerk is required to have i5 units of certain accounting courses and five years experience in municipal accounting. (Section 1l) There are no qualifications for City Treasurer. (Section 11.2)
When studying whether to make these three positions appointive rather than elective, the Committee came to a tentative conclusion that the benefits of having them appoihted could be obtained by leaving them elective but increasing the quatifications for the positions. (Minutes of Committee meetings, May 28, 1994, pp.4-10, June 18, 1994, pp. 6-18, June 25, 1994, pp.7-1 4) However, after studying this issue independently in depth, the Committee reluctantly concluded that there was no overall advantage in changing the qualifications now established in the charter.
It was noted that any change in those qualifications must not only be appropriate for the position but must also be objectively ascertainable to be enforceable by the courts. The Committee observed that, so far as it could determine, there were no nationally recognized qualifications for such 29 C
positions as elective oftices. Further, a review ofthe charters of40 other California cities failed to reveal any education or experience requirements where the positions of City Clerk or City Treasurer were elective and further showed that such cities had the same qualifications for an elected City Attomey as did Redondo Beach. (See Memorandum on this subject from Assistant City Attomey Remelmeyer, dated fune 24, 1995) Chairman Serena who is a lawyer, also noted that the existing qualification for City Attorney is the same as that for appointment or election of a Judge of the Municipal Court in Califomia. Considering such factors, the Committee believed that the question ofthe qualifications ofa candidate for such an elective position could best be left to the determination ofthe voters. (Minutes of Committee meetings, May27,1995,pp.2-8,June 18, 1994, pp.6-18) The Committee rejected a proposal to roll back existing City assessments to their 1979 level and require a2l3dsvote ofthe People on any increases in assessments or any new assessments.
Sal Princiotta had suggested that the Committee consider a Charter amendment to roll back the levy on assessment districts to their 1979 level and to require a two-thirds vote ofthe people on (l) any increase ofthe amount ofthe assessment above such levels as well as (2) on the formation ofany new assessment districts or enterprise zones. The reason given therefor was that assessment districts were being used by some cities as a way of increasing taxes beyond the timits permitted by Proposition 13. A letter on this subject from People's Advocate, Inc., founded by Paul Gann, was introduied in support of this suggestion. (Minutes of Committee meeting, May 28,1994, p. l; item 8e, agenda Committee meeting, April22, 1995) After introduction of this proposal at its October 22, 1994 meeting, the Committee referred the matter to the Taxation and Budget Commission for 30 a recommendation to consider its impact on the City's budget and to the City Attorney's office on the power to create assessment districts. (Minutes ofOctober 22, 1994 meeting, p. 4) In his report, the City Attorney noted that the City presently had two operative assessment districts, one formed under the 1972 Landscaping and Street Lighting Act which was levied annually by the City Council to pay the costs of street lighting and landscape maintenance. The other assessment district was used to finance the cost of constructing street improvements on Manhattan Beach Boulevard in front ofthe TRW property, which would be wholly paid for by TRW and that as a matter of law the assessment therefor could not. be rolled back to the 1979 level because it would violate the covenants in the bonds issued to finance the improvements. He also observed that the State law regarding assessment districts already contained a provision, the Majority Protest Act of 1931, by which a majority of the affected property owners could defeat a proposed assessment. (Memorandum from Stanley E. Remelmeyer dat ed, October 22, 1994) The Taxation and Budget Commission rendered its report to the Committee in which it disagreed with both aspects ofthe proposal. The Commission stated that implementation ofthe proposal would required a $1,000,000 cutback in city service levels in addition to the significant reduction in general fund expenditures being contemplated by the City Council to accommodate the rehabilitation of the City's sewer system. The Committee further noted that the City had not abused the use of assessment districts in the past and the Ralph M. Brown Act required a public meeting and public hearing after extensive public notice by which the public would be fully apprised of any assessment proposals in the future. (Report of Budget and raxation commission dat ed lanuary 24, 1ee5)
3l
After receiving these reports and discussion at its April 22, 1995 meeting, the Committee decided to take no further action on the matter on the basis that it agreed with the Commission's conclusion and rationale. (Minutes of Committee meeting of April 22, 1995, p. 5) D. Decrease Number of Signatures for Initiative and Referendum The Committee rejected a recornmendation that the number ofsignatures necessary to qualifr a proposed initiative ordinance for the ballot or to qualify a referendum vote on a Council ordinance be reduced.
