First Report of
Redondo Beach Charter Review Advisory Committee
Assembled and submitted with approval by the Committee
to the Redondo Beach City Council by Rolf Strutzenberg, Chair November 2022
Committee Members:
Kathy Wunderli
Mark Narain
Bob Pinzler
Ron Maroko
Joeseph Dawidziak
Eugene Solomon, Vice-Chair
Rolf Strutzenberg, Chair
Preamble
This Charter Review Advisory Committee was created by City Council Resolution CC-2204-022. The original resolution included SECTION 5 as follows:
That the purpose of the Charter Review Advisory Committee shall be to advise the Mayor and City Council on recommended changes to the City Charter to submit to the voters. The subject matters reviewed shall be compartmentalized, with input from the city manager/staff/other elected officials and shall include but not be limited to the following:
All fiscal limits; contractual obligations; purchasing policies, procurement, etc.
Article XX, Section 20.1 - Approval of Demands
Article VIII, Section 8.3c - Contract Signatures
Article XIX, Section 19 – PW Contracts Bid Limits
Article XIX, Section 19.1 - Maintenance-Repair and Materials under $5k Article XIX, Section 19.9 – Municipal Purchases
Article XIX, Section 19.7 – Retention Percentage
Administrative Business
City Treasurer Position
City Clerk
City Attorney’s Office
Although a subsequent amendment to the resolution removed the delineated list of subject matters to be reviewed, the Committee held to the spirit of the original resolution in prioritizing the above items.
While the topics of City Clerk and City Treasurer Position have been alluded to during discussions of other topics these two positions have not yet been fully discussed as individual agendized topics. The committee was in agreement that any potential ballot measure regarding these would best be delayed until the 2025 election cycle as the appearance of a measure regarding these positions would not affect the 2023 election in which these two positions also appear, and further that it may lead to voter confusion if both the election for these positions and any measure concerning them were to appear on the same ballot.
Under the specification of “but not be limited to” with regard to potential proposed Charter changes the Committee also entertained multiple topics suggested by various Committee members. So far of those topics suggested and initially agendized for discussion two have been agreed to be brought forth and will be included in this initial report to the Council: amending any language of the Charter to be gender neutral and amending the School Board elections to be by trustee areas that align with City Council districts.
Several other topics have been put forth for future agenda however have not yet been discussed so that the list above remained prioritized under the limited time allowed prior to this first report.
City Charter Article VIII Section 8.3 Mayor, Contract Signatures Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to alleviate the need for the Mayor to sign all contracts, ordinances, resolutions and warrants. The present day proliferation of the sheer number of such documents places an undue burden on the Mayor to comply with the current requirement.
Perhaps originally written as a means of check and balance, or possibly just a standard operating procedure at a time when the number of documents was not so voluminous.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. It is now proposed that the requirements of signature by the Mayor be further determined by the City Council rather than universally prescribed by Charter.
2. Ordinance, Resolution or other action the City Council may designate signature requirements to the City Manager or other such officer or employee as they see fit.
3. It is also noted that removal of the signature requirement by the Mayor does not remove a check and balance aspect for any such documents as they still require approval by the City Council.
4. Gender neutrality changes would apply to this Section as well and are included herein.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would appropriately require accompanying Ordinance and/or Resolution to be enacted by the City Council to be most effective. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment. (for example 2-6.04)
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 8.3. Mayor, presiding officer.
He The Mayor shall be the executive head of the City of Redondo Beach for the purposes hereinafter set forth:
(a) He The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the City Council.
(b) He The Mayor shall be the representative of the City for all ceremonial purposes.
(c) He The Mayor shall sign, on behalf of the City, all contracts, ordinances, resolutions and warrants except when the City Council has authorized the City Manager, or other officer or other employee to approve and sign a written contract on behalf of the City as hereinafter set forth. (d) He The Mayor shall approve all bonds as to amounts. (e) He The Mayor shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may be assigned to him by the
City Council.
City Charter Article XIX Section 19. Public works, contracts.
