1 Vernice Hankins
From: Elliot Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 4:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lori Gentles
Subject: Item 11 A on July 26 City Council Agenda
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council: I am writing to express my concern regarding Item 11A on the Agenda for July 26, the proposal to adopt a resolution placing a ballot measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot that would remove Sections 1011 and 1012 from the Santa Monica City Charter. I am the current Chair of the Personnel Board and have served on the Board since 2013. By way of background, as Chief People Officer Lori Gentles advised the Council earlier this month, the Board, which to quote Councilmember Brock is not a "glitzy, fun, party organization" (yet) has struggled to attract interested and qualified residents of Santa Monica to become members. This issue was addressed at multiple Board meetings and resulted in a recommendation from staff, based upon those discussions, to propose a ballot amendment to expand the qualification criteria in order to expand the pool of potential applicants, increase the ability of the Board to reflect the diversity of the city's workforce, and allow those who are not resident the City but have a stake in it to be eligible to serve. I just recently learned that in response to that recommendation, the Council instead asked the staff to prepare a very different proposal that would remove the sections of the City Charter creating the Board and enumerating its powers and responsibilities and placing it in the Municipal Code instead.
For the reasons detailed below, I request that the Council submit the ballot measure as originally proposed to change the eligibility criteria for serving on the Board and reserve for further consideration and deliberation by the Council and/or a charter commission the more far reaching issue of removing the Personnel Board from the City Charter.
As a matter of process, this development concerns me. While the staff under the leadership of Lori Gentles engaged in a dialogue with the Board about the pros and cons of expanding the eligibility criteria, the action by the City Council at the last Board meeting and the proposed action on July 26 has precluded the Board from providing any input on the far broader proposal now before the Council. The Personnel Board is not scheduled to have its next meeting until July 28 and it might even be too late to agendize this proposal. (And I understand that this week is the latest the Council can act to get something on the ballot). Further, I have been advised that the Brown Act would preclude me from discussing this issue with other Board members outside of an official Board meeting. I also understand from the video of the Council meeting that there is a plan to have a charter review commission take a broader look at the charter, including presumably the issue of whether certain boards and commissions presently in the charter should be moved to the code.
The fact that the proposal regarding the Personnel Board is presently before the Council is solely due to happenstance, i.e. the fact that a proposal addressing a far narrower issue was presented to the Council. I do not see any urgency in this action and believe that from a process standpoint, it makes far more sense to have the charter commission consider the proposal regarding the Personnel Board as part of its broader review of boards and commissions or that the Council do so after more input from stakeholders. That will give the commission and the council a greater opportunity to consider the pros and cons of such an action and consider the possible unintended as well as intended consequences that might arise.
I also wish to express concern from a substantive standpoint. The report from the City Attorney mentions other commissions that are in the charter, such as Arts, Landmark and Social Services. But the Personnel Board is different, as it is both an advisory, investigatory and quasi‐judicial body. Sections 1011 and 1012 reflect a decision to have an independent board removed from the politics of the day that carefully monitors and balances both the interests of the City as an employer and its employees. We are authorized to, among other things, investigate the possible need for changes in personnel administration, conduct hearings and provide unbiased recommendations to the Council on Item 11.A
07/26/22
1 of 4 Item 11.A
07/26/22
2 potential changes in civil service rules and regulations, advise on personnel administration and hear appeals of officers and employees who are suspended, demoted or removed. We are also charged with other personnel‐related responsibilities. I am concerned that removal of these delegated powers from the charter and placement in the code could subject the Personnel Board to politicization depending on the composition of the Council and the desires of its members at a given time. The Council could remove such authority and thereby deprive both the city's residents and its employees of a deliberative, focused and apolitical body that balances the various interests held by all stakeholders and ensures that employees who are suspended, demoted or terminated have an independent adjudicatory body that can decide their case.
While I have serious concerns about this measure and its potential consequences for the future, I am not unmindful of the benefits that come with such an action, such as avoiding having to place changes to eligibility criteria on a ballot that competes for voter attention. However, I believe that a measure proposing to remove the Personnel Board from the City Charter should not be the result of a spontaneous decision after midnight but rather is one that should be made, if at all, only after careful consideration and deliberation, either by the City Council directly or by a charter commission that considers such issues and presents its recommendations to the Council. Accordingly, I recommend that the Council proceed with the originally proposed ballot amendment to modify the eligibility criteria and make a decision regarding a ballot initiative to remove the Personnel Board from the City Charter at a later time after there has been an opportunity to fully consider all the potential ramifications of such an action.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Elliot Gordon
Item 11.A
07/26/22
2 of 4 Item 11.A
07/26/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Daniel Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Subject: Yes on 8A, No on 11A, No on 11B, Yes on 11D, No on 16D
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers, I urge you to consider the following for July 26th's Agenda Items:
8A ‐ Vote YES ‐ 10,000+ Santa Monica voters have said through the Citizens' Initiative that they want to tax extremely high‐value real estate in order to subsidize rent‐burdened, low‐income Santa Monicans to prevent homeless, ensure our community does not become economically gated, and to continue to guarantee high quality schools following Malibu unification. This measure is critical to establishing long term and substantial funding for deed restricted affordable housing and our school system.
11A ‐ Vote NO ‐ Removing the Personnel Board from the Charter will subject what ought to be non‐political work to the whims of a political Council. This was not the recommendation that the Personnel Board themselves brought forward, which sought only to allow greater participation from non‐resident community stakeholders on an oft understaffed commission. I do not think risking the politicization of the Personnel Board is wise and encourage you to vote against the staff recommendation as written.
11B ‐ Vote NO ‐ This measure is in direct competition with the Citizens' Initiative which 10,000+ Santa Monica residents have indicated their support for as indicated by the poison pill which would allow for this measure to win out with one more vote, even if both measures get majority support. As written, there are too many carve outs and, my main concern, too few rules about how the funds would be spent. We need a dedicated stream of funding for affordable housing construction; this measure simply adds to our General Fund, where the advisory measure could be entirely ignored by future Councils.
11D ‐ Vote YES ‐ While I am disappointed Council did not work with their sister body, the duly (and independently!) elected Rent Control Board and adopt their full requested Charter Amendment, the proposed measure will still help Santa Monica renters now and in the future. We are a city that is majority renter; we must support our renters in order to prevent our community from becoming economically gated. 16D ‐ Vote NO ‐ The measure proposed in 16D shows a basic lack of understanding of how the market economy works and masks anti‐housing policies in the language of social justice. As someone who volunteers and leads in diversity, equity, and inclusion‐oriented organizations, this is incredibly disappointing and disturbing. I am pro‐labor; I support collective bargaining and higher minimum wages for workers. This proposal, however, will block economic feasibility for any new development projects... benefitting the very landlord Councilmembers bringing this proposal forward. No projects equates to no construction jobs. Let's be realistic about what the market can bear.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dan
Daniel Hall
Santa Monica Mid‐City Resident
Item 11.A
07/26/22
3 of 4 Item 11.A
07/26/22
2 Pronouns: he/him
Item 11.A
07/26/22
4 of 4 Item 11.A
07/26/22