Section 18.3 of the City Charter states that the provisions of the State Elections Code governing the initiative, referendum and recall shall apply in this City in so far as they are not in conflict with the Charter. The State Elections Code now provides that if an initiative petition is signed by not less than 15 percent ofthe registered voters and contains a request that the proposed ordinance be submitted to a special election, it must be submitted to a special election, if not adopted instead by the City Council; and that ifit is signed by not less than 10 percent ofthe registered voters, it must be submitted to the voters at the next regular municipal election, if not adopted instead by the City Council. (Sec.9214,9215, Elections Code) The Elections Code also provides that a Council ordinance is subject to referendum upon the presentation ofa petition signed by not less than 10 percent ofthe votes cast in the City for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (Sec. 9236, Elections Code)
Former Councilman Archie Snow, among others, had proposed that the number of signatures necessary to quali$ an initiative measure for the ballot be substantially reduced. Member Schmalz pointed out that Redondo Beach now has about 34,000 registered voters consequently, the 15Yo 32 requirement is so restrictive as to effectively deny the People the right to propose initiative measures.
He proposed, accordingly, that the l0% figure be reduced to 2OOO signatures.
However, the other members ofthe Committee rejected the proposal and voted to retain the subject provisions ofthe Elections Code and not make any changes to section 18.3. They were of the opinion that the 15% and lOYo requiiements were not unreasonable and reducing that figure would lead to a government ofthe most vocal elites; that if an initiative or referendum cannot obtain signatures from l5%o or 10% ofthe registered voters, as the case may be, it would most likely fail anyway; and that special elections were so expensive that it should not be too easy to qualify such a ballot measure for a special election. Assistant City Attorney Remelmeyer also advised the Committee that these provisions ofthe Elections Code could not be used for an initiative measure to change the City Charter itself because the requirements therefor were specified in the State constitution, which could not be modified by the voters of the city acting by themselves. (Minutes of Committee meeting of July 22, 1995, pp.2,3)
E. Camoaign Reform
The Committee considered a proposal to amend the Charter to limit contributions to election campaigns of city officials, otherwise known as "campaign reform", but decided that it was not appropriate to have such provisions in the Charter and, instead, recommended that they City Council consider establishing such limitations by ordinance.
At the request of Members Bostrom and Schmalz, the Committee considered the adoption of a Charter amendment limiting the contributions to election campaigns of City offrcials in the manner set forth in the city of Long Beach campaign Reform Act, proposition M. (Minutes of JJ
Committee meetings, March 19,1994, p. l0 and January 28, 1995, p. I l) The Long Beach measure, which was an initiative ordinancg also imposed expenditure limits and time constraints on candidates choosing to receive public funds, placed limits on independent expenditures supporting or opposing any candidatq required the filing ofa campaign statement in addition to those required by state law and restricted the disposal of surplus funds, among other provisions. The Committee also had before it at its July 22, lggi meeting the campaign reform ordinances of the cities oflos Angeles, San Francisco and El Segundo and a memorandum from the City Attorney's office explaining the constitutional limits on this authority of cities to adopt laws on this subject. (Memorandum of Stanley E. Remelmeyer dated July 22, 1gg5)
Chairman Serena, after noting that Proposition M and the provisions on campaign relorm of the other three cities were ordinances, not charter amendments, commented that this subject could be better handled by an ordinance of the City Council rather than by a Charter amendment. It was also observed that it would be diffrcult to amend the Charter to take advantage of the frequent changes in the law on this subject, which was still evolving, and the fluctuations in the value of the dollar over long periods of time. The other Committee members agreed with Chairman Serena's conclusions. After hearing no objections from Committee members or the public, the Committee unanimously decided on motion of Member Toomey to refer back to the City Council the issue of limitations on contributions to election campaigns of City officials, otherwise known as "campaign reform, " and indicate that it would be appropriate to discuss this in the form ofan ordinance rather than in the form of a Charter amendment. Mnutes of Committee meeting of July 22, 1995, pp.3, 4)
34 The City Council agreed with the Commiltee's recommendation that campaign reform not be included in the Charter and that the Council consider adopting an appropriate ordinance instead. councilman Pinzler announced that the League of women voters, common cause and other groups had proposed remedial legislation and suggested that the Council defer action until such legislation was adopted or rejected. On motion of Councilman Dawidziak, the City Council then directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance regarding campaign reform for the Council's consideration and that staff schedule a workshop thereon for the council on a Saturday in November. (Minutes of Council meeting, August 22, 1995, pp. 6,7)
F. Comoensation ofMembers of Board of Education
. The Committee decided not to recommend that the question of payment of compensation to members ofthe Board ofEducation be placed on the ballot for a vote ofthe electorate. section 16.1, Article XVI, ofthe charter now provides that the members ofthe Board of Education shall receive no compensation for their services, except necessary expenses. At the municipal election on March 2, 1993, the voters of Redondo Beach had rejected a proposed measure to amend the Charter and pay compensation to members ofthe Board. Nevertheless, the members ofthe Board ofEducation were receiving compensation for their services pursuant to an opinion of Joan Birdt ofBreon, o'Donnell, Miller, Brown & Dennis (dated March l l, 1994), the Board's legal counsel, aftirming that compensation ofBoard members was a matter of statewide concern, not a municipal affair, which was governed by the provisions of the State Education Code expressly authorizing such payments rather than by the provisions ofthe city charter prohibiting them. 35 Assistant City Attorney Robert Wadden rendered an opinion also dated March l l, 1994 in which he concluded that he could not determine with certainty whether the Charter prohibition would prevail over the permissive provisions ofthe Education Codq but he believed that it was unlikely that a court would decree that the Charter prevailed.
