Charter Review, Post 4

In my past missives on the charter review process, I’ve focused on how the process works, problems with the last review commission, and issues not in the current charter but that might warrant consideration by the new commission.

The charter is divided into 17 articles: Article I. - Name and Succession; Article II. - Boundaries of City and Council Districts; Article III. - City Powers; Article IV. - Elective Officers; Article V. - The Council; Article VI. - City Manager; Article VII. - Other Officers, Departments and Employees and General Provisions; Article VIII. - Appointive Boards and Commissions; Article IX. – Elections; Article X. - Financial Procedures; Article XI. - Revenue Bonds; Article XII. - Contracts and Purchasing; Article XIII. – Franchises; Article XIV. - Municipal Campaign Financing and Conflict of Interest; Article XV. - Definitions and Miscellaneous; Article XVI. - Charter Amendment:

Article XVII. - Charter Commission. Within each article are sections which elucidate the provisions under the article.

I think I’ll be going through the charter article by article, discussing what the last review came up with and my personal comments on where I think we should go in 2020.

ARTICLE I -- Name and Succession

This one was easy. The last commission had no recommended changes. Section one covers the name of the city. Section two covers that any existing ordinances/laws in effect will not be changed unless they violate the new provisions of the charter. And Section three covers rights and liabilities of the city.

ARTICLE II -- Boundaries of City and Council Districts

This is where the 2010 commission saw started to see the need for some changes. Section one sets the city boundaries. Since this is covered by state law regarding annexation, there is really nothing to look at there. Section two just says that there will be 6 council districts. If we wish to have a larger council or if we wish to have a smaller council, this is where it would be done. I don’t recommend changes at this time but others might decide that the size of the city warrants more citizen governance or that the council is too large. Section three is about district boundaries. The 2010 commission was concerned about how boundaries are set and their recommendation (put on the ballot) was:

Where practical. The City Council may also consider the following factors: (a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness or territory and (d) community of interest of the Districts. In considering the preceding factors, the Council may also consider:

1.      Community Identity-boundaries should respect, support, and build the sense of local community.

2.      Compactness and Contiguity-boundaries should enable ease of voter access to all parts of a District, and the District's area should be territorially linked.

3.      Recognition of Natural and Man-Made Features boundaries shall account for recognizable features that contribute to community identity and shape the social, political and economic life of the City.

4.      Administrative Units- Boundaries should respect census tract and precinct boundaries, although irregularities in Council District boundaries lines may result.

5.      Population Growth-Boundaries should reflect likely growth patterns and anticipate future population growth.

While not considered in 2010, I am concerned about the process of changing boundaries. In 2021, when the census data from the 2010 census was released, the then council considered the boundaries in response to shifting populations. The goal is to set boundaries which are reasonably equal in population. However, what I witnessed was an over concern by some councilmembers that their district would change in a way that they didn’t like. The result was that no district changes were made despite the fact that there was significant population differences in the districts (I don’t recall what the differences were, but the council was advised by their consultant that change should be made and they decided to leave it as it was). Perhaps the 2020 commission should consider the recommendations from 2010 as well as a trigger figure for forcing boundary changes.

ARTICLE III – City Powers

This Article elucidates the powers of the city, the extent of those powers, and intergovernmental relations. All of these were deemed to be appropriate in 2010. However we did have an impassioned plea to add the Youth and Family Master Plan to the charter. The proposed wording for a Section 4 was:

The City declares its commitment to establishing a comprehensive process that fosters a community that cares and engages all members of the community and its leaders who have a stake in promoting positive youth and family development in the City. The City endorses a process that is inclusive and based on collaboration, focuses 011 preventive measures instead of negative social behaviors that have become entrenched, is supported by proven research, is specific to our community needs and one that will be sustainable. This comprehensive process will serve to develop, monitor and sustain the Youth and Family Master Plan.

The 2020 commission might wish to reconsider this section and/or change it to reflect our current Pomona’s Promise and Compassionate City initiatives. While it probably wouldn’t really make a change to these important programs, it would codify them in our main legal document.

I think this is enough to try to digest in one sitting (or perhaps too much?). My plan is to write one of these about every 2 weeks from now until about October when it is hoped the process of selecting the 2020 commission will begin. Next up, Elective Offices and City Council.