EXHIBIT D
000041
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
City of Riverside
August 14, 2003, 5 p.m.
Public Utilities Customer Service Center
Conference Room, 3460 Orange Street
MINUTES
Chair Eric Haley and Members Damon Castillo, Marcia McQuern, Rose Mayes, Dorothy Bailey, Stan Stosel, Rusty Balley, Ray Higgins, Connie Leach, Gar Brewton, Vice Chair Ben Johnson, Barry Johnson, Art Garcia, and Marjorie von Pohle
Members Dale McNair {excused), Mike Teer {excused), and William Turpin {excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Colleen Nicol, Gregory Priamos, Sharon Cooley, Tricia Ruiz, and Janis Lowry
ALSO PRESENT: Barbara Purvis representing the League of Women Voters and David Kessinger
Chair Eric Haley convened the Charter Review Committee at 5:05 p.m.
INFORMATION MATERIALS AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CHARTER Chair Haley reported that he and Vice-Chair Johnson had met with staff the preceding Friday to discuss this week's agenda and requested preparation of the brief history of Riverside's Charter and a description of the issue items forwarded from the City Council and staff which are included with the agenda materials distributed. Also included in the packet are two articles from Governing Magazine forwarded from Mayor Loveridge.
City Clerk Colleen Nicol reviewed the Charter history and answered questions. The 1973 reference to Riverside Unified School District was clarified in that those provisions were later repealed.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH/PROMOTION
Communications Officer Sharon Cooley reviewed the Promotional/Campaign Timeline, Promotional Activity Budget, and the proposed community outreach program. City staff Is preparing two or three logos for the Committee to review at the next meeting to begin the marketing campaign the first week of September. Information will also be available on the City's web page.
One member felt that advertising should be limited, as the members have been selected to represent the community. The consensus agreed that forums should be held throughout the community with the first conducted soon to receive general comments with later forums receiving Input on specific issues. Vice-Chair Johnson will confirm the availability of the La Sierra High School Performing Arts Center for the first forum with Goeske Center as an CRC-3
000042
alternative location. The Committee further concurred that the process should be open and public possibly with strategic outreach to neighborhoods for the community forums. It was ,~ suggested that Committee members advertise the activities of the Committee through each Member's network of contacts and perhaps at Mayor's Night Out and Good Morning Riverside.
The Communications Director will draft a script with the objectives, highlights, members, and meeting schedule, and have it available for members for two-minute presentations throughout the community.
The Committee discussed the importance of interviews with elected officials and key City staff occurring early in the review process.
Following discussion, motion was made by Member Garcia and seconded by Member McQuern to (1) hold a public forum on October 23, 2003, at the La Sierra High School Performing Arts Center, if available; (2) advertise the forum in the Press-Enterprise and invite Charter Communications to televise the public forum free of charge In order to gain maximum awareness of the Charter review process; and (3) conceptually approve the Promotional Campaign/Timeline presented by Communications Officer Cooley. Motion carried unanimously.
PRIORITIZATION OF KEY ISSUES
Member Castillo reviewed his prioritization of Charter review issues. City Attorney Priamos discussed the July 14, 2003, City of Long Beach court decision regarding prevailing wages and noted that the decision will not affect the work of this Committee.
Chair Haley noted that other issues will be added to the list of priorities as the Committee's work continues. One Member felt the Committee should consider adding open meeting provisions as the reimbursement for State mandates under the Brown Act have been suspended which affects the City's obligation to comply with the Act. He also favors videotaping of closed sessions reviewed by a Master Judge quarterly.
Members offered differing options for procedure including (1) defining a vision of what the Charter should be; (2) focus on only the areas that require review; (3) full review that will result in four or five major impact items; (4) line-by-line review setting aside issues that all agree require no amendment; (5) review the priorities given to the Committee grouping them together and creating a vision through that dialog; (6) interview major stakeholders; and (7) form working groups to review and make presentations to the full Committee.
Following discussion, motion was made by Vice-Chair Johnson and seconded by Member Higgins that each member review the Charter, identify issues of concern, and be prepared at the August 28, 2003, meeting to discuss the Charter line-by-line as a group. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held relative to meetings/interviews with the City Manager, Mayor, and Councilmembers and three proposals were presented and a tally taken in support of each.
1. 30-minute interviews per person, two per night - 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (7 ayes);
2. Review the Charter before receiving input from the City Manager, Mayor, and Councilmembers (2 ayes); and
3. Three interviews per meeting with each given 30 minutes (5 ayes).
CRC-4
000043
Two interviews shall be conducted per evening beginning at the meeting of September 11, 2003.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no oral comments presented at this time.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1. Marketing plan approved.
2. Charter review and Interview process confirmed.
3. First community forum scheduled for October 23, 2003, at La Sierra High School Performing Arts Center, if available.
TODO
1. Members to forward short biographical sketch to Communications Officer.
2. Members to review Charter in preparation for next meeting's discussion.
3. Communications Officer to proceed with marketing campaign.
Respectfully submitted,
eputyCity Clerk
CRC-5
000044
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
INDEX
Exhibit A Charter Review Committee meeting schedule and roster Exhibit B City Council Minutes Creating Charter Review Committee Exhibit C "Are City Councils a Relic of the Past?" article from Western Cities foiwarded by Mayor Loveridge
Exhibit D Comments from Committee Member McQuem re priorities Exhibit E City Council report from 1995 Charter Amendments Exhibit F Charter History Brief
Exhibit G Charter amendment issues summary
Exhibit H Minutes from meeting of 8-05-03
cnicol\charterexhlbits.081403
000045
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
August 2003 through July 2004 E><hlblt A
DATE TIME LOCATION
Purple Conf. Rm., P.U. Cus-
August14,2003 5:00-6:30 p.m. tomer Service, 3460 Oranoe St.
Auaust28,2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room
September 11, 2003 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room Seotember 25. 2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room October 9, 2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
October 23, 2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room November 13, 2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room November 27, 2003 NO MEETING THANKSGIVING DAY
December 11, 2003 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room December 25, 2003 NO MEETING CHRISTMAS DAY
January 8, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
January 22, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room Februarv 12, 2004 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room February 26, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room March 11, 2004 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
March 25, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
April 8, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
Aoril 22, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
May 13, 2004 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
May 27, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room
June 10, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room
June 24, 2004 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
July 8, 2004 5:00-6:30 p.m. Mayor's Ceremonial Room
Julv 22, 2004 5:00-6:30 o.m. Mavor's Ceremonial Room
n•\rJlc\m1u1t•l'll\~h:11rtAr RA\/ll'IW r".nmmlttAA MAAffnn ~"'"' tinr. 000046 Damon Castillo
Eric Haley
Chairman
Marcia McQuern
1 Mar'orie von Pohle
City of :Rjversiae
Charter ~vieu1 Committee
Ju{y, 2003
1 4
3 1
1 5
2 3
1 4
4 5
2 6
7 7
909-826-6677
909-787-7141
909-369-1376
909-342-0260 (home)
909-682-6581 bus
909-781-2979 (home)
909-683-2023 bus
909-687-0831
909-786-9123
909-779-6243
909-496-3840
909-217-4870
City Clerk's Office
909-826-5557
909-781-0811
909-359-5735 home
909-682-9192 (home)
909-784-1342 bus
909-687-8128
(bus)
909-351-8409
Fax: 909-637-9225
909-689-0962
000047
City Officials and Staff
Colleen J. Nicol City Clerk 909-826-5818
[email protected]
Gregory P. Priamos City Attorney 909-826-5567
[email protected]. us
George Caravalho City Manager 909-826-5553
[email protected]
Penny Culbreth-Graft Assistant City Manager 909-826-5552 para ft O Ci.riverside.ca.us
Sharon Cooley Communications Officer 909-826-5997
[email protected]
Jan Lowry Deputy City Clerk 909-826-5557
[email protected]
Tricia Ruiz Legal Assistant 909-826-5240
[email protected]
000048
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY COUNCIL
Exhibit 8
May 6, 2003
the Mayor's Commission on Aging From Eleven to Nine;
An Ordinance of the City of Riverside, California, Amending Section
2.64.020 of the Riverside Municipal Code to Provide That Members of the Mayor's Commission on Aging Shall Be at Least Fifty-Five Years of Age; and
An Ordinance of the City of Riverside, California, Amending Section
2.36.030 of the Riverside Municipal Code Regarding the Personnel Board;
were presented and introduced.