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to update the dollar amount thresholds of various expenditures for public works. Dollar amount thresholds are currently well out of date in consideration of both inflation and the types of expenditures required for public works.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. Several iterations of potential changes to this section were discussed.
2. Only updating the noted dollar amount thresholds was not considered a good option as it would be anticipated to once again become out of date and require yet another Charter amendment.
3. The option of simply removing actual dollar amounts from the Charter and prescribing them to ordinance or resolution of the City Council was ultimately abandoned in the respect that this may not be palatable to voters in giving such authority without limit to the Council.
4. The proposed changes now include a hybrid approach where the baseline dollar amount thresholds are amended (by a proposed factor of 4x) to reasonable present day values, and the City Council is given limited authority to periodically update the dollar amounts by ordinance with a 4/5’s vote.
5. Changes to dollar amount thresholds are proposed to not exceed 25% (based reasonably on 5% per year uncompounded) and can only be changed if at least 5 years have passed since last amended.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require further future action to implement changes to dollar amount thresholds within the prescribed limitations. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 19. Public works, contracts.*
Every contract involving an expenditure of more than
fifty two hundred thousand dollars ($5200,000.00) for public works projects, including the construction of improvements of public
buildings, streets, drains, sewers, utilities, parks and playgrounds shall be let either to: (1) the lowest responsible
bidder, after notice by publication in the official newspaper by one or more insertions, the first of which shall be
published at least ten (10) days before the time for opening bids; or (2) the best value design-builds entity or best value design-build-operate entity responding to a request for proposals.
Public works projects of fifty two hundred thousand dollars ($5200,000.00) or less may be let to contract by informal bid
procedures as shall be set by the City Council by ordinance.
Public works projects of fifteen sixty thousand dollars ($1560,000.00) or less may be performed by employees of the City by force account, by negotiated contract or by purchase order.
The Council may by ordinance with four fifths (4/5’s)
vote amend each of the above dollar amount limits by no more than twenty five percent (25%), no more frequently than five (5) years since last amended.
The Council may reject any and all bids received whenever in the opinion of the City Council:
(a) The bid or bids do not strictly comply with the
notice and specifications.
(b) The Council finds and determines that the proposed
project or purchase should be abandoned.
(c) The Council finds and determines that the materials may be purchased more reasonably on the open market
and the work done cheaper by day or City labor.
(d) The Council determines that the bids are higher
than anticipated and a new call for bids would result in savings to the City.
(e) The Council determines that it would be in the best interest of the City to delay the work or purchase for an indefinite period of time.
(f) The best interests of the City would be served by a rejection of all bids.
(g) The proposal is not suitable for the project.
*19—as amended by election 4-11-67, 3-7-89 and 3-6-01.
City Charter Article XIX Section 19.1 Competitive bidding, when not required.
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to allow the City Council to define what is classified as maintenance or repair and to remove the dollar amount threshold of paragraph (e) from the Charter.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. The proposed addition of language is to allow the City Council the flexibility to define what is classified as maintenance or repair such that publication of notice calling for bids or receiving of bids is not required for those items.
2. This also allows for the deletion of paragraph (e) as any such minimum amount can be prescribed within the same ordinance or resolution.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require further action by ordinance or resolution to establish definitions of maintenance or repair as well as dollar amount thresholds. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 19.1. Competitive bidding, when not
required.*
It shall not be necessary for the City Council to publish notice calling for bids or to receive bids as required in Article XIX, Section 19, in the following cases:
(a) Where the proposed work consists of maintenance
or repair, as defined by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. (b) When the City Council, upon recommendation of
the City Manager, finds and determines that the work may be done more reasonably either on a daily basis or by the use of City labor, and/or materials may be purchased as cheaply on the open market.
(c) When the City Council by four-fifths (4/5) vote
expressed in its official minutes finds and determines that an emergency exists and it is necessary to immediately
contract for such work and/or materials in order to protect and preserve life or property.
(d) When the proposed services are not competitive or
are to be furnished by a public utility.
(e) On all purchases of supplies or materials under
$5,000.00, providing such purchases are approved by the City Manager.
