Charter Review, Post 1

Now that the recent election is over, we have seated the city council that will choose the members of the charter-mandated citizen’s Charter Review Commission. The last time there was a Charter Review Commission was in 2010. That was the first time that charter article XVII was activated. Because at that time there was no precedent, the council appeared to be a little confused as to how the commission was to be constituted. The city attorney, argued that the commission could be:

1) a commission made up of the members of the city council;

2) a 7 member commission like all other commissions, or

3) a commission of size that would be determined by the council.

Here’s what section XVII, section 1701 actually says about it:

Beginning in January of the year 2010, and in January of every tenth year thereafter, the Council shall appoint a Commission to consider and propose amendments to the existing Charter. No later than twelve (12) months from each inception, the Commission shall submit its proposals to the City Clerk for placement on the ballot at the next scheduled election

When this came up at council, I argued that 1) it was clearly not the intent of the framers of the charter section that the council act as the commission as they can make changes to the charter for submission to the voters at any time as outlined in

Article XVI, section 1601 (b) Amendments to this Charter may be proposed and placed on the ballot: by ordinance of the Council containing the full text of the proposed amendment and passed by five-sevenths (5/7) of the total membership of the Council.

2 & 3) that the charter clearly states:

Article VIII, section 801(a) All appointive boards and commissions shall have the same number of members as there are members of the Council. Each Councilmember within sixty (60) days of assuming office, shall appoint one member who shall be a resident of the City to each board or commission.

At that time, the city attorney argued (convincingly it seems, at least to the council at that time) that the commission set up in the charter wasn’t really a commission but was a “special committee” and so was not covered under section 801(a), so the council decided to make it a 15 member commission with each councilperson getting to appoint two seats and the mayor 3.

I still argue that the charter clearly calls this a commission and that section 801 clearly defines a commission.

What is a Charter?

Under California law, cities are either Charter Cities or General Law Cities. Most cities in the state are general law cities and the umbrella laws that cover their operation are set by the California legislature. This includes local cities such as Ontario, Claremont, La Verne, Chino Hills, etc.

Charter cities on the other hand have greater latitude in setting their own rules for how the city is run based on a “charter” which acts as a constitution of sorts and all actions within the city are required to follow the charter. A charter trumps state law when dealing with what the court calls “municipal affairs.” There are only 121 such cities in California (up from 86 in 2011). You can see the list here: http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Charter-Cities/Charter_Cities-List. A lot of other information on Charter vs. General Law cities can be found at the League of California Cities website at: http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Charter-Cities.

Over the next several months, I’ll be posting my musings on the charter, how it can be strengthened, things that potential commissioners should consider, and the processes of the commission. In talking about the process, I’ll be looking at the way the 2010 commission handled things and lessons learned from that process.

Since the charter review commission must be established by January 2020, it is my hope that the council will take action as early as October 2019 to begin the process of putting the commission together. That gives them 11 months. I do hope that the mayor and all the council members will be made aware of this important process and not let it “fall through the cracks” as happened in 2010.