Level Two
(deletes unnecessary language)
Consensus that this language wasn’t necessary as its already expressly covered by the Brown Act as provided below:
The Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54950 et seq.) explicitly governs the adjournment of regular meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies. It permits the legislative body to adjourn any regular or special meeting, or previously adjourned meeting, to a specified time and place indicated in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may adjourn a meeting. When no members are present, the clerk or secretary may declare the meeting adjourned and must provide written notice of the adjournment consistent with the rules for special meetings. The order or notice of adjournment must be conspicuously posted at or near the meeting location within 24 hours following the adjournment. An adjourned regular meeting retains the status of a regular meeting for all purposes, and if the adjournment order fails to specify a time, it defaults to the time fixed for regular meetings by ordinance or resolution (California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 28-L)[3], (2 Cal. Jur. 3d Administrative Law § 139)[4], (45 Cal. Jur. 3d Municipalities § 317)[5]. Additionally, the Brown Act differentiates between adjournment—ending a meeting with intent to resume the agenda later—and continuance, which involves continuing specific agenda items to a subsequent meeting, with associated posting requirements for notices if the continuance occurs within 24 hours (California Practice Guide: Administrative Law Ch. 28-L)[3].
Level Two
(added flexibility in meeting scheduling consistent with Brown Act requirements)
This language added to give flexibility if ever needed, e.g., during the summer recess or around the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday. Current language could be further modified to only require one meeting of any kind of the bracketed special meeting reference were to be deleted.
Brown Act requirement is as follows:
Regular meetings must be held at least monthly on a schedule fixed by ordinance or resolution, with agendas posted at least 72 hours prior containing a brief general description of business items, including closed session topics.
Level One
(clarifying wording with no proposed modifications to current, applicable law)
The Brown Act requires that regular and special meetings of city councils be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction (West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 54954)[1]. This is a fundamental location requirement that applies to both types of meetings. However, the statute provides several specific exceptions that allow meetings to be held outside the jurisdiction, including to comply with state or federal law or court orders, attend judicial or administrative proceedings to which the agency is a party, inspect real or personal property that cannot be conveniently brought within the boundaries, participate in meetings of multiagency significance (which must still occur within one of the participating agencies' jurisdictions and be properly noticed), meet in the closest meeting facility if the agency has no suitable facilities or offices within its boundaries, meet with elected or appointed federal or state officials when a local meeting would be impractical, or meet outside the jurisdiction in the event of an emergency (West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 54954)[1].
There was discussion on need for this language in the Charter at all, with a possible option to radically reduced to a sentence or two calling for rules to be adopted by ordinance. Current recommendation is to retain provisions, but to update to make more clear and better align with State law.
California law establishes comprehensive requirements for city employees who must obtain and furnish faithful performance bonds or other forms of bonds in connection with their official duties. These requirements are governed primarily by the California Government Code, which sets forth the conditions, obligations, and payment provisions for official bonds of municipal officers and employees.
Statutory Framework for Official Bonds
The fundamental condition of an official bond is established by California Government Code § 1501, which provides that "the condition of an official bond shall be that the principal will well, truly, and faithfully perform all official duties then required of him by law, and also all such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any existing law of the State or law enacted subsequently to the execution of the bond" (West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 1501)[1]. This statutory language ensures that bonds cover both current and future duties imposed by law.
California Government Code § 1504 further specifies that every official bond executed by any officer pursuant to law "is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein for" both "any and all breaches of the conditions thereof committed during the time such officer continues to discharge any of the duties of or hold the office" and "the faithful discharge of all duties which may be required of such officer by any law enacted subsequently to the execution of the bond" (West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 1504)[2]. The statute includes important limitations on personal liability for officers whose sole compensation is a fixed salary, providing that they shall not be personally liable for negligent acts or omissions of deputies or employees unless the officer failed to exercise due care in selection, appointment, or supervision (West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 1504)[2].
Charter City Authority Over Bond Requirements
California Constitution Article XI, § 5 grants charter cities plenary authority to provide for "the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation" (West's Ann.Cal.Const. Art. 11, § 5)[5]. This constitutional provision allows charter cities to establish their own requirements for official bonds as part of their municipal affairs.
Level One/Level Two
(both minor and more significant language updates, with other Level Two changes as indicated below)
This Article was updated with substantial input from the existing Boards and Commissions listed.
Note: “Commissions” are generally understand to mean groups that are permanent with some independent authority or ongoing subject matter jurisdictions. “Committees” are almost always advisory, and sometimes are of limited duration. “Subcommittees” are always subordinate bodies to the primary Council or Commission. “Board” appears to be just a historical name for the Board of Library Trustees, and in this context has no particular meaning distinct from Commission.
