6 22-0583 Subject: Good Governance Charter Reform Ballot Measure
From: Councilmember Kalb
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters For The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election A Government Reform Measure That Would Amend The City Charter To, Among Other Things: (1) Establish Term Limits For Councilmembers; (2) Require A Minimum Of Two Council Hearings Before Certain Council Proposed Ballot Measures Are Approved For Placement On The Ballot; (3) Count Councilmember Abstentions And Absences As A No Vote On Council Motions, Resolutions And Ordinances For Purposes Of Determining Whether Mayor Has Authority To Cast A Tie Breaking Vote; (4) Change The Formula For The Public Ethics Commission To Set Councilmember Salaries And Authorizing The Public Ethics Commission To Set The Salaries Of The City Auditor And City Attorney; (5) Add And Clarify Duties Of And Provide Minimum Staffing For The City Auditor; And Directing The City Clerk To Fix The Date For Submission Of Arguments And Provide For Notice And Publication, And Take Any And All Actions Necessary Under Law To Prepare For And Conduct The November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election
Provision 5 should be reinserted into this 'good governance' measure: Super Majority of Council may remove Administrator:
This provision is permissive not prescriptive: it doesn't say what the trigger for removal would be. "Cause" is left up to the enabling legislation to define. All this provision does is make it POSSIBLE for the Council to create the criteria for removal and requires a super majority to remove.
The 'cause' could be as simple as having been convicted of a felony, or it could be much broader, including failure to provide truthful and accurate reports to the Council. The Council will determine 'cause' later.
But without this provision that changes the City Charter, the Council will give up its authority to hold the person responsible for carrying out their legislation accountable to them.
Why would you want to do that? The City Administrator has too much power and too little accountability: this is not good governnance.
I choose oppose although some parts of this proposal are acceptable. It is interesting to see this: Require A Minimum Of Two Council Hearings Before Certain Council Proposed Ballot Measures Approved For Placement On The Ballot; when this ballot measure is being rammed though with the absolute minimum of public input and time to consider the measure. This is not acceptable. If it is important to have this measure on the ballot, complete it timely and allow the public exposure to it and enough time to consider it. The unwise provision that allowed the city council to fire the city administrator appears to be removed from the measure presented at the last council meeting. The emphasis on the duties of the City Auditor is very welcome. Councilmember Taylor's term limit measure is preferable to that provision here.
Provision 5 should be reinserted into this 'good governance' measure: Super Majority of Council may remove Administrator:
This provision is permissive not prescriptive: it doesn't say what the trigger for removal would be. "Cause" is left up to the enabling legislation to define. All this provision does is make it POSSIBLE for the Council to create the criteria for removal and requires a super majority to remove.
The 'cause' could be as simple as having been convicted of a felony, or it could be much broader, including failure to provide truthful and accurate reports to the Council. The Council will determine 'cause' later.
But without this provision that changes the City Charter, the Council will give up its authority to hold the person responsible for carrying out their legislation accountable to them.
Why would you want to do that? The City Administrator has too much power and too little accountability: this is not good governnance.
I choose oppose although some parts of this proposal are acceptable. It is interesting to see this: Require A Minimum Of Two Council Hearings Before Certain Council Proposed Ballot Measures Approved For Placement On The Ballot; when this ballot measure is being rammed though with the absolute minimum of public input and time to consider the measure. This is not acceptable. If it is important to have this measure on the ballot, complete it timely and allow the public exposure to it and enough time to consider it. The unwise provision that allowed the city council to fire the city administrator appears to be removed from the measure presented at the last council meeting. The emphasis on the duties of the City Auditor is very welcome. Councilmember Taylor's term limit measure is preferable to that provision here.