USE OF FORCE PANEL ACTIVITY REPORT
WARDS
Motion
Second
All Ayes
Following discussion, the City Council received and ordered filed the Mayor's Motion .Jse of Force Panel activity report. Second
All Ayes
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STIPULATED JUDGMENT -
STATUS REPORT
Following discussion, the City Council received and ordered California Attorney General's Stipulated Judgment status report. filed the Motion
Second
All Ayes
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Following discussion, motion was made and seconded that the City Council concur with the recommendations of the Governmental Affairs Committee that ( 1) a 17 -member Charter Review Committee shall be formed with each Councilmember appointing two members with at least one representative from their respective Ward and the other from within the Ward or from the City at-large, and with the Mayor appointing three members; (2) the Charter Review Committee Chair shall be selected by a majority of its members; (3) Charter Review Committee members shall be qualified electors of the City; (4) the Committee shall conduct a full review of the Charter; (5) all proposed changes in the current Charter shall be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Charter Review Committee; (6) five affirmative votes of the City Council shall be required to amend the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee; (7) by simple majority of the City Council, the Charter amendments proposed shall be placed on the ballot; and (8) approve the attached charge and scope of work consistent with the City Charter and Motion Governmental Affairs Committee discussion. Second
Following further discussion, a substitute motion was made and seconded to table this item until December 2003 when the new City Council is Motion seated. Second
88-389
COUNCILMEMBERS
8 M D s A H p
E 0 E C D A E
A 0 F H K R A
T R E I I T R
y E N A s s
B V 0 0
A 0 N N
u N
G E
H
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
000049
May 6, 2003
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY COUNCIL
Following further discussion, a second substitute motion was made and seconded that the Mayor appoint the Charter Review Committee Chair.
Following further discussion, the second substitute motion failed for lack of a majority vote.
Following further discussion, the first substitute motion failed for lack of a majority vote.
Following further discussion, the original motion carried by a majority vote.
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
The City Manager had nothing further to report on the League of California Cities.
'9\
JTATUS REPORT ON REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Councilman Moore reported on recent activities of the Riverside County Community Action Commission and Riverside Transit Agency. Mayor Loveridge reported on recent activities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG).
SALE OF .24-ACRE PARCEL - CENTRAL AND STREETER - REFERRED
TO COMMITTEE IN PART
Following discussion regarding the request of Councilmember Adkison to schedule a public hearing to consider granting BIii Allen, the former property owner, the opportunity at first right-of-refusal to purchase the .24-acre parcel located along Central Avenue between Streeter Avenue and Capistrano Way from the City of Riverside at fair market value, the City Council (1) denied the request to schedule a public hearing; (2) requested the City Manager to direct the Real Property Services Division of the Administrative Services Department to continue negotiations with the development team for the parcel; (3) directed the City Attorney's Office return to the City Council within two weeks with the appropriate resolution waiving Administrative Manual provisions; and (4) referred discussion and policy development related to the City's purchase of land, Including those that could Involve eminent domain, to the City Council Finance Committee.
HOMELESS AND COLD WEATHER SHELTERS - 3315 PARK/
2530 THIRD/2501 FAIRMOUNT
allowing discussion, the City Council (1) approved the 2002-2003 Agreements for the use of Emergency Shelter Grant funding with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services for operation and maintenance of homeless and cold weather shelters located at 3315 Park Avenue, 2530 Third Street, and 2501 Falnnount Boulevard; and 88-390
WARDS
Motion
Second
Ayes
Noes
Ayes
Noes
Ayes
Noes
Motion
Second
All Ayes
COUNCILMEMBERS
B M 0 s A H p
E 0 E C 0 A E
A 0 F H K R A
T R E I I T R
y E N A s s
8 V 0 0
A 0 N N
u N
G E
H
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
X
X
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
000050
One of America's oldest political
institutions isn't adapting very well
to 21st-century urban life.
BY ROB GURWITT
ou notice two things
right off about the
19th Ward in St. Louis.
The first is that pretty
much everywhere there's
construction, there's also a
large sign reading, "Assis
tance for the project provided
by Michael McMillan, Alder
man." The second is just how lim
ited Aldennan McMillan's domain
happens to be. Walk a few minutes in
any direction, and you're out ofhi.~
years, and in that time has made it clear
that his ambitions for his ward-and by
extension, himself-are high. "I don't have
other obligations,'' he says. 'Tm not mar
ried, I have no kids, I have no other job.
It's one of my competitive edges."
Cross the ward boundary, and you find
out what "competitive edge" means in St.
Louis politics. North of the 19th, and for
some distance to the east, stretch a series of
neglected, depopulated neighborhoods that
do not in any way suggest urban revival.
This is, in part, a consequence of private
ward. You don't
sec the signs any
more. You also
COVER STORY
market decisions: These
neighborhoods don't
have much clout within
don't see as much construction.
Within the friendly confines of
the 19th, St. Louis looks like a city busily
reviving. There are new high schools being
built, scattered apartments and loft projects
underway, efforcs to rejuvenate the historic
arts and entertainment district, and a
HOPE VI retrofit of an enormous public
housing facility. While all this activity has
some powerful people behind it, just one
person has had a hand in all of it, and that
is McMillan himself. Only 31, he has been
on the St. Louis Board of Aldermen for six
20 G O V E R N I N G April 2003
the corporate suites where such decisions
are made. But equally important, they don't
have much clout in local government,
either-at lease not when it comes to large
scale development projects.
'That's because in St. Louis, each of the
28 ward aldermen is the gatekeeper of
development in his or her little slice of the
city. If they're shrewd and well connected,
like Michael McMillan, the ward does
fine. If they're inattentive, or maladroit at
cutting deals, or on the outs with local
developers, or just plain picky, which is
Exhibit C
the case in more than a few wards, hardly
anything gets done. ''You don't see a Mike
McMillan coming out of some of these
devastated wards," says one City Hall
insider. "They have a voice, but if it's
weak, what do they really get?"
To be sure, even the weak aldennen in
St. Louis have their uses. They get potholes
filled and streetlights fixed, offer advice on
how to handle code violations or deal with
housing court, and see that garbage gets
picked up in alleyways where contractors
dump it illegally. This hands-on attention is
hardly a bad thing. In the words of Jim
Shrewsbury, who as president of the Board
of Aldermen runs at large and is its 29th
member, the city's deeply entrenched
system of political micro-management
"protects neighborhoods and gives
people a sense of influence." As mem
bers of a democratic institution, that's
what city councilmen are supposed to
do. But when that's about all many of
them do, in a city chat is struggling to
emerge from years of economic debility,
even Shrewsbury agrees that something is
wrong. The system, he says, "creates a
sense of parochialism and feudalism. We
become the Balkans."
FEUDING AND HOT AJR
The concept of balkanization could be
applied these days to councils and boards
of aldem1en in many of America's biggest
cities-perhaps most of them. Look
around the country and you can quickly
compile a dossier of dysfunction.
Sometimes it is a case of pur
suing tangents, as the
Baltimore City Council
likes to do. In a
recent commentary
about what it
called "the hoc-air
council," the Bal
timore Sun sug
gested that fre
quent resolutions
on foreign affairs,
hearings on the
differences between
telephone exchanges,
and debate about _ .,. ..
counteracting "the '"'-"·
negative images ofI3altimore, as portrayed
in 'real-crime' fiction, TV dramas and
movies" suggested chat the members didn't ,.,
have enough real work to do. §
Other councils become so embroiled in ~
internal maneuvering chat they lose their ~
Governing .com
relevance. In Philadelphia, where a former
mayor once referred to the city council as
"the worst legislative body in the free
world," there was a brief period o( council
influence in the mid-l 990s, when John
Street was council president and worked
closely with Mayor Ed Rendell. Now,
however, Street is mayor and finds himself
in regular tangles with various council
factions. "It's like an opera where
everybody has a different libretto,"
says Mark Alan Hughes, an urban
affairs professor at the University of
Pennsylvania and columnist for
the Philadelphia Daily News.
"The melodrama is clear, it's
just the meaning chat's com
pletely obscure."
There are councils where bick-
ering and infighting are so intense
that the entire bcxly acquires an image of
irresponsible flakiness. In Detroit recently,
one member charged that supporters of
the city's mayor had sabotaged the elec
tric massager in her desk chair co give
her a jolt when she used it. Noc sur
prisingly, the public's response was
disdainful-what most people saw
was a group of elected officials
engaged in sabocaging its own
reputation.
