Loading...
1978/06/0578-6~7. Main Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott (entered at 4:00 p.m.), Gaylen Compton, Ben Bay and Dan VanDorpe Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the adjourned regular Council meeting. 105/142: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Mayor Seymour announced that the workshop session was to discuss potential ballot questions which could lead to amendment to the City Charter. He acknowleged Mr. Qaylen Compton and Mr. Ben Bay who were appointed to the Charter Review Committee (CRC) and explained that the Council's concept was to work simple items out amongst themselves, thus precluding the necessity of having to burden the CRC with such items. If no agree- ment could be reached, those would then be referred to the Committee. The two items for Council consideration were: (1) increasing the size of the City Council to 7 members and under what conditions and (2) the method of electing the Mayor. 142: DISCUSSION - EXPANSION OF THE COUNCIL TO SEVEN MEMBERS: Councilman Roth first spoke to the issue of a 7-member Council which he supported as follows: the great increase in population now justified expansion of the Council to 7 members; 7 member Councils were standard in cities where the City Manager/City Council form of government existed; the expansion would bring about a decrease in the mathematical probabilities of a crucial one vote decision; there would be less chance of a 4 to 3 vote than a 3 to 2 vote; a reduction in close votes would give better direction to the City management, specifically to the City Manager; a 7-member Council would add increased business experience and diversification of viewpoints; the change would increase the pool of potential candidates for the office of Mayor under the present system, wherein only incumbents were eligible to run for office. A brief discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilman Roth relative to how the Council would be increased to 7. At the conclusion, Councilman Roth stated that when discussing the mechanics of the situation, it was first necessary to determine how the Mayor was going to be elected. He maintained it was important that input on the matter be solicited from the Charter Review Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that initially she favored a 7-member Council, but subsequently checked with those cities with 7 members and found that it did not work in actuality. The politics now involved in gaining a third vote became even more complicated in trying to gain a fourth. As well, all members would feel that they had to speak whether or not it was necessary, thus additional staff time would be necessitated and it would become more costly having to pay two additional people. She questioned any added benefits that might be derived from a 7-member Council, considering the added costs and problems that would occur. 78-678 Main Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Councilman Overholt stated he did not have strong feelings about the matter one way or the other although he was used to a 5-member body for 9 years as a member of the School Board and never experienced any problem with it. When it came to a close vote, it was perhaps time to take another look at the issue. He would be agreeable to a Charter Review Study of the matter. Relative to the concept of districting which had been broached previously, Councilman Overholt stated he was opposed. Councilman Roth stated that he was also opposed to Councilmanic districts. Councilman Roth then recounted the fact that he suggested a CRC be formed after the municipal election last April to review the Charter, 2 of the 3 specific items being the election of the Mayor and expansion of the Council. Thereafter, Mayor Seymour suggested that those two issues could be resolved amongst the Council although he (Roth) believed that the Committee should review these along with a complete review of the Charter. Mayor Seymour spoke to the matter relative to ~he two items alone. He believed that the Council Members had been in the community long enough and were active enough to know what the public might be interested in voting on. Ail that was necessary was to decide what should be placed on the ballot. It was with that in mind that he suggested the two specific issues (mayoral election and expan- sion of the Council) be discussed amongst the Council because he was n~t in favor of spending a great deal of citizens time in providing input, study, debate and staff time only to have a recommendation come back with the same conclusions as the Council. The issues were simple--specifically under discussion, expansion to 7 members. It was a matter of directing the City Attorney to draw up the ballot language as to whether or not the Council should continue as at present with 5 members or be expanded to 7. Subsequently, the Council would decide on the final ballot language. Mr. Ben Bay stated that he was on the last CRC and the problem was that the Committee did not debate as to whether or not an issue should be placed on the ballot, but whether they liked the idea or not. He would not favor a repeat of such an occurrence, and as a member of the new CRC, he was approaching his task with the idea that people should have a choice to choose. The Council started off voicing its opinion