*19.1—COMPETITIVE BIDDING, WHEN NOT
REQUIRED—as amended by election 4-13-65.
City Charter Article XIX Section 19.7 Contracts, progress payments.
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to update the Charter language to be in compliance with state law.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. The proposed change in language is to bring the Charter into compliance with state law.
2. Language is added to clarify that the 5 per cent withholding minimum applies only to public works contracts.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require no further action. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 19.7. Contracts, progress payments.
All contracts entered into by or on behalf of the City of Redondo Beach may provide for percentage payments at
various stages of the work contracted for provided, however, that at least ten (10) five (5) per cent of the total sums payable by the City of Redondo Beach under any public works contract shall be withheld until the work is approved by the department head and accepted by the City Council. The City Council shall not accept complete performance under any contract until satisfactory evidence is furnished that all labor and material liens have been completely satisfied by the contractor.
City Charter Article XIX Section 19.9 Municipal purchases.
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to update the Charter language to expand the definition of applicable municipal purchase beyond just materials Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. The proposed addition of language is to expand the definition applicable municipal purchases.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require further action by ordinance to be established. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 19.9. Municipal purchases.
The City Council by ordinance, upon recommendation
of the City Manager, shall provide for the purchase of all equipment, materials, supplies, labor, or services by the City through the City Manager or through some official, employee or department recommended by him, subject to
other provisions of this Charter, and in accordance with such regulations as may be deemed advisable by the
City Manager and the City Council..
City Charter Article XX Section 20.1 Approval of Demands Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to update the language concerning approval of demands and payments due. It was noted that any update should include language that would apply to deposits that may be required.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
2. The wording added amount is legally due universally captures all possibilities including deposits.
3. Further detail or delineation is thus no longer required and is proposed to be removed.
4. There was discussion concerning the requirement of approval by the City Clerk. It was noted that currently this provides an additional check and balance especially with respect to catching mistakes. It was also noted that a situation could exist in which a refusal of approval by the City Clerk would have no remedy. No action was proposed in consideration of this aspect.
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would not require further action. A thorough search of existing Municipal Code must be done to update any conflicts that may arise from this Charter amendment.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 20.1. Approval of demands.
All demands shall, prior to payment, be approved by the City Manager and the City Clerk. Prior to the approval of any demands by them, they shall satisfy themselves that the amount is legally due supplies, materials, property or services for which payment is claimed, have been actually delivered or rendered,, that the payment, authorized by law, is just and fair, and that appropriation for the same has been made. All payrolls shall be certified by the respective department heads and approved by the City Manager.
City Charter, Incorporation of Gender Neutral Language
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee from one of it’s members to update the language of the Charter to be gender neutral.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. It was noted that this topic was discussed by the last Charter Review Committee in the mid 1990’s however was not ultimately recommended to go to ballot (1994-95 Report of Charter Review Committee, Item IV. G. pp. 36-37).
2. A review of the current City Charter found 75 instances of gender specific language distributed throughout that would need to be removed along with an accompanying 72 instances where new gender neutral terms would be added as replacement.
3. Gender neutral language is made part of the recommended amendments to Article VIII, Section
8.3 herein.
4. While it is well established that any gender specific terms apply without restriction to gender; this does not preclude a more proactive stance in moving to gender neutral terminology. (Canons of Construction: Gender/Number Canon. In the absence of a contrary indication, the masculine includes the feminine (and vice versa) and the singular includes the plural (and vice versa).)
Committee Vote:
The Committee was unanimous on the proposed changes for this topic.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would not require further action.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) See attached Blue Folder Item from the Committee meeting of July 20, 2022
City Charter Article X & XI Section 11.2 City Attorney
Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee to consider the position of the City Attorney to be elected or appointed.
Committee Vote:
The Committee voted 6 to 1 in favor of this item being presented to the voters for consideration. ((Ayes: Narain, Pinzler, Tabares, Dawidziak, Solomon, Strutzenberg; Noes: Maroko) (Alternate member Tabares voting in place of member Wunderli) Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. It was noted that this topic was discussed by the last Charter Review Committee in the mid 1990’s however was not ultimately recommended to go to ballot (1994-95 Report of Charter Review Committee, Item IV. G. pp. 25-26).