There are places where,
if you want to find the
future of the city
being pondered, the
council chamber is
the lase place you'd
look. "What you
have," says a close
watcher of civic
affairs in Piruburgh,
"is a group of people
who primarily deal with
very mundane, house•
keeping things in their dis
tricts. That's what they do,
it's what they're interested
in, and it's the way they sec
their power." The real power
lies in the mayor's office and
with the city's still-strong civic
and corporate leadership.
Finally, chere are councils whose
problem has not been an a~ence
of energy but a hyperactive com•
pulsion to argue over everyday
management decisions and prevent
important decisions from being made. In
Hartford, Connecticut, the city charter for
years gave most of the political power to
April 2003 G O V E R N I N G 21
I
I . : I :
I 1 1
. ,· '; ' I
! ' i
;
I
the council, but the council haJ a long hi.s
tory of intervening in the Jay-to-day
administration of city services anJ tying
itself up in petty squabbles corrmive to the
morale of residents, as well as ciry employ
ees. In the l 990s, the council essentially
t0rpedoeJ the program of Mayor Mike
Peters, who appeared co have broad voter
support for his economic reform and
revival ideas. Small surprise chat when they
were finally given a straightforward chance
last November to change things, the city's
voters opted to create a new form of gov
ernment chat strengthened che mayor at
the council's expense.
None of this is co say that councils in
large cities never tackle important issues
or play a key role in crafting policy. Coun
cil members in Los Angeles, for instance,
have a great deal to say about basic infra
structure issues, in their districts and
across the ciry. And for all its infighting,
the PhilaJclphia City Council did help co
re-shape Street's ambitious urban renewal
program, the Neighborhood Transforma
tion Initiative, to be more responsive co
neighborhood concerns.
But in all too many large cities these
days, the power of councils is, at most, the
power to stop things. The wellsprings of
citywide innovation and progress lie else
where. le is celling that until th.is past year,
neither of the two major national organi
zations speaking for cities addressed the
specific concerns of big-cicy councils. The
National League of Cities is dominated by
small-and medium-sized jurisdictions; the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, which focuses
on larger cities, doesn't address council
members at all. "We're literally locked out
of the one national group that deals with
big cities," observes Nick Licata, a Seattle
council member.
Licata, who was struck by the dearth of
representation from places like his when
he first attended a League of Cities meet
ing, has put together a new "Central
Cities Council" at che League, for council
members in the 100 or so largest cities co
share infonnacion and strategics on com
mon issues. "We're nae communicating
on a regular basis, we're not exchanging
information on local programs we can
learn from, and on the national level,
when we should be lobbying, we don't
have our act together," he says. "This
should help us link up."
Still, the sense of floundering one often
gets watching big-city councils isn't really
a surprise. Over the years, as mayors have
22 G 0 V E R N I N G April 2003
moved co get a handle on crime, eco
nomic development and even school
management, and as semi-private institu•
tions-redcve\opment authorities, sta•
dium authorities, transit authorities, con
vention center authorities, tax increment
finance districts-have proliferated, the
role of councils in the most critical issues
of urban governance has atrophied. Indi
vidual council members, the Michael
McMillans of the country, may still have a
share of power and influence, but the bod
ies on which many of them serve have lost
their identity. "I think city councils have
been neutered in most cases," says Oen•
nis Judd, an urban affairs specialist at the
Universiry of lllinois-Chicago. "They are
engaging in the most trivial aspects of
urban government, rather than the most
important aspects."
Under these circumstances, it is hard
nor to wonder whether city councils are
becoming relics of the political past, poorly
adapted to making the decisions of 21 sr
cencury urban life. In all too many cases,
they seem in danger of becoming the
dinosaurs of American local govemmcnr.
OUT OF THE LOOP
There was a moment not long ago when
che Sc. Louis Board of Aldermen managed
co command national attention, but it's
one local politicians would rather forger.
In the midst of a tense and racially charged
ward redistricting debate in 2001, Alder
man Irene Smith was conducting a fili-
St. Louis Alderman Michael McMIiian
knows how to work the system. Many of his
colleagues don't.
buster when she asked whether she could
go to the bathroom. Told by Board Presi
dent Shrewsbury dm the rules required her
to yield the floor to do so, she summoned
her supporters, who brought in a crash can
and surrounded her with improvised drapes
while she appeared to urinate into the can.
"I was mortified," says a St. Louis politician
who happened to be watching on cable
television at dle time. "[f you've been in the
alderTJ1anic chambers, they call to mind a
time when the city was a powerful city, a
grand place. To think of her staging that
in there! The stock of the entire board of
aldermen went down." Smith w3s later
indicted on charges of public indecency but
was acquitted in January on the reasoning
that no one could know for sure whether
sht: was actually urinating or simply pre
tending to do so.
To chose who spend their time in Ciry
Hall, the incident was puzzling, because
Smith, a lawyer and former judge, is gen
erally seen as one of the more careful and
thoughtful members of the board. "She's
bright, she knows how co read the law, she
asks cough questions in committee hear
ings," says one aldermanic insider. But to
many in the ciry at large, there was little
question about how to interpret her out
burst: Not even its own members accord
the board much respect any longer.
Governing.com
The fact is, for all the opfXirtunitics that
ambitious aldermen have to promote devel
opment within their own neighborhoods,
it's been a while ince the board has played
a significam role in shaping matters of vital
interest to St. Louis as a whole. One of the
biggest issues on the plate of Mayor Francis
Slay-himse lf a fom1er board president-is
a new stadium for the St. Louis Cardinals
baseball team, and while pieces of the com
plex deal he has put together will require
aldermanic approval, the board itself has
had very little role in constructing it.
"When I was in City Hall," says a for,
mer aide to one of Slay's recent predeces
sors, "l only wem to the board if I
absolutely had to. The truth is, l never felt
the need to involve people there on the
fronr end in order to gee something passed
on the back end. In the I 970s or '80s, if a
mayor had a stadium project, he'd have
had to line up five or six people on the
board before he even went public \vith it.''
Because chat didn't happen in the current
situation, the aide argues, this stadium
deal is just a stadium deal-it is nor part of
any broader city commitment to, say,
refurbishing public spores facilities or com
munity centers in the neighborhoods.
TI1ere arc any number of theories about
what has led the board of aldermen co iLS
diminlshea cirywide import, and many of
them focus on its ize. The 28 wards were
created in L9L4, when St. Louis had
680,000 people. They remained in place
when the city reached its peak of 850,000
in 1950. And they're still there, half a cen•
tury lacer, when it's down to 340,000. This
means that each aldertnan represents
about 12,500 people. Chicago's 50-mem
ber city council, wh1eh is one of the largest
in chc count!)', would have to grow to 200
members ifits wards were rhe same size as
those in St. Louis.
If all you expect of an alderman is close
attention to garbage pickup and suecc
repairs, of course, small wards are just fine.
Bue they have a cost, as well. For one
thing, they form a low barrier to political
entry. ln some wards, a politician needs as
few as 800 votes to get elected. When the
city wa~ larger, says former Mayor Freeman
Bosley Jr .. "you had to be a real leader to
get on the ooard, someone who could pur
rogethcr thousands and thousands of
votes. That plays inro your ability co ... put
people together and pull them in a direc
tion. So as the years have gtine by, the
number of go-co people has diminished."
To be sure, it' possible to overstate the
---·- ·- .
case. "Just because we were once a cicy of
800,000 people doesn't mean we had rocket
scientists serving on the board of aldermen,"
notes Jim Shrewsbury. "I don't chink some,
one makes a decision berween running a
corporation and being an alderman." But
it's equally true that city councils are, in
essence, a political proving ground-former
U.S. House Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt, for instance, got his start on the
Sr. Louis Board of Aldcnnen. The less skill
and vision they demand of their members,
the poorer a city's civic life is likely to be.
"I( you can make the council a place
where young people who are interested in
public policy think they ought ro be, then
it serves as a farm system to create people
who understand how local governmeru
works and who have sympathy for it," says
Mike Jones, a former alderman who now
runs the regional Empowerment Zone.
"Because the real question is, Where do
you get local leadership from/ On a city
council where you've got to work hard to
get elected, it takes good political instinm
and hones them into political and policy
making skills.~
IRONCLAD PRIVILEGE
Over time, the small si~c of the con
stituencies and the rules of the institution
itself have combined to make the lure of
parochialism more and more irresistible.