as to whether or not they liked the idea and that was not the question. Mr. Gaylen Compton stated that having served on the last CRC, he took exception to the extent that he felt the Council formed the Committee presuming there was some interest in putting an issue on the ballot. If that was predetermined, what Mr. Bay stated was true, but in order to determine what to place on the ballot, it was necessary to discuss one's feelings about a particular item. Mayor Seymour reiterated his opinion relative to the issue as well as his readiness in directing the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Charter that would permit expansion from 5 to 7, while at the same time devising a question if the Council make-up should be left as is. 78-67 9 Main Library., 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that such questions should be very clearly written with the pros and cons listed. Further discussion followed, wherein Councilman Roth outlined the basis for his conclusion that there was an interest on the part of the people relative to the question of expanding the Council. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to develop ballot language to increase the size of the Council from 5 to 7 members, as well as ballot language indicating that the structure should be left in its present status; subsequently, the language would be submitted to the Council for a final decision and if a decision could not be made at that point, sub- mit the matter to the CRC. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to have the 3 cities in Orange County with 7-member Councils (Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and New-port Beach) polled as to their feelings relative to their structures. Mayor Seymour invited her to send letters to each of the Council Members of those cities. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 142: DISCUSSION - METHOD OF ELECTING THE MAYOR: Councilman Roth noted that confusion had arisen in the last two years amongst the electorate in having to vote twice for one person, once for Council Members and once for Mayor. As well, the people believed they had an opportunity to select their own Mayor, but in essence, they could only vote for 2 or 3 members of the Council, and that was not what they wanted. On the other hand, he noted the election that took place in Garden 'Grove where the Mayor's seat was open to anyone and in the final analysis, a man was elected without any expertise relative to municipal government thus resulting in a lengthy training process. Councilman Roth also expressed his dis- like relative to two-year terms for Mayor, bringing about the necessity for more frequent and costly campaigns. He also referred to a 1976 editorial with which he a~reed, copies of which he passed to the Council,.wherein it indicated there was no "sure fire" way to pick a Mayor. Although he disliked going backwards, he believed that the lesser of all evils regarding selection of a Mayor to be the procedure the City had prior to the last Charter Amendment change--that is, that the Council Members themselves select their Mayor on a one- or two-year basis, one of the many reasons for which lay in the fact that in reality, they were electing a Chairman of the Board of Directors. This method also gave the Council the right, by a majority vote, to remove that person as Chairman and replace that member with someone else, whereas now it would require a ~ecall process which was very difficult and expensive. The Charter presently stated the Mayor's responsibility as being 2-fold: (1) the Mayor is the ceremonial head of the City and (2) the Mayor is responsible for conducting Council meetings. If a strong Mayor form of government was desired in Anaheim, the Charter would have to be changed. He conceded the question was a very complex one. 78-~,80 Main Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Roth that the old way was the better way although it did not seem so at the time becausev-~m-½e~-op~m~om;-am-~mp~p~m~ May~-wa~-~-e~eev--$~e-a~-ag~eed-~a~-~½e-~me~me~-~e~em~y-w~-~~ b~e-~e-ew~v--$he-be~eved-ehe-psyeh~y-~*-~w&~-*he-ma~&*y-~-*he-~~~$~ Councilman Overholt stated that he had two concerns, one was evidenced in the last campaign when a slate was circulated wherein the Mayor was placed on the slate for Mayor only and not as a Council candidate. If the vote turned out accordingly, the people would not have been voting for what they wanted since it was necessary to be a Council Member in order to also be Mayor. Further, if the previous Mayor had chosen to run, the counter preparation by Mayor Seymour would have meant that those candidates would have spent between $100,000 and $150,000 combined for the position of Mayor in the City. The cost of politics was a very bothersome aspect to him and a negative feature of having a contested public election of a Mayor. Councilman Overholt continued that, as well, an elected Mayor might feel his elec-~_~ tion placed him above other Council Members or result in delving into other admin- istrative matters that would interfere with the Council/City Manager form of govern- ment which worked well. There was no doubt that the Mayor would be elected by the people, but he would only have 1 of 5 (or 7) votes. He believed that a Mayor elected by the people had a greater onus to it than