2. The State of California has over 480 cities with only 10 remaining represented by an elected City Attorney. Redondo Beach is one of only 3 cities in California with a population less than 100,000 that has an elected City Attorney (Compton and San Rafael are the other two).
3. The current elected City Attorney spoke at length on this matter.
4. The Committee Chair arranged for an appointed City Attorney (Mr. Stephen Graham, Partner in the firm of Cole Huber) to speak and answer Committee questions at it’s September 22, 2022 meeting.
5. Mr. Graham was an advisor to the Charter Review Committee for the city of San Bernardino, which recently transitioned from elected to appointed City Attorney. He is also currently the appointed City Attorney for the cities of Canyon Lake (11K), Indio (92K) and Hemet (92K). As such he was well qualified to speak on this matter in regard to the city of Redondo Beach.
6. In summary of the juxtaposition of elected and appointed it is clear that all City attorneys, elected, appointed or contract share a basic commonality imposed by state law or by our city charter: Provide legal advice to minimize the city’s liabilities and promote compliance with the law. How can our city advance these principles in a manner that promotes interests of the voters, accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility?
7. Part of the Committee’s discussion in analyzing these interests was the subject of who does the hiring should the voters decide an appointed or contract City Attorney should replace the elected model.
8. Should the City Manager hire or should the Council vote on the choice following a search process? The Committee favored City Council making the choice with perhaps a super majority (4/5) of the City Council making the decision of appointing and/or terminating.
9. An appointed or contracted City Attorney would be answerable to the Council and the Council is answerable to the electorate.
10. Who the City Attorney “answers” to for their conduct was an important topic of debate. In our current model it is posed that the City Attorney answers to the electorate directly. If the public are unhappy with the sitting representative that person could be recalled or voted out at the
next election. However, some Committee members expressed concerns that a recall was not a realistic choice considering the money and resources needed to conduct a citywide recall.
11. Having a narrow pool of candidates from only residents of Redondo Beach has seemingly limited the number of challengers for the role with only one in the last three elections.
12. Having the Council as the voice of the electorate on a citywide basis would hold the City Attorney accountable for unacceptable performance, potentially with a super majority (4/5) to remove that person/firm as a check on a rogue City Council abusing the power to remove/fire the appointed or contracted role.
13. The committee discussed economic feasibility of an Appointed or Contract Attorney in comparison to the present Elected City Attorney model. Further analysis is provided below in this area.
14. Several options of appointed City Attorney are available such as selecting a firm with a lead attorney from that firm, selecting a lead attorney with the backing of a firm, appointing a lead attorney that is independent of a firm, hybrid models of in-house or contract City Attorney with retained Prosecution roles for the City. The Committee did not come to conclusion on these aspects of an appointed role
15. Some City Attorneys are city employees referred to as “in-house” while others are contracted independent law firms that provide City Attorney services with whom the city secures an agreement for discounted rates to navigate the municipality’s complex legal issues in a more efficient consolidated manner. The latter does not preclude the retaining of other firms as may be appropriate from time to time.
16. The last opportunity for voters to weigh in on this matter was over 23 years ago in a March 2, 1999 advisory vote with the question: Should the City Attorney be appointed by the City Council instead of being elected by the voters. The advisory question of changing the role was defeated.
17. A number of things have changed since the voters last had opportunity to weigh in on this decision. The role of City Attorney has evolved and expanded, since first beginning as a part time role, into the current full time role.
18. In the budget year following the Advisory Vote (2000-2001) the City Attorney had a staff of approximately 7 with a budget of $985,592 and an additional estimate of outside litigation/counsel expense of $480,000 for the cycle.
19. Currently the elected City Attorney has as staff of 13 with a budget of $4,965,298 and an additional $3,200,000 outside litigation/counsel expenses. The ever -increasing specialization leads us to outsource a large number of our litigation matters. The estimated $3.2 million cost of outsourcing these matters in addition to our internal $4.9 million budget weighs heavily on our fiscal resources when compared to similarly situated cities in the region.
