Pomona Redistricting

It’s redistricting time again in Pomona. If you haven’t been aware, and I’m guessing by the attendance at the independent redistricting commission meetings that most of you aren’t, new district lines will be drawn for Pomona which will be in use for at least the next 10 years. Draft maps have been proposed and are available for public scrutiny. You can view all of the maps (including those that were not considered because they were not population balanced) at: https://drawpomona.org/draft-maps/.

 

The key to the new maps is to draw balanced maps. That is, where each district has nearly the same population numbers. In addition, you try to balance areas of common interest so that districts are not breaking up neighborhoods or ethnic enclaves. You can try your hand at map drawing at https://districtr.org/plan. Maps can then be saved and submitted to the commission for consideration.  Additional maps may be proposed prior to February 10 if you want to get in on the fun. 

The challenge in drawing balanced maps is that currently D6 is overpopulated and needs to be made smaller, and D5 is underpopulated and needs to be made larger. Since these two districts are at the extreme north (all north of the 10 freeway) and southwest, it will impact all the other districts as well.

Below are my personal opinions regarding the draft maps currently under consideration.

Of the maps which were under review at the January meeting, I have a preference for map #105. While maps are anonymous, I suspect that map 105 was drawn by an older white dude, probably the kind of guy who wears suspenders and hats with a feather in the band. This map is population balanced and in compliance with the fair maps act and other Federal and State requirements.

To make D6 smaller, it takes areas north of the 10 freeway to the extreme eastern corner of the city and moves them into D4. This keeps Fairplex, Ganesha Hills, Mountain Meadows, and the Hospital district in D6, while moving a wholly residential area into D4. My personal interest is to maintain the historic districts as common communities of interest and this map maintains Lincoln Park in D4, Wilton in D1, and Hacienda in D6.

Additionally it takes the historic downtown area from being split up between 4 council districts and consolidates it into D1. I feel that this gives downtown residents a unified voice on the council. I believe in the past that it was considered that businesses would benefit from having 4 councilmembers representing those interests. Open for debate.

As for D5, this map maintains the western side of the district and moves the district more into the southern part of the city.

A map which was preferred by the commission chair was map 104:

This map reduces D6 by moving D1 into the Mountain Meadows, Ganesha Park, and Fairplex areas into D1. This would maintain the hospital district and concentrate the rest of D6 to the northeast corner of the city. The rest of the districts are similar in shape to map 105. One of the problems that I see is that D1 under this plan would be 1.54% over populated (maps must be within 10% of equal so this is OK), but that doesn’t take into account that with the not counted development at the Pomona North railroad station, this will probably be out of balance within the next 10 years and cause rebalancing in 2031.

One commissioner liked map 108 because it would create all 6 districts with over 50% Hispanic voting age population. While I understand the historic issue of making districts to exclude Hispanic population, I’m not crazy about using redistricting to exclude any race. All other maps would have at least one district with ranged around 47% Hispanic. All other districts will have 50%+ Hispanic population as reflected by the majority Hispanic population of the city.

The map that, in my estimation is the most oddly drawn is map 107

This map takes D5 completely out of Phillips Ranch. It creates a D2 that includes downtown with both the Lincoln Park and Wilton historic districts.

Charter Review Commission postscript

Last night was the final meeting of the 2020 Pomona Charter Review Commission. We approved (with some minor modifications from what was in the agenda packet) the final report which will be submitted to the city clerk for inclusion on the November 2022 ballot. There will be 8 items on that ballot as follows: 

1. Police Commission
2. Ethics Commission
3. Redistricting Commission
4. Term Limits
5. Resign to Run
6. Primary Election
7. Campaign Finance
8. General Charter (many misc items)

Expect more information on these items as we get closer to the election cycle.

At the meetings we thanked each other for our hard work, city staff who supported us, and the city attorney who helped us draft language and lead us through the pitfalls of writing legislation.

But I’d like to take this opportunity to especially thank all those residents of Pomona (and some outside Pomona) who provided both personal and public comments which helped us shape the items proposed for the ballot. While we sometimes went the other way from what specific speakers asked for, we trust that the voters will make the final decisions on some of these important issues. We had many speakers who helped us with such issues as term limits, police commission, primary elections, the preamble, and assorted other issues. Whether we agreed or not, I can say that each of us on the commission LISTENED to your concerns and arguments, because in the end it will be YOU who decide on these issues.

THANK YOU! It was a pleasure to serve you on this most important commission. I hope that we serve as an example to future Charter Commissions. The next one will be seated either in 2029 or 2030 (depending on whether the General Charter amendment passes). I hope that Pomonans will be inspired to serve on the commission with the understanding that it will be one or two years of very intense work.

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

Charter Review, Post 8

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

ARTICLE X – Financial Procedures

Section 1001-1005 deal with the budget beginning with the definition of the fiscal year, and moving on to how the city manager will, working with department heads, create a draft budget to be submitted to the council 45 days prior to the start of the fiscal year. It also describes what should be in the “budget message” created by the city manager to the council.