In rhe 1950s, following pa.ssage of the fed
eral Urban Renewal Act of 1949, alder
men in Sc. Louis suddenly found them
selves with real power in their
neighborhoods as the arbiters of develop-
. . · ... - · - - - -
ment. That law, says Lana Stein, a Uni
versity of Missouri-St. Louis historian,
''brought a huge pot of money, and the
aldermen had to pass bills authorizing
urban renewal projects and highway proj
ects. They were courted by Civic Progress
(the: group of corporate movers and shak
ers at the time) and by the mayor. Even
though there were working-class people
and saloon keepers elected to the board,
they became a much bigger deal because
of what they were voting on."
But if the urban renewal money brought
the board instant influence, It also led inex
orably to parochialism. As requests grew for
new housing or redevelopment in the
wards, they ran into the ironclad principle
of aldermanic privilege-the notion that
no member of the board would interfere in
matters affecting another member's ward.
Fifty years later, developers still need help
from the city, and that usually means a vote
from the aldermen, supporting a "blighting"
provision or providing a ra.x abatement or
creating a tax-increment financing district.
If you happen to live in a ward with an
active, responsive alderman who knows
how to put together development deals,
you're fortunate. But there's scarcely any,
one left on the board looking at what makes
sense for the city as a whole. Aldermen
rarely feel any right or responsibility to look
closely at deals being made in others' wards.
When a group of downtown residents
recently challenged plans backed by their
alderman co demolish a hL5toric, marble
fronted building to make way for a parking
garage, the board deferred to the alder-
h
'.i I
man's wishes hy e,scnrially ignoring
tho.' rrnce~c. The dcnwlick,n phn s
were backed by chc m:1yl1r and hy his
allies, and the devdope rs insistc>d
chat th,· gar,1ge wa, viral en their
plans, even though there are under
used garages within a block's walk.
·n1e local re~idems, part nf a small
bur growing group of loft dwellers
who form nnc of che few tangible
signs of hope for Sr. Louis' dnwncown,
anended dw n11c aldem1anic hearing
m the matter and found no one ro
ralk to. "Ir was a force," says Margie
Newman, one< ,f rheir b1ders. "T11ere
was nu opportunit? to make our case.
Liternlly, there was an aldem1a11 with
the SunJ:1y cvmics held up in front
, ,f his face, and of the six on the com
mittee, three were wandering in and
out. Remember, chis was at our one
opportunity ro bring our case."
lmlceJ, confirms Mace Villa, a y(1ung
. 1ldcrman wh,) represenr the cicy's far
southeast, there is little incentive on che
b<.1ard to pay ,menrion t,) whar ochers c1re
Joing when you don't have ro. ''In vur
neighborhood." he says, "thert''s a neigh
borhood aSS<.1ciation and a housing corpo
racion, and we sit down co pl;m the next
five years and m:ver take inro con$idera
tion what ocher wards are Joing. Id n't
even k11ow how a c1rywide plan would he
<!mhraced by 28 aldermen."
And because the hoard itself doesn't
ha\'e an independent capacity co lo11k
carefully at mea,ures chat come hcfnre it
it has vt:ry few staff members, and tho ·e
wh,1 wane help, such as Michael McMil
lan, raise funds on the side to pay for an
a ·si rnnr-it vfren approves important
decisions wich s;;arcely any scrutiny ar all.
"We give r,ay raises and pension rnise :ind
things like that,'' Villa says, "witl1L111t really
knowing rhe fiscal impact. The alderman
who's sponsored it explains, we pass it, and
vear· later ir tum: out it wa·m't a $5 million
impm:t, it was :l $50 million imp.i.:t."
CHARTER CHANGES
If chcrl''s anyone unhappy with chi~ state
,1f affairs, ir', Jim Shrcw~hur,, whn as prc~i
,lem would like the board co hecome more
independent and active. "The tnnh i.:,, m,m
legislatio11 and ideas originate wiLh the
:1dministration," he says. "The vast major
ity of hills are adminiscratk1n-sponsorcJ
hills; they h.ivc the resources and the inter
est and the concencrarion. Sometimes, I
wish we were more careful and wnuld scru-
24 G O V E R N I N G April Z003
Bodies Large and Small
Size of selected city counclls
• 5t0~·,.,,~·.•: •: "157,;ot)(f ··
t.1ijm;fi1,-.1:,,. : . •. . .. 9 ., . - · 12 ooo. :
-: . ~ M11wau1<l · 11 3s:oo·o
Richmond· 9 22,000 ·
• Two dlstncts hove three members each, 1he
others each have one, tor a total ol 13 members
Cily/county supervisors
Source: Govemlng re1eorch
tinizc chem more c;.uefully. And l \~ish there
were more innovation, that more legislation
originated here." But he is also quick tu
point out chat in the calculus of the 28
politicians who serve alongside him, chat
may he more of a risk than rhey want co
cake."[ know rhat on Elec.tion Day, the one
rhousand people who hare me will be
there," he explains. "I don't know how
many of rhe chousand, who like me will be.
I'm prepared to lose my office for something
chat was in Pru/1/es in Courage. lfit's not, you
smrt w wonder whether it's worth getting
involvi::d."
Yet it's possibk chac change will come
w the Sc. Louis Board of Aldermen any
way. Although St. Louis is technically a
"strong mayor" city, rhc: polilical reality is
chat the m,1yor i.-; constitutionally among
the weakest in the country for a city chis
size. Power ha robe shuecl with a half
dozen other elected officials; the state
controls rhe police through n board on
which the mayor has only his own seat ;
budget decisions and city rnnmicts have
to be approved by rwo of the three mem
bers of the Board of Estimate and Appor
cionmcnr, which is ma<lc up of tht> mayor,
compcroller and aldermanic prcsidenc.
"St. Louis is probably the nation's best
case of an 1mrcformi;d government," says
the University of Illinois' Dennis Judd,
referring co the nativnwide rnovemenr
early in che last centu ry w give mayors
enhanced authority. "Ir's as if it never was
touched hy the reformers.''
Like thc board's awkward siie, all of thb
is a re:;ulc uf the 1914 ciry charter, which
is still in effect. But last November, voters
:tatcwide approved a home-rule
pro ision for St. Louis that will
allow it rn take up charter change.
Although most of the ,ment ion is
likely to go co placing more power in
the hands of the mayor, there is
plency of senciment among civic
leaders for shrinking the size of the
board of aldermen.
This is happening in other big
cities with similar problems. Con
traction is on the docket in Milwau
kee, where some aldermen them
selves have proposed shrinking the
Common Council from 17 m 15
members, and in Baltimore, where
voters last Novemher approved
trimming the city council from 19 to
Ii Baltimore's initiative, backed by
a coalition of labor unions and com
munity organizations, was opposed
by mosr of the cicy's elected leadership, but
it passed overwhelmingly .
It's undear how much impact tinkering
with council size will really have, in Sc.
Louis or anywhere else. Bue it's clear that
some fundamencal changes will have to
cake place for city councils such as these
to maintain any real relevance at all in
cuming years.
By any standard, there is still important
work for these bodies co do. Cities need
robust political institutions, and by all rights,
city councils oughc to be among chem
they are, after all, the one institution
designed m serve as the collective voice of
residencs and communities, whether their
members are elected in districts or at large.
Bur when little is expected of mem, because
a city's most imporram decisions are made
elsewhere, it's no surprise that over time the
ambitions of their members shrink to cake
in smaller and smaller parches of turf.
There are undeniable benefits to chis.
Two decades ago, voters in St. Louis over
whelmingly turned down an initiative to
cut the number of wards. They felt, says
Shrewsbury, "chat governmenr had gocren
so complicare,f :-ind hig, rhe only way their
voice coulJ be heard was having an alder
man who paid close attention." le may be
rhac all mosr people really want from their
city council is rhe kind of personal stroking
thac is often hard to come by elsewhere in
a big dry. 13uc it's also hard co escape the
feeling rhac, as Judd puts ic, "when citizens
are consulted these days, it's ahouc things
chat are less and less consequential. What
we're seeing is the slow strangulation of
kx:111 democracy." 0
Governing .com
- ---·-·---- -----
IN THE END, LARRY BROWN HAD
little d1oice but to resign as city manager of
Kansas City, Missouri. By late June, when
he finally agreed to give up his office atop
the city's oddly graceful, Depression-era
skyscraper of a city hall, Brown was a man
beset, openly mistrusted by the council
and sniped at by employees. His imminent
departure was a universal assumption
within local political circles.
There are those in Kansas City who, in
hindsight, trace Brown's downfall to his
1004 arrest for drunken driving, which they
contend cost him the respect of city staff
Others point to his decisions last year lo give
his top aides large pay rn.ises and to send
them to California's Napa Valley for tax
payer-supported training sessions-step s
that turned into public-relations nightmares.