20. When contracting only limited work with outside counsel, the special counsel firms will most likely charge higher rates than the in-house or contract modeling would yield for similar matters.
21. Redondo Beach currently has some 40-50 active contracts listed on the city website with outside firms, with a wide variety of billable hourly rates. It is noted that at least 2 of those contracts are for prosecutorial services.
22. The ability to have an in-house firm with blended or discounted rates billing for these matters along with the diverse expertise within a contracted or in-house firm would be more responsive fiscally and within subject matter to the changing needs of our city.
23. A sampling of cities with appointed in-house or contracted City Attorney models is detailed below:
City Est. Pop. In-House/Contract 2022-2023 M&O Budget* Employees Carson 95,000 Contract $ 3,100,000 unk
Riverside 319,000 In-House $ 5,295,532 39
Torrance 147,000 In-House $ 2,807,892 13
Costa Mesa 110,000 Contract $ 1,000,000 2
Redondo Beach 70,000 Elected $ 4,965,298 13
(Redondo Beach additional outside counsel legal expenses estimated at $ 3,200,000) *(Based upon 2022-2023 Budget Reports for each city)
24. The increasing specialties that municipal law requires prompts the question: Is the idea of an elected general law practitioner from a small group of candidates eligible within the city still reasonable and feasible?
25. In-house and contract operations allow for development of a more sophisticated legal team with a deeper bench and reduced costs to the city.
26. In short, is the model we have now still economically reasonable? The answer seems to be no in our increasingly complex municipal legal climate.
27. Litigation has increased with complex and specialized issues of land use, California Coastal Commission work, conflicts with the State of California’s attempted mandates upon Charter Cities among other specialties.
28. In full consideration that much has changed since this question was last considered, the legal business for the city and needs of the city as a whole bring the conclusion that the voters should decide their preferred approach.
29. The field of municipal law has increasingly become an area comprising of a great many of specialties. The basis that a general law attorney can effectively advise the City on all legal issues is no longer practical. To paraphrase Charter Review Alternate Member Norma Tabares in our session discussion “it seems in the city’s best interest that we cast a wider net of qualified individuals. The way to do that is for us to make the role available to practitioners outside the city.”
30. The committee had discussion on this component of the City Attorney role with consideration for the Council and public to retain this function as an elected City Attorney function or part of the appointed or contract attorney model.
The Committee heard from multiple speakers about the dual role function of our City Attorney with autonomous prosecution within the city. It was noted that many of the in-house and contract firms engage in code enforcement and other administrative enforcement actions with felony criminal prosecutions detailed out to other agencies as they are now by Redondo Beach.
31. There was no determination made that such a dual role modality was exclusive to, or better served by, an elected or appointed City Attorney. For purposes of this report no vote was taken to determine if the City Attorney position should be full time or part time.
32. The timeliness of placing this item on the March 2023 ballot is a key consideration as this would allow full implementation to be in place when the current elected City Attorney’s term ends in 2025.
33. A dissenting opinion of the Committee member that voted opposed to this matter is attached for reference.
Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require further action in the selection of an appointed City Attorney.
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) (Specific changes subject to modality of appointment selected by City Council for ballot) Article X. Elective Officers
Sec. 10. Enumeration and term.*
The elective officers of the City, other than the Mayor and Council, shall consist of:
(a) A City Clerk.
(b) A City Treasurer.
(c) A City Attorney.
All of the elective officers shall serve for a term of four (4) years.
*10—as amended by election 4-15-75.
Article XI. Elective Officers, Powers and Duties
Sec. 11.2. City Attorney.*
No person shall be eligible for the office of City Attorney unless he shall have been admitted to practice as an
attorney at law before the Supreme Court of the State of California, and shall have been engaged in the active practice of law in the State of California for at least five (5) years preceding his appointment or election.