Section 1006 deals with the adoption process by the council including public noticing and modifications to the budget as presented after the public hearing. The 2010 commission suggested the following change to this section in order to enhance how the budget notification takes place:

(a) Notice and Hearing. To achieve wide attempt dissemination of information to the residents, the Council shall distribute a press release that includes information about public hearing for budget discussion and where to obtain information about the budget, to reporters at, at least one English and at least one Spanish general circulation newspaper. The Council shall also publish a notice of public hearing for budget discussion on the City's webpage and posted in the City's public notices board. a general summary of the budget in one or more general circulation newspapers. The Council is encouraged to puhlish the summary in additional media including foreign language newspapers and electronic media[.] The message notice shall include: (italics is proposed wording, strikeout text is proposed deletion)

1007 discusses amendments to the budget after adoption including supplemental budget, reduction of budget, transfer of appropriations, and the limitations set on debt service within the budget. The 2010 commission would have eliminated the section on transfer of appropriations.

The rest of the sections deal with the fact that budget items do not carry over, the prohibition of overspending a budget, etc. Sections 1010-1011 deal with the Capital Improvement budget(s) (building projects such as streets, buildings, repairs, etc.) and the special nature of the budgets for Capital Improvements which may last more than one fiscal year. The rest of the section deals with public records, bonded indebtedness, debt limit, taxes, and independent audit.

ARTICLE XI – Revenue Bonds

This article discusses the rights of the city to issue revenue bonds for capital improvements. The 2010 commission had no suggested changes to this article.

ARTICLE XII – Contracts and Purchasing

This article covers how the city shall enter into contracts. This includes a centralized purchasing system, competitive bidding, description of illegal conflicts of interest in contracting, and a prohibition of “split bidding.”

The only section that the 2010 commission saw fit to change was to add Section 1204 as:

Sec. 1204. Local Preference

In any contract, sale, purchase, or transaction to which the City is a party, preference shall be given so far as practicable to individuals and businesses within the City of Pomona insofar as the same is not in conflict with the Constitution or general laws.

ARTICLE XIII – Franchises 

This article covers how the city deals with franchises for public utilities including requirements for franchises, procedures, terms, use of eminent domain, and the city’s right to use poles. The 2010 commission did not propose any changes to this section.

NEXT TIME: The final installment on the charter (perhaps one more after that on “moving forward”).Article XIV. - Municipal Campaign Financing and Conflict of Interest,
Article XV. - Definitions and Miscellaneous,
Article XVI. - Charter Amendment and,
Article XVII. - Charter Commission.

Charter Review, Post 7

Continuing to focus on what is in the current charter and what 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

ARTICLE VIII – Appointive Boards and Commissions

Section VIII deals with commissions and appointive boards. This sets up the rules for appointing, replacing, and other such topics. This does not describe or talk about what commissions there should be.

801a states: 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.

It should be noted that all “appointive boards and commissions” (emphasis mine). This would mean that any non-commission board set up by the city under this charter SHALL be of this size. This might be an issue for the Fairplex “committee,” the Cultural Arts Citizen's Advisory Committee, and some other committees that have been set up. This should probably be looked at.

801b states: Such appointed term shall be for four (4) years and shall commence with the term of the appointing Councilmember. No person shall sit on a board or commission after the expiration of his or her term. In the case of a re-appointment, the appointee must be re-appointed and sworn prior to resuming such seat. In the absence of a valid appointment, no person shall sit on a board or commission.

801c states: Any mid-term vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the appropriate Councilmember within sixty (60) days to serve out the unexpired portion of the term being filled. Any appointee may be removed by a majority vote of the Council. If no appointment is made within sixty (60) days of assuming office or following a mid-term vacancy, the Mayor shall appoint a member to the vacant seat.

This (c) part of section 1 was something that the previous commission looked at long and hard. There was, at that time, a problem of councilmembers not appointing to vacancies in a timely manner so that some commissions had long periods of time where 1 or 2 seats sat vacant. In an attempt to remedy part of that problem, the proposal in 2010 was to add this wording to the end of 801c: If no appointment is made within thirty (30) days by the Mayor, then any member of the City Council may nominate a candidate for approval by the city council at the next regularly scheduled council meeting.

802 is where the charter demands the creation of a planning commission. This follows state law. The 2010 ballot measure would have added the wording a Police Commission, following planning commission.

Since there are, once again, calls for a police commission, this is something that might want to be considered.

ARTICLE IX – Elections

This article covers how the city conducts elections, when it conducts elections, referendum, initiative, and recall, and special elections.

In 2010 there was a LOT of talk about elections. First, there was the issue of the mayor being in a cycle with three council seats making three of them “safe” to run for mayor as they didn’t have to give up their seat to run for mayor, while the other three had to give up their council seat to run for mayor. There was a feeling that this was unfair to the districts (and their councilmembers) who had to make that tough choice. Our solution was to move the mayor’s race to an odd year election so that it didn’t coincide with ANY council elections. Since then the state has pretty much mandated that all elections be held on even number years (note that the school board moved from odd years to even years). A solution I’ve been thinking about, but not sure it would work, is having the mayor elected to a 6 year term. This would ensure that every other mayoral election would be “safe” for a different group of councilmembers. I can see some disadvantages to this, and especially the OTHER option of having the mayor run every 2 years.

