Charter Review, Post 10

At the council meeting (after midnight) that was held Oct. 21, the city council approved the process and other things for the formation of the 2020 Charter Review Commission. Over the past year I've written about what the charter review is, how it functions, things I'd like to see taken up in the charter review, and then an article by article review of what's in the charter with some of the things that were discussed in 2010. All this was done with a goal of giving us the tools we will need to help in this process.

Whether you're one of the 7 commissioners, or just a citizen, having a good knowledge of the charter, what it is, how it works, and what kinds of changes are possible, is very important. If you're not chosen to be on the commission, I do hope that you'll attend commission meetings, provide input, and work with the commissioners to craft charter changes for the good of the entire city.

If you're thinking of apply for the commission.

Applications are now available here. They became available Oct. 22 with a deadline for application no later than November 12. Proposed bylaws are available here, the staff report detailing some of the information on the commission is here.

I have some thoughts about serving on this commission. Unlike most commissions where you meet once a month and can work on issues for, at minimum 4 years of your term, with other commissioners overlapping you on the commission so that there is a continuous flow of the work of the commission, the charter review commission will be one group working for at most one year (January to December 2020). This is a gigantic job and not to be entered into lightly. The council DID allow that those serving on other commissions would be eligible to serve on the Charter Commission because it is "temporary." I personally, expect that if I am chosen to be on the charter review that I would resign from the Library Board of Trustees (commission) to devote my time to the issues of the charter. While I understand that I wouldn't have to, I feel that it would be a disservice to the Library board to try and split the responsibilities. If one is on a commission that meets less frequently than monthly, perhaps they will be able to do both. I'd hate to see a Planning Commissioner (which meets twice a month) try to juggle the two, for example.

If you're considering applying, I would hope that you have the ability to make a commitment to working for the entire year and understanding that you can't let other things in life keep you from this important obligation. While it is schedule to hold monthly meetings, I anticipate that there will be other full commission outreach meetings, and perhaps other meetings in addition to the monthly meetings. In 2010 when we had 15 members, an ungainly large group, we broke into subcommittees to research and come to consensus on each charter article. That's 17 articles plus some proposed articles. This means that there were more than 15 subcommittees and since we could legally have up to 7 members on a subcommittee all members served on multiple committees which had their own meeting schedules. I personally, was involved in up to 3 subcommittee meetings a week.

Be ready to put your life on hold for a year and make sure that your family understands the kind of commitment this entails. If you only want to go to 8 or 10 meetings a year, please come as a part of the public. You'll still have a chance to provide input as the meetings will be announced, agendized, Brown Act meetings where there is an obligation to public input.

Fast to effect change quickly, or slow and deliberate.

Article XVII sets up the charter review commission to do its work over a one year period from January through December each decade. The results of that work is to be a charter amendment which the city council is obligated to put before the voters at the "next scheduled election." In 2010, by the time the review was finalized, the "next" election was 2012. This meant that there were close to two years from the proposed amendment to when it would go before the people.

It has been suggested by some that the charter review commission is not required to take the full year to come up with their amendment(s). If the 2020 commission should say, complete the work by June 2020, they could have something ready to be put on the ballot November 2020. However, if they take the full year, the "next" election would not be until November 2022.

At the council meeting that set up the 2020 commission, it was suggested that "urgent" changes could be done first and submitted even before the full year term of the commission is over. This would allow some really pressing issues to be put on the 2020 election in November with an additional charter amendment(s) being slated for the November 2022 election.

It was also suggested that perhaps the charter review commission should review Article XVII and change the duration of future commissions to, as an example, May 2029 through April 2030 to ensure that ballot measures would be ready for the 2030 election and that the commission isn't negatively impacted by an election cycle.

So is it better try and get something before the voters as soon as possible? Afterall it will have been over 23 years since the last change to the charter. Or to take the time to deliberate the issues and not worry about getting it done quickly, taking the full year that the law allows? These are good questions that the commission should take up at their first meeting (scheduled for January 9, 2020 at 5:50 pm in the Council Chambers). Those urgent items should clearly include those areas where the city processes have deviated from the letter of the charter to bring them into compliance.

Some thoughts on the kinds of things that should be in the charter.

In 2010, the commission perhaps tried to take on too much. Because it had been nearly 15 years since the charter had last been amended, the overly large commission tried to solve all of the perceived problems in the city through charter amendments. Putting commissions like police and ethics into the charter seemed like a good idea, but was it? The charter is the primary document for the city. It is akin to the US or State constitutions. Trying to put too much specificity into the charter might not be the best way to go. Allowing the council and the political process to solve the problems might in many instances better serve the community, rather than locking in such solutions. A police commission is finally being formulated and will probably be in existence before the charter review takes place, for example. However, if there are areas where politics will never allow for change, such as ethics where it would not be in the interest of politicians to impose regulation on themselves, then an argument can be made for it. The commission will need to be aware of these kinds of issues.