The City Attorney shall devote his their full time to the duties of office and shall not engage in private legal practice during his term their tenure of office, except to carry to conclusion any matters for which he has been retained prior to taking office.
The City Attorney shall have the power and shall be
required to:
(a) Represent and advise the City Council and all city
officers in all matters of law pertaining to the respective offices/duties.
(b) Represent and appear for the city and any city officer, employee or former city officer or employee, in any
and all actions or proceedings in which the city or such officer or employee, in or by reason of his official capacity is concerned or is a party. The City Council, at the request of the City Attorney, may employ other attorneys to assist in any litigation or other matter of interest to the city. (c) Prosecute on behalf of the People any and all criminal cases arising from violations of this Charter or city
ordinances; he they shall prosecute violations of State misdemeanors, unless otherwise directed by the City Council.
(d) Attend all meetings of the City Council, unless
excused, and give his advice or opinion orally or in writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council or by any boards or officers of the city.
(e) Approve the form of all bonds given to, and all
contracts made by, the city, endorsing his approval thereon in writing.
(f) Prepare any and all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the city and amendments thereto.
(g) On vacating office, surrender to his their successor all books, papers, files, and documents pertaining to the city's affairs.
The City Attorney may appoint such retain assistant city attorneys or deputy city attorneys in support of their duties who shall serve him. Such aAssistant city attorneys or deputy city attorneys shall not be included in the classified service and shall be subject to removal by the city attorney.
The City Attorney shall perform such other duties of a
legal nature as the Council may by ordinance require or as provided by the Constitution and general laws of the State. *11.2—as amended by election 4-15-75 and 6-5-84.
Dissent provided by Committee Member Ron Maroko, who voted against placing the item on the ballot:
The Council should not advance the issue related to the election of the City Attorney to the ballot. Prior to the adoption of the Charter in 1934 the City Attorney was appointed and served part-time. Both the 1934 and 1949 Charters, approved by the voters included a provision for an elected City Attorney. Starting in 1947, there were three elections where the public were specifically presented with ballot proposals that would have led to changing the City Attorney position from elected to appointed. Each time it was presented the proposition to make the position appointive received less than 30% of the votes cast and did not carry a single voting precinct. The last time this issue came before the electorate, as an advisory vote in 1999, less than 24% of the electorate supported it.
The Charter Committee was provided copies of the 1999 ballot documents presented to the voters, including arguments in favor and against the proposal, and the Report of the 1994/1995 Charter Review Committee, which did not recommend that the matter be presented on the ballot. These materials set forth a number of arguments in favor of appointing the City Attorney. In listening to the discussion, over the course of several Committee meetings, it became clear that the arguments for changing the charter were the same as were made in 1999. And based on discussions within our Committee, it is clear that there has been no change in circumstances or specific event that makes this change a necessity at this time. Bottom line, the community has spoken multiple times on this issue, stating that they are satisfied having an elected City Attorney.
Accountability and accessibility by the voters, that the election is Citywide, that the position is fulltime, local, and independent from the Council, and the prior votes by the public on this issue, were the persuasive arguments that are the reasons for this dissent. The City Attorney, as a licensed attorney, has ethical duties to the client. In one of the documents from the 1994/1995 Charter Review Committee, then elected City Attorney Jerry Goddard was asked to identify his client. His answer was, in descending order, a duty to: (1) the municipal corporation; (2) followed by tax paying residential public of the City; (3) followed by the City council; and (4) then department heads and city employees. If the City Attorney was appointed there would be no accountability, or ethical duty to the voters, and that appointed person or firm would only be accountable to the Council majority who would have the power to appoint and fire that City Attorney. Right now, the power to hire, assess job performance, and fire resides with the voters.