By April, when a city council majority lam
hasle~· his proposed budget and yanked
funding from his efforts to transform city
government. it w.is just a matter of time.
But the truth is that the seeds ofBrown's
departure were S0\\11 at the beginning, at
the very moment be was hired. Never
short on ambition, Brown wanted nothing
less than to assert the authority of the city
manager tu run Kansas City government as
h saw fit Instead, encounte1ing more and
more reistm1ce the hanlcr he tried, Brown
h.:amcd a p.iinful and expensive lesson:
obody runs Kansas City. Anti a complex
am1y of political forces is organized to keep
ii that \\111/.
Powe/rest.~ evcrywhen:l within the
community-i n the corporate
boardrooms, with neighlxirhood
developers and community
organi7..ltinns, within city agen
cies, on appointed boards, with
the city mun cil, in the h1u1ds of the
mayor and in the office of the city
1mu1ager. l!uilcling c.·onscnsus on any
issue is a time-consuming, frusb.iting ,
pruct:.Ss, and it is made harcler by a
structure that deliberately impedes
tJ1e dc.u·-eyed e.,ertion of political
\\~II. Yet, a.~ Brown discovered,
so many people have a
vested interest in the status
20 6 0 Y l I I I N , September 1997
POLITICS
When
everyone
seems to be
running a city,
there's a
good chance
it isn't being
run at all.
CIJII OB GU RWITT
quo that-for a city manager, at least-lty
ing to change this ~'tate of affairs may be
impossible.
This is a schiwphrenic moment in the
political history of America's big cities. For
many of them, even some that were once
branded ungovernable, the 1990s have
brought a restoration of managerial com
petence, symbolized by. ew York's atruck
on crime, Cleveland's downtown revivo.l,
Chicago's school refonn crusade and
Philadelphia's return from the brink of
bankruptcy.
All of the surging cities of this decade
have had leaders with the ability to articu
late and then enfurce their priorities. These
may be, as in New York, Chicago and
Philadelphia, strong mayors in both Lhe
structuml and political sense. Or tl,ey may
be, as in Phoenix, a dynamic and widely
admired city manager .working with an
elected counctl. But, in every case, there is
a palp.'lble sense that someone is in ch.urge,
setting an agenda about whal is needed to
make them attractive places lo live and
work.
Meanwhile, however, another set of
cities, symbolized Ly Kansas City,
Cincinnati, Miami and Dallas, among
others, is stuck at the opposite end of the
scale-mired in bickering, divided
responsibility and long-standing political
confusion. Nobody is in charge in these
places. And it seems to take forever for
anything to get done.
For the most part. these cities never
fell quite as far as the PhilarlelphilL~
and Clevela11ds uf America. A~ a
. result, they have not been
forced to look as hanl at remak
ing local government But, in tlie
end, they will have no alternative. fn
the coming years, th1~ struggle for urb.ui
viability will be hard enough, even
under the best of circumstances. The
fragmented cities will he at 11 pmfouncl
disadv-JJ1blge.
And they may Snally he realiz
ing it. [:n Kansas City, in the
wake of Bruw11's resignation,
popular but constitutionally
/I'll, l.,wrl, il/u,,r,11i••
000056
w~uc Mayor Ellla11ud Clcawr has lie1-,'1111
talkin!,! about the 11ccd to givt: more
a11th01ity to his successors. In Cim:innati,
there have hee11 nine attempts during the
past clt!cadc to ~ive the mayor more con
trol, anti another-with the quiet hacking
of the: cu1Ttml mayor, Roxane Qu.ills, am!
thL: city's hu~incss leaclcrship--i s in the
\\orks. Dallas, shucked l,y a <leca<le of
p11litical incivility following genemtions of
dose-knit cooperation, is openly debating
\\'here it went wrong, and what sort of
go,·ern1nental structure: it might need to
set thin~s right. The fun.:t!s backing t'hangc
in all of thcst' cities see111 to agrt'e that,
although thtm: may he no one fonnula for
.rnm:ess in urban government, there is ll
n•dpe for failure, and it is lhe .ihst'nt't! of
lradcrship.
A
t first glanct), it might seem odd to
inclut!c Kansas City anywhere near
the top of the list oftmublcd Ameri
can cities. The regional economy is doi11g
just fine, with unemploymtmt in the met
ropolitan area below 4 percent. The city
itself has seen new employers-Gatewa y
:WOO and Harley-Davidson ·unong
then1-se t 11p pl:111ts in to\1~1. Acc11rding to
U.S. Census Bureau estimates, K.insas
City actually has grown in population
since l!:l90-although pretty 11111ch ull of
that )..'ruwth has been in !ht long-annexed
niral and sulm1h-likti n•a<'htis no11li of the
'.\li.s,rn11i River.
~favor Clca,·cr h,L~ e1nllilrked on a n!vi
t:ilization effort that i11dudt's nealing a
jazz hall of fame and il Negro Lt•agucs
baseball museum . Sl:!vernl of the city's
leading husi11esm1en :ire hoping to launch
a hu)!;e hotel and entertainment complex
on a dormant parcel of downtown land.
And a committee thut draws from both
sides of the \I is~ouri-Kansas state line is
overseein~ the resurrection of f..':ansas
City's famous beaux ,uts Union Station as
a hands-on science center.
Still, beneath the glowing pre.,s rdeascs,
there is tmuhle. KmJS,LS City faces the saml:!
clisquietinp; trends as other depressed cen
tral cities. "Projections show an increase
Frrd /1/or!rrlK•nu, C:uy Sc.r pJt,,,o,oaplt
I
' ,
, (f • .,
-~-· ...
Before the f.ill: Larry Brown a:-. t:ily 111.111.ii;cr III Kans,1s Cily in the number ot'johs in the core, but ,l~ a
share of the region's juLs, Kans:L~ City's -.vi.l.l
c:ilht::r no! incrt'ase <ll' will dedinc," savs
Da~id Warm, oftJ1e Mid-America regio1;al
council. .. Most of tJ1e jobs, wealth and pce>
ple are locating at the edgt>s of the region.
o there is the same dear and continuing
pattem of decline in the center, disinvest
ment in the inner-tier suhurbs and rapid
growth on the edge~ that you see else
where." In the competition with its suh
urlis, in other words, Kans,LS City is, at the
moment, losing.
On the day he announced Lany
Brown's resignation, Emanuel Cleaver
made it clear th11t there is another compe
tition that weighs on him as well. Pressed
by reporters about what he thought of' a
governmental structure that, in essence,
makes him merely the most prominent
member of the city council, Cleaver could
not hold hack his fn1str.1tion. MK.ms.is City
is now a big-league city," he said, "aud
when the mayorofthe city sitsaround \\~th
the president and CEO of a major corpo
ration hying to get them to relocate here,
the mayor is al a disadvantage, because
other mayors can cut the deal at the table.
September 1997 6 B V I I M I N ~OO~OS?
.,.'!: . . : , ~
'
Cincinnati Mayor Roxane Qualls: Will the city put some authority in her job? We are at a disadvantage in many instances
when we are out competing."
The fact is, running Kansas City is
mostly a matter of indirection. Mayors and
city managers have to deal not only with a
set of department heads who historically
have had great room to pursue their own
pliorities, but also with circumstances that
couldn't be better designed to water down
their authority. The police are funded by
the city but controlled by a state board.
Libraries are under a separ.tte board. Eco
nomic development, which is much of
what Cleaver has been about in recent
years, is under the control of the Eco
nomic Development Corp., which has
become a sort of independent deal-maker
for the city. The schools have been
answerable to a federal court for 20 years,
foster care seivices are in court hands as
well, and the housing authority is in
receivership. No one who wants to get
things clone in Kansas City, in other
words, can do it directly.
As you might expect, many Kansas
Citians have grown to like this stale of
affairs-it leaves each player within city
government, along with those who try to
affect it, with a fair degree of autonomy. It
also means, though, that when tl1eir agen
das differ, the city looks rudderless.
'''v\lhen communities have weU-organized
voices or a broad community ethic that's
widely shared," says the head of one orga
nization in Kansas City, "when there's a
strong leader with clear ideas and direc
tions, when there are weU-organized plans
and u well-organized and directed civic
leadership that pursues those plans, that's
when you get a healthy politics of ideas.
Kansas City is not there at the moment. ...
The city is up for grabs."