if elected by Council Members. In concluding, in considering the pros and cons, Councilman Overholt stated that from his standpoint, the biggest argument against electing a Mayor was the potential pitfall of the electorate voting a slate of candidates wherein the Mayor would have been out, not only as a Council Person, but also as Mayor. Councilman Roth recalled in a prior election where the candidate was running strong in a precinct for Mayor, but not for Council. The people wanted him as Mayor, but did not care if he was a Council Person. Mayor Seymour also explained the difficulties he encountered in explaining to citizens during his campaign what the Charter required and why they had to vote twice. Although he was successful in clarifying the situation as was evidenced by the almost exact number of votes he received for both Mayor and Council, it was expensive to accomplish. Councilman Kott entered the Multipurpose Room. (4:00 P.M.) Mayor Seymour continued along the lines of the confusion involved in the present method of electing the Mayor. He stated, however, that the electorate through the initiative process clearly signified that they wanted to vote for their In her opinion, an unpopular Mayor was then in office, and that's why the peti- tions were signed as they were, with the confusion in the amendment, particularly having to vote twice for the same person. The size of the campaign also concerned -~ her. The two-year term might be a problem, since a person might want to serve for one year, but not two. She also believed it was good psychology to have in mind that the majority of the Council could remove the Mayor. Although it's probably in- flammmtory to say the people don't necessarily know who the best choice is, because the Council works together each week, it is nevertheless a true fact. She pointed out how few people attend Council meetings to observe for themselves, except on emotional items in which they are involved personally. (See minutes of September 5, 1978) 78-681 Main Library', 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor. Although they may not have understood clearly that they could only elect one of the two or three Councilpeople who chose to run, they understood they would have the right to actually vote for the person for that office. He be- lieved that they had a responsibility to the electorate to try and clarify the situation. Thus, he could support two questions being placed on the ballot: (1) give the electorate the choice of returning to the old method as previously articulated or (2) a "cleanup" version of the present method. He thereupon defined what he would propose: (1) the office of Mayor should be opened up to any man or woman on the street (qualified elector) and (2) the office of Mayor should be a separate one, but with no more power than at present (ceremonial head of the City and Chairman of the Council meeting). The latter would eliminate the problem of voting twice and make the office separate rather than Mayor and Council person. His ~hird proposal would be that the office of Mayor be a 4-year term, rather than 2, considering the expense of running a campaign, although he did not care to make the final decision as to how that would be placed on the ballot. However, if the Council were of the opinion that it should remain at 2 years, he would not be in. opposition. Relative to the question of campaign expenses, the CRC had been charged specifically with looking at that expensive process and he was hopeful that sound recommendations would be forthcoming from the Committee on that aspect. Mayor Seymour then briefed Councilman Kott on what had been discussed and voted upon during his absence earlier in the meeting. Mr. Compton stated he had a problem in trying to separate the election of Council- man and Mayor and did not believe it fair for a person to have to choose whether they wanted to run for Mayor or Councilman because they would perhaps want to run for both. He had thought about the procedural aspects and perhaps the possibility of utilizing two ballot cards instead of one. Mr. Dan VanDorpe stated that he personally favored the old method of electing the Mayor, but agreed with Mayor Seymour that people should have the right to make that decision. Mr. Bay stated his opinion as to whether or not he favored a particular method was immaterial. He believed the following should be on the ballot: (1) present method, and (2) Council selection by a majority, and if he could be shown the mechanics of how to clean up and make work a method of election by voting separ- ately for the office of Mayor, then that should also be placed on the ballot. Discussion followed between the Mayor, Messrs. Bay and Compton relative to some of the possibilities in separating the office. Councilman Kott noted that there was still confusion to some extent. He believed that anyone who wished to run for the office of Mayor should be able to do so and the mechanics could somehow be worked out. He wanted to see the issue resolved by the City Attorney in order to give the Council an opportunity to review it. Relative to the size of the Council, upon which action had been taken before his arrival, Councilman Kott further stated that he did not see any point in having a 7-member Council, as opposed to 5 because the 5 were at large and the 