Consideration was given to building in some definition structure here, but doesn’t seem necessary. More important to distinguish what rules apply to what boards, commissions (and/or committees) and updated language in this Article Six does that. Also, note the proposed addition of new Section 605, below, regarding “committees”
Level One
(reorganization)
Consensus of Groups Two and Four was to move the details of the Salary Setting Commission composition and role and function (previously described in Old Section 702) to this Article. See new Section 604.5, below for Level Two changes.
Level Two
(alignment with current standards)
Here are the current Code Sections for both Charter created and City Council created Boards and Commissions.
Revised language requires any further implementing details be approved by ordinance (not resolution)
§ 2.120.010Names, membership, qualifications and terms of office.
There shall be and there is established within the City the following boards, commissions, and committees:
(a) Planning Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.050)
(b) Parks and Recreation Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.060) (c) Civil Service Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.070)
d) Board of Library Trustees. (SCCC § 2.120.080)
(e) Historical and Landmarks Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.100) (f) Senior Advisory Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.110)
(g) Youth Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.130)
(h) Cultural Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.140)
(i) International Exchange Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.150) (j) Housing Commission. (SCCC § 2.120.160)
(k) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (SCCC § 2.120.170) All members of boards, commissions, and committees, except for members of the Youth Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, shall be eighteen (18) years of age or older and residents of the City. All members of boards and commissions established by City Charter (i.e., Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Civil Service Commission and Board of Library Trustees) shall also be qualified electors of the City.
§ 2.120.020Powers and duties generally.
The boards and commissions of the City shall have the following general powers, duties and responsibilities in addition to those set forth in Article X of the Charter:
(a) To establish rules and regulations governing the election of their officers, the holding of meetings and the conduct of business.
(b) To utilize all appropriate techniques in crystallizing and testing public sentiment on major public issues in their respective fields.
(c) To make budget recommendations.
(d) To hold official hearings as required by law or requested by the City Council. (e) To advise and recommend on City policies and procedures pertinent to their respective activities and functions. (f) To support and adhere to all City policies promulgated by the City Council and to establish needed interim policies in the absence of the same.
(g) To provide information and promote good public relations between the City and the general public. (h) To receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to their public service every two years, as required by state law and the City Council. (i) To perform such other related functions as may be assigned to them by the City Council.
§ 2.120.030Meetings.
Each board or commission of the City with members thereon appointed by the City Council shall hold regular meetings at the times and on the days indicated by resolution of the City Council except when such day falls on a City holiday, and shall hold such special meetings as it may require. The times and days for holding regular meetings are subject to amendment from time to time by resolution of the City Council. A copy of the applicable resolution(s) is and will be available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk.
§ 2.120.040Utilization of City personnel.
The various boards and commissions may utilize the services of the appropriate City departmental personnel in carrying out their respective functions, subject to the administrative control of the City Manager. (Ord. 947; Formerly § 2-92)Here
Why addition of an Ethics Commission not proposed by CRC.
Group Four discussed extensively the pros and cons to proposing for inclusion in the Charter provision for the requirement of an Ethics Commission. They ultimately decided (and the full CRC concurred) that while this could be suggested as a Level 4 idea for a future CRC, they were not going to recommend at this time as part of the Charter project. Their decision was based, among other things on the following:
--This is a matter currently being discussed at the City Council Governance and Ethics Committee, including possible terms for a formal Commission, and alternatives to this to reinforce ethics duties and accountability, are under discussion.
--The inclusion of this in the Charter amendment would present challenges as it would, in effect, proposed to “decide” the issue before that full analysis is complete. --Inquiry was made regarding Chula Vista which has a Board of Ethics, but its not mentioned or requred in the City Charter. GRG’s experience there was shared, but pointed out that the details of any such proposal matter, and the pros and cons of this could not be fully analyzed by the CRC as part of this project. CV also has a “standing” Charter Review Commission, but that isn’t mentioned in their Charter either. —Also concern about this being a form of “restructuring” of govt. (by adding a signficant new board), and was an area that could be viewed as controversial, thereby distracting from other more doable proposals.
Level One
(existing language moved and updated to be more explicit without substantive change)
Qualified Elector Status. The need for “qualified elector” status as a qualification was discussed extensively in light of BOLT request that the qualified elector status requirement be removed. The Group/CRC ultimately decided that for the Charter created boards and commissions, qualified elector status and consistency were important. They also note that non-Qualified elector residents still have a lot of opportunities to serve on City Council created boards.
From City Code Section 2.120.010
“All members of boards, commissions, and committees, except for members of the Youth Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, shall be eighteen (18) years of age or older and residents of the City. All members of boards and commissions established by City Charter (i.e., Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Civil Service Commission and Board of Library Trustees) shall also be qualified electors of the City.”