In the year or so leading up to Brown's
forced resignation, there were at least
three distinct sets of priorities being laid
out in city hall. Cleaver's had to do with
bringing in new economic development,
redeveloping Kansas City's historically
black neighborhoods and tackling the
issue of race relations head-on. The city
council was focusing on hnw to p.i)' for lilt'
city's infrastructure ne~ls im<l shoring 11p
basic seivices to residents. With all this
going on, Brown was maneuvering to
redesign the entire process by which
Kimsus City government worked. In retro.
spec!, tl1ere was no way he could have suc
ceeded.
In his defense, Brown was doing pretty
much what the council had said it wanted
when it hired him, back in 1993. Its mem
bers had asked for someone to bring
Kansas City government in line with the
movement toward cost c.:ontainment and
quality service fuat oilier cities had been
pursuing. "We wanted someone to lake
charge and run the city wisely and eco
nomically and efficiently," says George
Blackwood, th~ council's mayor pm tern.
~we said, 'We're out of control. Get good
people, get the job done, let's create a lean,
mean fighting machine.' tt
Brown's response was a process he
c:allcxl "transformation." Prut of his goal was
to introduce the notions of customer ser
vice and efficient, responsive bureaucracy
that have taken hold elsewhere. But he also
set out to break down the barriers lhat,
over the decades, had grown up among
departments that had become accustomed
to being treated as sovereign entities. Most
important, Brown wanted to reestablish
the city manager's authority over the day
to-clay running of the organization. Over
fue years, not only had department heads
grown accustomed to following their own
lead but city council members also had
grown accustomed to making requests
directly of department heads and even
mid-level managers. The result was a city
organization in which the right and left
hands often didn't keep track of each other.
Brown made every effort to deal \vith
this problem. As it turned out, though, few
of bis efforts sat well with others in city
hall. Although some departments and
lower-level managers responded to the
seivice-oriented freedom Brown offered
them- the city's fire department being,
perhaps, the leading example-others
resisted; they found sympathetic ears on a
council that already saw Brown cutting off
its direct pipeline to city departments.
The council was especially vulnerable
on this point because there was no real
leadership pushing it to embrace the prin
ciples that "transfonnation" was supposed
to instill; indeed, lliere was no particular
The fragmented cities are entangled in r
2Z & I Y f I I I I I September 1997 D,ni1 Paguin/AP-IVidt World tn,od5g-apA • .==rr, - emw5705
leadership pushing it in any direction al
all. A set of scandals duiing the p,L~t ft"w
years-four council members ht1vc been
indicted on com1plion charges-has cre
ated an ominous level of mistrust, turning
the council into a set of 12 independent
players who may come together around
speci.6c priorities-fixing the city's decay
ing infnistructure or backing neighbor
hood services-but otherwise prefer to be
seen as individuals, not as a collective
municipal leadership. "It is not an indi
vidual responsibility of each member to be
responsible for the next," says Ken Bac
cl1Us, whose six-year tenure makes him
oue of the council's senior members.
eitv. Unlike Kansas Citv, however, its
m,;yur isn't even elected separately.
Instead, he or she is simply the council
member who gets the most votes in the
general election. Because no one actually
mns for mayor, and because the mayor is
no more powerfuJ tl1an any other member
of the city council, there is veI)' littlf:! polil
ical accountability in Cincinnati. The
result, says Zane M[l}er, a political scien
tist at the University of Cincinnati, is an
"absence of coherent leadership."
''The city bounces from problem to
problem,'' agrees John Fox, editor of City
lish II handful of priorities with a few
"action steps" attached to each, council
mcmbe1·s decided they had dozens of pri
orities. The ''strategic plan" sank under
its own weight.
Visiting Cincinnati, one does not get
a sense of a city at loose ends. Its long
neglected riverfront is about to become a
new focus for city life as two sports sta
diums-one for the football Bengals, the
other for the baseball Reds-are Luilt
there. Main Street, which was pretty
much derelict 10 years ago, now has
become a restaurant- and bur-filled
: :,. -.'\·"•~i••~1t'/1,'·•-,,,: ,/4:t·s: '--; ~.,J,t.:tP ·-:,.,.~ ~);.i iit:ff~~
,.t ·;;•;,·
Given those circumstances, council
members' political legitimacy has rested,
in large part, on their day-to-day involve
ment in city government; it was Brown's
difficulty grasping the importance they
placed on this that, more than anything
else, undermined him. The budget he
submitted to the city council this spring is
a good example: 1t was essentially all text,
a budget designed to get the council to
think about policy without wonying about
particular line-items. A.~ a matter of theory,
this should he all a council needs from a
city manager in order to pass judgment on
the gener.µ direction city government is
headed. But as Cleaver points out, "Poli
tics 101 is, Don't call the politicians stupid.
His statement, as I interpreted it, was,
'You guys set policy, l'll worry about the
rest.' Well, in 1997, politicians don't fade
into the woodwork. That ain't going to
happen anymore.'' When it became clear
that Brown had no intention of setting
aside his priorities in favor of the council's
and the mayor's-that, indeed, there w·as
no way to reconcile them-he left. Ron Kirk in Dallas: Trying to build congcnsus without many tools '
here are those in Cincinnati, too, who
have become increasingly impatient
with a political process that treats
issues crucial to the city as though they
were mice let loose among a swann of cats.
"I think that the city of Cincinnati is an
essentially scandal-free, well-managed city
with a work force of good, dedicated peo
ple," says Nick Vehr, a recently retired
Republican councilman. "But. .. things get
mired down in endless political debate
and a kind of bureaucratic morass that
pounds them to a pulp beforf:! they can be
implemented.~
Cincinnati, too, is a council-manager
Beat, Cincinnati's local alternative ,veekly
newspaper. ''The bottom line is city gov
ernment Lecomes a reactionary body
rather than a proactive body that says,
'Here's our vision for where we're going in
the next 10 years.' "
This is not necessarily for lack of try
ing. For two years, in fact, administrative
staff worked \\ith the council to develop a
strategic planning process that was to
produce a clear set of priorities on which
the city manager could focus. In a series
of se.~siuns with the council, however,
city hall's vision of the future became
muddier, nol dearer . Rather than estab-
-ry and personal politics.
entertainment zone at night. Parts of the
neighborhood known as Ovcr-thc
Rhine, which was essentially a ghetto sit
ting on downtown's heels, are rapidly
being gentrified. A new department
store is going up on a prime downtown
parking lot that many had despaired
would never be replaced. "If you look
ahead 10 years," says Al Tuchfarber,
director of the Institute for Policy
Research at the University of Cincinnati,
"you're going to see a very revitalized
downtown and riverfront."
Yet, the good things that are taking
place in Cincinnati are taking place more
in spite of city government than because of
it. The revitalization of Over-the-Rhine
might have materialized years ago had the
September 1997 C D V l R I I N ; 23
000059
! t
i.
I
I
!
I
!
1 j
I
l
~
!
city not set up barriers to redevelopment D.C., under Marion Barry would have lishment expired, it set in motion a 1011.I!; ~ there. The new department store on fallen into the disrepair both cities now period of chaos during which tht: newly
1. Fountain Square West took a decade to shuggle against. enfranchised elements jostled for power materialize because the council spent But for a much larger number of cities without paying much attention to the j most of that decade squabbling over just these days, it is fo1ctured leadership-not interests of the community as a whole. how the land ought to be used. abused personal power-that constitutes In 1991, under court pressure, Dallas Perhaps the most troubling example of the main political problem. [n Miami, for switched from a council whose members the city's problems, though, is the stadium insrance, the fiscal insolvency and corrupt were elected at-large to a district-hy-dis deal. Given a deadline by the Bengals to practices of its former city manager and trict system. Ever since then, the coun come up witl1 a plan that would keep the finance director flourished in no small part cil's deliberations have been one long bout ,,; team in town, tJ1e city-after much hair- because each major player in city govern- of factionalism-ethnic, ideological and ! tearing-essentially punted. The financ- ment was content to go his own way-the geographic. Presided over by a mayor ·1 ing deal was finully put together by sur- manager pursued his own political goals, with little fmmal power, tlie council has f rounding Hamilton County, which, with each city commissioner was wrapped up drifted from one crisis to another. .................................. ...................................................................................................................................................... Recently, some of the tumult on Insolvency and corruption
flourished in Miami in
part because each major
player was allowed to
pursue his o,vn political
goals. There was no one in
cha.-ge ·who cared about
Miami as a whole.
the council has quieted down amid
Mayor Ron Kirk's efforts to build a
consensus around long-tenn plans
for the city. At the same time, how
ever, the school board threatens to
explode under the pressure of
racial feuding-for the most part
between African-Americans and
Hispanics-and much of the rest of·
the city's political leadership is find
ing it difficult to avoid being
dragged into that battle.