During the decade previous to 2010 we had many elections which had a large number of candidates running (as many as 10 in one district). This meant that the vote would be split in such a way that a candidate with as low as 20% of the total vote could (and did) win the office. That meant that 80% of the voters could have been absolutely against the winner, but that person won regardless. We looked at a primary system as we used to have where the top 2 candidates faced a runoff. Since this would require two elections, it was deemed way too expensive. So we researched and found that some states and the country of Australia had a “ranked voting” or “instant runoff” system where voters ranked their choice as 1, 2, 3 . . . etc. Currently, the state of Maine and 11 cities do this kind of elections including the California cities of  San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and  San Leandro. Under this system, the bottom person is eliminated and the votes for that eliminated person then go to those voters’ #2 choice, if there was still not a winner, the bottom person was eliminated and their votes went to their #2 choice unless that person had been eliminated and if so it went to their #3 choice. This continued until you had someone with over 50% approval. Even then we recognized that the county who runs our elections would not process such ballots so we specified that it would only take place when the county was able to do so. This system would have been very complex, but it does work in Maine and those cities where it has been implemented. In 2020 cities that will be added to those with this system will be Las Cruces, NM, and St. Louis Park, MN. We might want to look at the costs of primary elections and see if that is a better way to go in the future.

Another item under elections was a concern about candidates who might decide to run for two different offices at the same time. This is not that unusual, with the winner of two offices usually choosing to take one and resign from the other. This causes an immediate vacancy which usually requires a special election (increasing costs). As a solution, we proposed that a section 905 be added which would have read:

Sec. 905 Concurrent Election.

The City Clerk shall not allow the placing on the ballot of any individual for more than one city elective office.

NEXT TIME: I’ll try to speed this up so will cover more next time.

Article X. - Financial Procedures and Commissions, Article XI. - Revenue Bonds, Article XII. - Contracts and Purchasing, and Article XIII - Franchises.

Charter Review, Post 6

Continuing to focus on how the current charter with items 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

ARTICLE VI – City Manager

This is the part of the charter that deals with the city manager, how they’re chosen, and what their duties are among others. There were no recommendations in 2010 for this entire article.

Section 601 deals with the office and the appointment to the office. There are 5 lettered paragraphs in this section. a) states that the city manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the city (no, this is not the mayor), b) goes into how the position is appointed, that their term is indefinite and that the sole criteria is executive and administrative qualifications, c) states that the City Manager shall have compensation set by the city council and shall devote full time to City Manager duties, d) this one deserves to be quoted exactly

“Separation of Powers. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, neither the Council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution of the City Manager's powers and duties. The Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager. Councilmembers may make inquiries or discuss matters with subordinates of the City Manager; however, no Councilmember may direct staff in matters relating to setting or changing City policy”,

e) states that the city manager may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the city council.

Section 602 just states that no person who has within the past three years sat on the city council may be considered for the position of city manager. Section 603 is another long section which delineates the duties of the city manager, with Section 604 stating, “At least annually the City Manager's performance shall be reviewed by the Council.” Note that there is nothing here about an outside review process or delaying review of the city manager. It clearly states that THE COUNCIL SHALL do a review, AT LEAST annually. (emphasis mine). The final section, 605 covers a temporary city manager in the advent that the city manager cannot perform their duties for any reason.

ARTICLE V – Other Officers, Departments and Employees and General Provisions

This article covers the organization of the city with specific sections on: City Clerk, City Attorney, City Treasurer, Department and Director of Finance, Police Department and Chief, Additional Departments, and other sections on the duties of city staff.

This is one of those areas where, unfortunately, the city is out of compliance with our own city charter. Section 701 clearly states:

Sec. 701. Administrative Organization.

The Council may establish City departments, offices or agencies in addition to those created by this Charter and may prescribe their functions except that no function assigned by this Charter to a particular department, office or agency may be discontinued or, unless this Charter specifically so provides, assigned to any other. The Council shall encourage that officers, deputies, and employees of the City be or become residents of the City.

There shall be an office of City Clerk, City Attorney, City Treasurer, Director of Finance, and Chief of Police. (emphasis added).

The reason that I suggest that we're out of compliance with our charter is that, I believe, currently the same person is both finance director and city treasurer. While I understand that combining these roles was done for sound fiscal reasons, this is specifically prohibited by the charter since both City Treasurer and Director of Finance are stated as offices in the charter that the city SHALL have.

The next several sections go over subjects related to departments and policies such as: appointment of department heads, nepotism, administering oaths, retirement system, political activity, oath of office, and nondiscrimination. There is also a list of things that are prohibited for city employees including: lying, bribing, or political fundraising. Anyone convicted of such offenses shall forfeit their position and not be allowed to hold any position with the city for five years.

The last charter review had no recommended changes in any of these areas.

NEXT TIME:

Article VIII. Appointive Boards and Commissions and Article IX. Elections