As stated by then Councilmember Colin, “it would not be fair to have three members of the Council directing the conduct and performance of the City Attorney.” Finally, in 1984, the electorate overwhelmingly voted (66%) favorably to amend the Charter and make the City Attorney a full-time position and prohibit the City Attorney from engaging in the private practice of law. If the Council is inclined to put the question on the ballot to make the position appointive, the question the Council should explore is whether Redondo Beach should completely eliminate the City Attorney position, as found in Charter sections 10, 10.3, and 11.2, and eliminate the full-time requirement also found in Charter section 11.2. In other words, if an appointive City Attorney is nothing more than a contracted professional for municipal legal services, then there may not be a need for a titled City Attorney and no further need for the cost of a full-time person. These same three Charter sections, 10,
10.3, and 11.2, would need to be amended, in any event, if the City Attorney position was to retained in name, but appointed.
Addendum: At the October 27, 2022 meeting, the draft report, prepared by the Chair and Vice-Chair, improperly included suggested revisions to Charter section 11.2. The Committee never discussed nor voted whether to eliminate the full-time nature of the position from the Charter (added by the voters in 1984), nor was it part of the vote to recommend that the position be appointed. Thus, the language change in section 11.2 is inappropriate as part of the Committee’s recommendation
City Charter Article XVI. Redondo Beach Unified School District Section 16.1 Board Members Background:
This topic was suggested for review by the Committee from one of it’s members to update the language of the Charter regarding the election of members of the RBUSD School Board.
Discussion and Proposed Action:
1. Assure distributed representation by moving from “at large” elections to “by trustee area”, similar to the existing by district elections.
2. School Board member trustee areas and elections should be aligned to existing five (5) districts.
3. Election criteria such as run-off elections to be aligned with those for current by district.
Committee Vote:
Committee voted 6 to 1 in favor of this item being placed on the ballot. (Ayes: Narain, Pinzler, Maroko, Dawidziak, Solomon, Strutzenberg; Noes: Wunderli) (Member Wunderli dissenting for reason of wanting more time to evaluate) Further City Council Action if Passed:
This change to the Charter if passed by the electorate would require further action to implement the transition from “at large” to “by trustee area” election of School Board .
Proposed changes to Charter language: (additions in bold deletions in strike through) Sec. 16.1. Board members.*
The government and control of the public schools shall
be vested in the Board of Education, consisting of five (5) members elected from the territory included in the Redondo Beach Unified School District by trustee areas, at the times and in the manner in this Charter provided. No person shall be eligible to hold the office of member of the Board of Education unless such
person shall be registered to vote at an address within the trustee area they seek to represent at the time of filing his(her) nomination papers, and he(she) they shall
have been a resident of the territory included in the Redondo Beach Unified School District and their trustee area for at least thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of filing his(her) declaration of candidacy. They shall be elected at large by trustee area by the registered voters of the district trustee area and shall serve for a four (4) year term, without compensation, except necessary
expenses when acting as a designated representative of the Board of Education as provided in the Education Code of the State of California.
*16.1—as amended by election 4-10-73, 4-19-77, 6-6-78,
3-2-93, and 3-7-95.
Sec. 16.6. Adjustment: Initial term.
The members of the Board of Education of the Redondo
Beach Unified School District elected at the election
held on November 3, 1992 March 4, 2025 shall be for
trustee areas 1,2 and 4; and at the election held on
March 2, 2027 shall be for trustee areas 3 and 5.
Any member already serving on the Board of Education
having been elected at large shall be eligible to run for office in their respective trustee area and not have a
partial term of less than 4 years served count against
their two term limit. serve the following initial
terms of office: The three members receiving the highest votes at said election shall serve through March 31, 1997, and the remaining members shall serve through March 31, 1995. Thereafter, all members shall serve four year terms as provided in this Charter.
Sec. 16.7. Term limits.
No person shall serve more than two full terms as a
member of the Board of Education or any predecessor or
successor entity covered by this Charter, whether elected at-large or by district trustee area or by a combination thereof. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of applying this provision.
Previous terms and cCurrent uncompleted terms of
office of persons who were members of the Board on
March 4, 2025 3, 1997, shall not be counted for the purpose of applying this provision.
Sec. 16.8. Trustee Areas.
The territory included in the Redondo Beach Unified School District shall be divided into five (5) trustee areas within its limits for all elections of School Board Members. Trustee areas shall be aligned with City Council districts, and in compliance with State and Federal law.