A message to the City Council . . . 

The charter review process will have a major impact on the future of the city. What the charter commission comes up with has the potential to create major changes which will be in effect for at least the next decade. Please keep all this in mind when reviewing those who apply for positions on the commission. Many will apply because they have a specific item (agenda) that they want to see implemented. My hope is that the commission which will be ultimately seated will be individuals who will soberly address ALL of the issues covered by the charter to bring forward something that voters will be happy to approve and that will have a lasting impact on the city.

I look forward to the next year.

Charter Review, Post 9

Continuing to focus on how the current charter but that might warrant consideration by the new commission, and what the last charter review determined. To view the entire current city charter go to: https://www.ci.pomona.ca.us/mm/cityhall/pdf/city_charter.pdf.

You can also view the 2010 proposed charter amendments at: http://www.johncliffordgraphics.com/ftp/Final_Report5-26-11.pdf

Article XIV - Municipal Campaign Financing and Conflict of Interest

Section 1401 is a voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling. It notes that Cal. Government Code is that campaign expenditures shall not exceed 25 cents per resident of the district in which the candidate is running and shall apply to each election, and that it will be increased by 25% of any state statue changes.

1402 explains how surplus campaign funds are dealt with. Specifically it states:

All funds that exceed election campaign expenses for public office, or the repayment of campaign loans, or expense as specified in California Government Code Sections 89519(a) and 85305(c) [Government Code §§ 89519(a) and 85305(c)] or any successor statutes, known as "surplus campaign funds" or "surplus funds," shall be turned over to the City's General Fund within ninety (90) days after withdrawal, defeat, or election to office.

This provision has been somewhat controversial as it doesn’t really allow a “carry-over” for the next campaign but specifies that surplus campaign funds “shall” be turned over to the city’s General Fund. This is one of those provisions which seems to not be the case and is not being enforced by the city.

1403 goes over conflicts of interest. It says that a councilmember “shall not cast a vote on any matter relating to any person or business entity that has contributed more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to all said Councilmember's City election campaigns for the current term. The vote of any Councilmember violating the above shall be invalid.” The 2010 charter commission asked to have the $250 amount raised to the $500 amount as in state code and wanted to limit that donor limit to the previous 12 months rather than the entire current term of office. However, this was defeated by the voters so presently the $250 limit is still in effect. To the best of my knowledge, this has been a little noted provision and I haven’t really seen too many recusals for items coming up where over $250 in funding was given.

Article XV - Definitions and Miscellaneous

This article specifies certain definitions to clarify what is meant in charter language.

They are:

a)      “Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

b)      "City" is the City of Pomona and "office," "department," "board," "commission," "officer," "department head" or "employee" is an office, department, board, commission, officer, department head or employee as the case may be, of the City of Pomona.

c)      "County" is the County of Los Angeles.

d)      "State" is the State of California.

e)      "Federal" is the United States of America.

f)       "Agency" or "agencies of the City" shall not include the Redevelopment Agency or the Pomona Public Financing Authority.

Note that “Shall” is mandatory. So anything that says “Shall” must be done and is not to be read as something that can be “interpreted” except as mandatory.

1502 concerns what happens if someone violates these provisions. This includes prosecution in the name of the People of California or by civil action.

Article XVI - Charter Amendment

This article covers how amendments can be made to the charter. There are three ways the charter can be changed (placed the ballot for a vote of the people). a) by city voters as an initiative (requires signature collection), b) by ordinance of the city council containing the full text of the proposed amendment and then passed by 5/7 of the total membership of the council, or c) by report of the Charter Commission created in Article XVII.

1602-3 cover elections—governed by Cal. Elections Code, and Adoption of an amendment which will take a simple majority of the4 voters and will become effective at the time in the amendment or 30 days after its adoption by voters.

Article XVII - Charter Commission

The current charter reads thus:

Sec. 1701. - Charter Commission.

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.

This short concise paragraph was expanded to 4 additional sections covering specifying how the commission shall be constituted, the composition of the members, staff and counsel for the commission, and a violations section.

At the beginning of the commission in 2010, the commission was informed that they would only have 2 staff members present (city clerk to act as secretary and take minutes, assistant city manager for assistance). We felt that we needed to have a representative of the city attorney present since we were basically “writing law” but were informed that there was no budget for that and so we would not have legal counsel to help us through the work. The 2010 commission felt that it was incumbent to clarify all of these issues within the charter and added them as a charter amendment. As stated previously, all of the suggestions were voted down by the voters in 2012.

NEXT TIME: Another look at the 2020 Charter Review Commission Process