Level Two
(addition of requirement for a policy consistent with desired/best practices)
Group Four discussed extensively options for making more transparent any decision not to reappoint or remove a board or commission member “for cause” other than the referenced “vacancy” provisions below. Ultimate decision was to require the CC to make rules that allow for appointment and removal “in an orderly and transparent” manner but not to attempt to make such rules. Charter is not place for that level of detail and CAO advised of need to balance transparency with privacy interests and interest in protecting City from liability. I.e., no board or commission member should have employee like protections for holding their position.
Section requires City Council creation of an appointment, renewal and removal policy for Boards and Commission members
Level Two
(delete provisions inconsistent with current/best practices)
Regarding Boards and Commissions making their own rules, this is not current practice, and is not recommended. There is a need and real value in consistency, especially with need for compliance with Brown Act. The current City Council Policy 055 for “Meeting Management Protocols” will apply to Boards and Commissions when it converts from a “pilot program” to a permanent policy and it allows for some variation on rules at the Boards and Commissions level so long as rules are consistent with the protocols or approved by the Council.
BOLT comments/proposals on powers and duties included:
--Desire to primarily advisory (guide and recommend), but don’t want to abdicate “accountability”. --This can be achieved by requiring them to be part of certain Library administrative processes. E.g., Library budget needs to come to BLT for review and recommendation before it goes to City Council. (e.g.’s Anaheim and Chula Vista); annual report to City Council on Library activities (Anaheim).
For reference, current City Code provisions provide as follows:
§ 2.120.080Board of Library Trustees. [1]
The Board of Library Trustees shall be primarily responsible for the following:
(a)
Establishing, accepting and supervising a significant public library program. (b)
Providing for balanced library collections and services which represent the diverse perspectives of the community. (c)
Making recommendations to the City Council on library policies which ensure maximum public access to library collections and services.
(d)
Serving as a central focus for citizen comment on library operations and materials and the provision of appropriate recommendations or response.
(e)
Supporting educational, recreational and cultural activities for citizens of all age groups consistent with the mission of the library program.
(f)
Representing the library program to the City, the community, other government agencies and organizations. (g)
Performing such other duties and exercising such powers as the City Council may impose or require.
Level One/Level Two
(reorganization, updated language and clarifying changes to eliminate ambiguity consistent with current interpretations/practices)
This is a new Section that takes the role and function content from old Section 702 (now 204.1) and moves it here.
Notes/considerations from discussion
--Salary question: Proposed language eliminates ambiguity regarding extent to which Charter language dictates terms for salary only or other forms of compensation
—Current benefits that have been discussed by the Commission include pensions (currently offered as an option, five years to vest) and medical benefits (currently not offered but discussed at last Salary Setting Commission meeting.
--Benchmarking included information from 5 area cities, with most providing a medical benefit, and Sunnyvale, notably, recommending a salary increase from $38K to $72K for City Councilmembers)
Consensus not to change compensation mechanism or amount (was just changed 7 years ago to a benchmark amount with increases not to exceed 10% every two years as determined by SSC, now $30K for Mayor and $24K for City Council members), but to clarify that benefits can also be provided, including medical if SSC determines, provided that no health benefits can be converted to cash.
Level Two
(added language fills a gap in a manner consistent with current/best practices)
This Section is intended to contemplate other advisory bodies that are intended to be purely advisory and/or temporary in nature, with some flexibility to Council on how to form.
Level Two
(update language to align with current/best practices)
This new Section 805.6 is proposed by bond counsel to replace the outdated language in current Section 1321, below.
This new Section is consistent with current/best practices. It would allow the City to issue revenue bonds to finance utility infrastructure by City Council resolution without the requirement for voter approval. The rationale for this is that revenue bond debt is not like general fund debt that relies on taxes for repayment (the type of debt where voter approval is required) as the only pledge for repayment of the bonds are utility revenues. Many other Charter cities (including Sunnyvale, San Diego, Los Angeles, Hayward, Oakland, Pasadena, Redwood City, Sacramento and San Francisco (with a 3/4ths vote of their supervisors)) have similar provisions. This type of debt is also allowed for general law cities, but requires majority voter approval (not the 2/3rds voter approval required by the current Charter).
The deleted provisions regarding Revenue Bonds are considered to be outdated, and limiting in ways that go beyond current state law limitations/best practices which have evolved over time. The City has been able to finance utility infrastructure using debt (for example, using certificates of participation), but this is more cumbersome and costly. Accordingly, bond counsel has proposed replacement of these provisions with the new Section 805.6.
Level Three?
However much aligned this proposal is with current/best practices, because it proposes removing a voter approval right, it could be viewed as a Level Three proposal.