The Committee considered this subject at its meeting of October 22, 1994. At that time, it had before it the aforesaid opinions of Ioan Birdt and Robert Wadden, as well as an opinion from Assistant City Attomey Remelmeyer dated October 22, 1994 in which he concluded that the question ofcompensation is probably not preempted by state law but, due to the lack ofjudicial precedent, declaratory relief action should be filed to finally determine the issue. After considerable debate, a motion by member Cote to seek declaratory relief on this issue was defeated. No further action was taken by the Committee in this matter. (l\{inutes of Committee meeting, October 22, 1994,pp 5-10) G
The Committee rejected a recommendation that the Charter be rewritten to substitute gender neutral for gender specific language, however, pursuant to the instructions ofthe Committee, all the ballot propositions which were recommended by the Committee to the City Council were written in a gender neutral manner.
Vanessa Poster, Coordinator, Women's Coalition South Bay, had suggested that the Charter be rewritten in gender neutral language. (Letter from Vanessa Poster dated August 7, 1994) Frorn the beginning of its discussions, the Committee noted that the Charter had been written in gender specific language, always using the masculine ipecific "he" or 'him' when referring to a City offrcer.
Accordingly, it had directed the City Attorney to write each proposed ballot proposition using non36 4 sexist languagg which instruction was followed. The Committee, however, determined that it would be too expensive and without cost benefit to rewrite the entire Charter at this time in a gender neutral manner. (Minutes of Committee meeting, April22, 1995, pp. 4, 5) The Committee rejected a proposal that the Charter be revised to insert therein certain moral precepts proposed by Sal Princiotta.
In a letter to the Committee dated May 31, 1994, Mr. Princiotta noted that Mr. Remelmeyer had written an opinion that Section 21.3 ofthe City Charter prohibiting the exposure of female breasts was invalid. (See Section II B ofthis report) He suggested that it was appropriate to replace Section 21.3 with 2l moral precepts as espoused by the Way to Happiness Foundation of Los Angeles which reflect the character ofthe Ten Commandments but were secular in nature.
The Committee at its September 24, lgg4meeting rejected the proposal for the reason that the Charter was a legal and not a moral document, so it would not be appropriate to include moral precepts therein. The Committee also rejected as inappropriate a suggestion that, as a substitute, it recommend to the City Council that it adopt a resolution incorporating these 2l precepts. (Minutes of meeting of September 24, l99a, pp. 7,8)
ilt
ilt
37 'We are pleased to have been of service to the Mayor and City Council and to the People of the City ofRedondo Beach. We are proud of our accomplishment in reviewing and considering the provisions ofour Charter, the Constitution of the City, and making recommendations for changes where needed. Hopefully, the amended Charter will serve us by well and truly guide the government of the City into the first part of the twenty-first century.