It may be too much to say that all
fragmented cities are alike these
days, butallofthcm seem to be a lit
tle like Dallas, Cincinnati and
Kansas.City: so enmeshed in rival
ries and personal politics that they : ........................................................................................................................................................................................ are lu1ving trouble livirlg up to tJ1eir ; three county board members, can move in his own pursuits, the finance director potent:ial-<ir even seeing clearly just what much more quickly. In exchange, the was given a free hand, and the business that potential might be. If they are to countv will own the stadiums. "It wasn't community and many onlookers were remain competitive when it comes to until ;ve shifted authority to the county," convinced that the city itself did not mat- attracting businesses, rebuilding the public Nick Vehr says, "that the sports franchises ter. There was, simply put, no one in schools and drawing middle-<:lass residents :
seriously began negotiating to stay in this charge who cared about Miami as a whole. back to their neighborhoods, they some· town .... I think there's a general percep- Dallas, meanwhile, has been an exhibit how need to rely upon leaders who can . tion in this community that the ability to of fragmentation for the entire decade of help them coalesce around coherent visions ' manage the future no longer resides, as it the 1990s. Once, it was a prime example of of where they' re going. Such people clearly did in the past, in city hall." the opposite: a plac.-c where decisive mayors exist in all of these cities; the Oru)' question' and city managers worked quietly and effi- is whether tl1ey will be allowed to emerge. ; ciently with a single-minded business "Leaders shackled by unreasonable; establishment to set clear community pri- restrictions are forced to engage in corn-, orities. Thirty years ago, when Mayor Erik promises and deal-making that slows for-:
'
here are, to be sure, plenty of people in
both Kansas City and Cincinnati who
believe that their cities are better off
· precisely because power is so fragmented.
"The successful person negotiates coali
tions and puts them together on a given
issue," says one fonner Kansas City gov
ernment staffer, "and that's nut a bad thing.
With coalition-building, there's some kind
of consensus reached. Maybe it takes
longer and demands more skill, but maybe
the stuff tl1at results is more durable."
It can also, of course, be argued that
forceful leadership is hardly a panacea for
American cities. lfit were, neither Detroit
under Coleman Young nor Washington.
24 S 8 f l I l I I S September 19117
Jonsso11 fdt he needed a blueprint for long- ward movement and inhibits developmentj tenn urban planning, he simply rounded of wide-ranging vision," the editor of the' up 80 civic leaders, spirited them off to a Kansas City Star's editorial page wrote not , country club for a weekend and returned long ago, in a commentary that just as eas- · with a short list of major goals for the ily could have been applied to Cincinnati; l970s-rnost of which were implemented. and any number of other places casting:_ But that Dallas power structure eventu- about for direction these davs. "The way' ally succumbed to its own weaknesses. It Kansas City's government ~ow works," was so tightly controlled, so exclusive and Rich Hood wrote, "there are so many safe~ so overwhelmingly affiuent, male and guards built in to prevent dr.llTlalic leader· white that it bred long-standing resent- ship (or risky gambles that might not pay men ls among the groups in town that felt off) that we too frequently witness govern. left out of its processes. When the es tab- men! by paralysis." Ro6 1.,.,1, ift,,Jrrq ·:
000060 '
r Eric f-!!:lley - charter -~eview
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Eric:
"Marcia McQuem• <[email protected]>
"Eric Haley" <[email protected]>
en12003 1 :07:49 PM
charter review
The only charter review subject areas I've thought about that are not on the staff list are:
1. Should there be greater protection for public access to city government? I know that some cities have gone beyond state law to assure that the public can find out what their representatives and employees are up to In their name.
2. Have our wards become so populous that we should increase their number so each council member has a more manageable job representing his/her constituents?
As for procedure, I suggest that before we prioritize subject areas, we hear from the council members, mayor, city manager, city attorney and hold a public hearing so we can hear from those who closely watch city government (I.e. Friday Group, Raincross Group, employees etc.) - all with the goal of leamlng what areas of the charter these stakeholders would like to see changed. We don't want to take time for debates at this first hearing, Just to get suggestions on the table. Then, we can decide how (working groups or committee of the whole) and in what order to tackle the issues. We may want some subjects sent to committees and others dealt with by the full committee. I think we should not take on the most contentious Issues first. Weil want some Issue-specific public hearings as we proceed so we surface all the pro and con arguments of any proposed changes before we act.
Marcia McQuem
5717 Bedford Drive
Riverside, CA 92506
(909) 369-1376
[email protected]
: .. , . Pc!ge 1 j
Exhibit D
000061
ci4li OF RIVERSIDE
CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
HONORABLB MAYOR ARD CITY C01JNCIL
SUBJBCT: RBCONIIJINDBD CDR'l'D AJIBRDKBN'l'S
BACKGROUND;
GENERAL
Exhibit E
DATB1 July 25, 1995
1'.TBK HO. s SO
On June 4, 1995, the report of the Charter Review Committee was presented to the City Council with four recommendations as follows:
1. Receive the report of the Charter Review Committee,
take it under submission, and schedule it for action at a future meeting.
2. After review and consideration of the report, adopt the recommendations of Charter Review Committee and direct
the City Attorney and City Clerk to take such actions
as are necessary to have the recommended Charter
amendments placed on the ballot for the next regular
municipal election. ·
3. Consider directing staff to review the Charter on a
biennial basis for routine title and language changes
that should be made. Any recommended changes could be
put on the general municipal election ballot by the
City Council without the necessity of establishing a
Charter Review Committee. The Charter Review Committee
process would be reserved for more substantive
amendments.
4. Consider directing staff to prepare a citizen's guide to the Charter after the November vote on the amended
Charter.
On July 10, 1995, the City Council held a workshop on the Charter Review Conmittee's report. At the workshop, questions of Councilmembere and the Mayor were answered and the Council received public comment on the proposed amenclments. At the workshop, there was a consensus that amended Section 1104 should be further clarified. The proposed clarification of the amended oo.,
last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1104 is as follows:
All appropriations shall lapse at the end of the fiscal year to the extent that they shall not have been
~;9?.E;_,nde<i __ ~?=' lawfull encumbere
At the July 10, 1995, workshop, the City Council agendized the proposed Charter amendments for action on July 25, 1995. In addition, the Council requested information on the costs of holding the special election on the Charter measures with the General Municipal Election on November 7, 1995, versus holding it with the Statewide Primary Election on March 26, 1996. It was noted none of the proposed Charter amendments would be adversely affected by delaying the vote until March 1996. The relative costs are covered in a separate report from the City Clerk.
Further legal review since the July 10, 1995, workshop
indicates the proposed Charter amendments should be voted on as two separate measures since the proposed deletions of Section 1406 and 1407 relating to the Riverside Unified School District must be voted on separately by the qualified electors of the Riverside Unified School District.
RECOMMENDED CHARTER AMENDMENTS
As noted in the Charter Review Committee's report, none of the proposed amendments reflect policy changes or changes to the City of Riverside's governmental structure. The more significant amendments are as follows:
1. Addition of a Preamble to the Charter to introduce it and state its purpose ..
2. Revision of Section 400 relative to the election and seating of the Mayor and councilmembers to reflect the
28 days the County Registrar is permitted by law to
count the vote. The proposed amendments change the date of seating from the first to the fifth Tuesday
following the election, be it a regular or special
election. They also change the date of the runoff
election to a date certain, the tenth Tuesday following the General Municipal Election, which is the last day
of the current range of dates, 45 to 70 days after the
General Municipal Election.
2 50·2. 000063
3. Renumbering qf Article X, Elections, as Article v so that it immediately follows Article IV, City Council
and Mayor.
4. Revision of Section 1109 relative to public works
contracts to increase the threshold when competitive
bidding is required from th~ amount provided by state
law ($5,000) to $25,000.
s. Revision of Section 1200 to provide that any future
public utilities created by the City Council may be
placed under the jurisdiction of the Board of Public
Utilities.
6. Revision of Section 1202 relative to contracts that
must go before the Board of Public Utilities to
increase the threshold from the amount provided by
state law ($5,000) to $25,000 with a mechanism for
inflation adjustments. An emergency exemption provision was also added.
7. Revision of Section 1403 to provide for a Charter
Review Committee to be appointed every eight years
beginning in 2004 to review the Charter and make
recommendations for its amendment. Charter amendment
ballot measures would be scheduled to coincide with the regular general municipal elections for mayor.
