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.