Respectfu lly submitted,
THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
David Serena, Chairman
Pat Dreizler Larry Cote
Pam Lemke Kurt Schmalz
Phil Toomey
;stan\charlrevveport,crc
38 REPORTS OF CITY ATTORNEY TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE 1994-1995
l. Eleclion and compensation of nrembers o/ the Board of Edubation a. Report from Assistant City Attomey, Robert V. Wadderq Jr., regarding compensation for Board of Education members. Item 6b, April 23, 1994 meeting. b. Report from Robert V. Wadden, Ji. regarding Mr. Serena's requests - election of Board of Education members by district, term limits on members, qualification of members, consolidation with city elections. Item 6c, April23,1994 meeting. c. Report by Assistant City Attorney, Stan Remelmeyer regarding Department of Education and,/or the Board ofEducation ofthe City ofRedondo Beach. Item 7a, October 22, 1994 meeting.
d. Opinion by Stan Remelmeyer on Validity of Charter Amendment Establishing Qualifications for Superintendent of Schools. Item 5b, November 19, 1994 meeting.
2. Substitution of "Registered Voler" for "Elector"
Report from Stan Remelmeyer re change of "Elector" type words for "Registered voter',.
Item 8, March lg, lgg4meeting and Item 8, April 23,lgg4meeting.
3. Residence Requirement for Public Office.
Report from Stan Remelmeyer re 30 day residence requirement for public offrce. Item 9a, May 28, I994 meeting.
l
4. Amendment re: Appoinlive Officers - Article XIV
a. Report from Stan Remelmeyer on Article XV of City Charter re Appointive Ofticers.
Item 7, May 28, 1994 meeting.
b. Report from Stan Remelmeyer on Qualifications for City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney and City Controller. Item 5c, !une24,1995 meeting.
5. Sectiott 21.3, Expoxtre of Fenale Breasls
Report from Stan Remelmeyer on Validity of Section 21.3 of City Charter Prohibiting Exposure of Female Breasts. Item 8, April 23, 1994 meeting and Item 9b, May 28, 1994 meeting.
6. Concealed l|'eapons Permils
Report from Stan Remelmeyer on Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding Authority of City of Redondo Beach to Require Chief of Police to Issue Licenses (Permits) to Carry Concealed Weapons to all Residents of City, with Certain Exceptions. Item 9, August 27,1994 meeting and Item 12, September 24, 1994 meeting.
7. Financial Managentenl Slructure - Cily Controller
Report from Assistant City Attorney, Stan Remelmeyer entitled Conflict Between Duties of City Manager and Elective Officials and Establishment of City Controller Position. ltem 6a & 7a, January 28, 1995 meeting.
D
D
8. Amendrnent re Boards and Commissions
a. Report from Stan Remelmeyer on Boards and commissions Required by Law. Item 6a, September 24, 1994 meeting.
b. Report from stan Remelmeyer on the Harbor commission. Item 5b, october 22, 1994 meeting.
c. Report from stan Remelmeyer on Boards, commissions and committees. Item 5a, August 26, 1995 meeting.
9. Assessment District Roll Back
Report by Stan Remelmeyer regarding the financial impact on the city ofa "roll back,, to 1979 on City assessment and/or enterprise zones and requiring a 2/3's vote ofthe people on any increase in assessments or on any new assessments. Item 6a, October 22,1994 meeting.
10. Cantpaign Refornt
Report from Stan Remelmeyer entitled campaign Reform. Item 6a, Iuly 22, 1995 meeting.
I l. Ralph M. Brotyn Act
Report from Stan Remelmeyer on application of Brown Act to Resource Allocation Commission. Item l3(l), May 27,1995 meeting.
B
stan\chirlrevvind.cxa
CURRENTAND FUTURE COSTS OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
r994-1995
A. Current Costs
The Committee has cost the City approximately $80,000.00 as ofNovember 18, 1995. This figure includes the following work:
I City Attorney's oIlice:
(a) Work of Assistant City Attorney Stan Remelmeyer:
(b) Work of City Attorney Jerry Goddard, Assistant City Attomey Robert Wadden and Deputy City Attorney
Albert Gieseman:
(c) Work oflegal Secretary Jennifer Espinoza:
(d) Postage to mail all agendas:
'City Clerk's office:
(a) Work of Deputy City Clerk Alice Muller:
(b) Minute secretary Kim Chafin:
(c) Work of the Print Shop in printing all agendas:
3. Outside services:
(a) Imagery Video Productions for filming of the meetings:
. TOTAL
B. Future Costs
,
Future Costs of the Charter Review Committee is estimated at:
(This will include the printing of the ballot propositions for the three proposed charter amendments at the March 1997
municipal election, any arguments and the City Attorney's analysis)
GRAND TOTAL
$3 900
$15,000
$12,520
$ 610
$ 1,480
$ 9,000
$ 130
$ 2.300
$79,940
$ 12.000
8 )
B i
;slan\chartrevuuture,cos
$91,940