8. Deletion of Sections 1406 and 1407 relating to the
Riverside Unified School District because the
transition language relative to terms is no longer
needed. (As noted above these deletions need to be
voted on separately by the qualified electors of the
Riverside Unified School District.)
In addition to the major amendments described above, there are a number of other Charter amendments proposed to clarify language, to correct grammar and punctuation, to replace position titles that have become outdated, to eliminate single gender references, to delete sections which concern matters covered by state law, and to update language to reflect modernization of operational practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution proposing that the Riverside City Charter be amended as shown in Attachment A and further proposing that Sections 1406 and 1407 of the Riverside
City Charter pertaining to the Riverside Unified School District be deleted as shown in Attachment B.
3 50.3 000064
2. Adopt a motioµ directing the City Manager, City
Attorney and City Clerk to review the Charter on a
biennial basis for routine title and language changes
that should be made and bring any necessary or
desirable changes to the City Council's attention for
action .
. 4. Adopt a motion directing the Ci~y Manager to prepare a citizen's guide to the Charter after the vote on the
amended Charter.
Approved by:
Prepared by:
Victor J. Kaleta, Esq.
Special Counsel to Charter Review Cormnittee
CC: City Clerk
APPROVID Al FORM
4 / StanT. Yama
4 f50.4
000065
1948
Exhibit F
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
CHARTER HISTORY BRIEF
• Mayor shall, with approval of City Council, appoint officers of the City 1951
• Established Board of Freeholders to propose new Charter 1952
• Comprehensive recodification
1955
• Planning Commission established
1956
• Required two-thirds vote of electorate to sell utility 1961
• Created seven Councilmanic Wards
1963
• Elected officials must be qualified elector for three years preceding election and resident of the ward
1964
• Established recall procedures for City Council
• Councllmembers shall be elected by qualified electors of their respective ward only
• Established run-off election provisions
• Procedure for adoption of ordinances and resolutions
1966
• Requires five affirmative votes (Instead of four) to override Mayor's veto • Mayor granted vote on appointments to Boards and Commissions 1987
• Restricts City Council contract approval to twenty-five years, with exceptions
1968
• Provides for issuance of water and electric revenue bonds 1969
• Granted Mayor power to break a tie vote of the City Council 000066
, ~ . 1973
• Set third Tuesday In April of odd-numbered years as regular municipal election day
• Procedure to fill vacancies on Riverside Unified School District Board of Education; and powers and duties of President and Board members 1974
• Amended City Council contract approval restriction to comply with State law
• Set terms for members of City boards and commissions to expire on October 1st
• City Manager shall designate staff to record minutes for City boards and commissions
• Regulations regarding issuance of bonded indebtedness of the utility 1976
• Regulations regarding Issuance of bonded indebtedness of the utility • Set first Tuesday of November in odd-numbered years for regular municipal election
19n
• Set public utlUty General Fund transfer not to exceed 11.5% of gross operating revenues
1981
• Clarify roles of Mayor, City Council, and City Manager • Established employee grievance procedure
• Method of setting City Council compensation
• Election, powers, and duties of Riverside Unified School District 1986
• Mayor shall deliver annual State of the City message In January or February at the location of his/her choosing
• Mayor shaU vote on removal of members of boards and commissions; members may serve no more than two consecutive full terms • Creates the Mayor and Council Members Salary Commission 1995
• Technical clean-up, renumbering, and recodification
2003
• Increased threshold limit for formal competitive bidding for public works contracts from $25,000 to $50,000
• Increased from $25,000 to $50,000 Board of Public Utilities' authorization for purchase of equipment, materials, or supplies
cnicol\charter.hlatoryforcrc
000067
EXHIBIT G
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
This will be distributed at the meeting on
Thursday, August 14, 2003.
000068
I
.......
Charter Review Committee Meeting Date: 8/14/2003
Item No.: 2
EXHIBITG
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
Issues for Consideration
Several issues have been identified for possible review and consideration by the Charter Review Committee. These issues include:
1. Method of Setting Salary for Mayor and City Council Members - - the members of the most recent Mayor and Councilmembers Salary Commission expressed concern with the current process defined by Section 810 of the Charter and the limitation on compensation set forth in section 403 of the Charter. Section 403 prohibits the level of compensation, once established, to change automatically by linking such compensation to an external factor.
2. Identification of the Mayor and Members of the City Council as Full Time or Part time Elected Officials - - this issue was identified by the Mayor and Council Members Salary Commission as significant in analyzing and determining the appropriate level of compensation for the Mayor and Members of the City Council commensurate with their duties and responsibilities as elected officials.
3. Powers and Duties of the Park and Recreation Commission - - the scope of the duties and responsibilities of the Park and Recreation Commission was also identified for review .
4. Run-off Elections vs. Instant Run-off Voting - - as with Riverside's run-off provisions, instant run-off voting provides that to be elected, candidates must receive a majority of the votes passed. However, IRV requires no run-off as candidates are ranked by the voter in order of preference. Upon tabulation of the votes, if no candidate receives a majority, the last place candidate is deemed defeated and the ballots are recounted. In the second round of counting, ballots cast for the last place candidates count for the next choice candidate and so on until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
5. Election of Mayor in Even Numbered Years - - this issue was identified so as to permit an incumbent councilmember to run for election of mayor without forfeiting their council seat.
6. Primary Election of Councilmembers by Ward and Run-Off Election at Large - - this issue was identified in order to increase at large voting.
7. Responsibilities of the Mayor, Members of the City Council and the City Manager - - the City of Riverside currently operates under a Council - Manager form of government and the committee may wish to compare the current system with other forms of government.
O:\Cycom\ WPDocs\D0 12\?002\0002013 I. WPO
000069
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
City of Riverside
August 5, 2003, 4:30 p.m.
Mayor's Ceremonial Room
MINUTES
ExhlbltH
Members Damon Castillo, Eric Haley, Marcia McQuern, Rose Mayes, Dale McNair, Dorothy Bailey, Stan Stosel, Rusty Balley, Ray Higgins, Connie Leach, Gar Brewton, Mike Teer, Ben Johnson, Barry Johnson, Art Garcia, and Marjorie von Pohle
Member William Turpin
STAFF PRESENT: Colleen Nicol, Gregory Priamos, Penny Culbreth-Graft, Sharon Cooley, and Tricia Ruiz
ALSO PRESENT Barbara Purvis representing the League of Women Voters and Dan Hantman
City Clerk Colleen Nicol convened the Charter Review Committee at 4:30 p.m. Self introductions followed.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Member McQuern nominated Eric Haley for the position of Chair. Member Haley accepted the nomination. Subsequently, nominations by Art Garcia for Member Castillo to serve as Vice Chair and Member Garcia for Rusty Bailey and Member von Pohle for Marcia McQuern to serve as Chair were made and later withdrawn.
Following further discussion, the Committee unanimously appointed Eric Haley as Chair and Ben Johnson as Vice-Chair and directed that this matter be revisited in three meetings for a vote of confidence to confirm the appointments.
PURPOSE AND CHARGE OF COMMITTEE/CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS
City Attorney Priamos reviewed the purpose and scope of the Charter, the Charter Review Committee's power and duties, the Committee's charge, issues for consideration, and process for presentation of recommendations to the City Council for placement on a future ballot.
City Clerk Colleen Nicol outlined the 1994/95 review process and presented considerations for the upcoming process which may include interview of elected officials, the City Manager and Department Heads, working groups, a presentation on instant runoff voting, public meetings, periodic updates to the City Council, and a concluding City Council workshop.
The City Clerk was requested to provide the City Council's action in formation of the Charter Review Committee and research on the 1995 Committee recommendations to the City Council and language submitted to the voters.
CRC-1
000070
Following discussion, the Committee, by consensus, concurred that (a) policy concerns of individual Committee members be recorded and forwarded to the Chair, Vice-Chair, and City staff; (b) the eleded officials and key City staff be Interviewed earty in the process with written reports submitted In advance being preferred; (c) Committee meetings be held throughout the City; (d) appropriate Committee members attend Mayor's Night Out events: (e) the Communications Officer will prepare a proposed outreach campaign for consideration at the next meeting; and (e) the City Clerk will distribute the Committee roster to all members.
FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE
Following discussion, and without formal motion, the Committee determined to conduct Its meetings at 5 p.m. on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month from 5 to 6:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, August 14, 2003.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no oral comments presented at this time.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ City
CRC-2
000071