7 would also be at large. Thus, the expandsion to 7 would create additional costs to the City with no regard to geographic location. However, if geographic locations 78-682 blain Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES were to be a consideration and thus the reason for a greater number of Council representatives, he maintained it would be a step toward the ward system. Since the present 5 members were at large, he did not see any advantage to the citizen or better representation merely because of a greater number of Council Members. Councilman Kott then spoke to the issue of campaign spending and noted first that he was prepared to offer all three issues, including the campaign matter to the people for a decision. Relative to the limitation of campaign donations, he believed it to be best to incorporate such a limitation as an ordinance as opposed to a Charter Amendment. He reasoned that campaign limitations might be changed from time to time as a change in the economy occurred due to inflation. Although it would still take 3 votes of the Council to make the change in either case, it would be less cumbersome to do so in the case of an ordinance. He agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood that a formula could be applied, but he did not want to lock in a certain amount. He did favor a limitation and recalled that he had offered such an ordinance 3 or 4 months prior. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concerns relative, to electing someone to the office of Mayor with no prior experience. She believed in would be to the detriment of the people of the City, especially for a 4-year term. She did agree that an election every two years was expensive in terms of money and time and the energy necessary, but she would be opposed to a 4-year term of' office for Mayor. She did not believe that the average person had any idea of the enormity of the job, and as an analogy, noted that companies did not hire a person off the street with no previous experience. She emphasized that in the best interest of the City, it was far better to have someone who had train- ing. Mayor Seymour took issue with the inference that the public did not know what it was voting on and he could never accept that, but would rather entrust the public even though at times mistakes were made. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare ballot language on the following: (1) revert the process of electing Mayor back to the previous procedure by selection of a majority vote of the Council; (2) revise the method of electing presently to reflect, a) that any qualified elector would be eligible to run for the office of Mayor, b) that the office of Mayor carry with it no more powers than at present; (3) changing the term of office from two years to four years. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the office of Mayor would be a separate one with no more powers and no more duality. Councilman Overholt stated that the two items would be amendments, but the electorate could also vote for neither, thus keeping the present method of election. Mayor Seymour stated he did not intend that. Councilman Overholt continued that he could then not support the motion because his concern was that the City Attorney was being directed to prepare the language for the revised form of electing the Mayor, and he was not convinced that they had all the input necessary. He preferred to have the CRC come up with the very best, 78-683 Main Library, 500 West Broadway, Anaheim, California, June 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL MINUTES cleaned up, revised mayoral election system and bring it back to the Council. He was not prepared to vote on the motion as being the best solution. Councilman Roth stated the only reason he seconded the motion was due to the fact that it would subsequently be submitted to the Council and if the Council was not satisfied, it would be referred to the CRC. Councilman Overholt wanted Messrs. Bay and Compton to be able to work on the matter because they were concerned about it and had previous experience having served on a prior committee. He did not believe the City Attorney could write an amendment including the 3 proposals without other involvements. He maintained that the election of the Mayor was inextricably involved with campaign expenditure limitation and if the proposal were placed on the ballot and passed, continually more expensive campaigns would result. Mayor Seymour suggested informally polling the Council and if a clear majority indicated they did not want to have anything to do with the proposal, he did not want to delay the process since it had been agreed that the issues would be placed on the November ballot to insure the largest vote possible. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt indicated that they did not favor the proposition. Councilman Overholt believed there was a better way to elect the Mayor than at present, but he was not certain that the 3-point direction proposed was that better way. He reiterated he would like the benefit of Messrs. Bay and Compton's thinking because they were sophisticated in that area. He repeated that a change in the method of electing the Mayor was tied into the limitation of campaign con- tributions, and he did not want a high cost involved in the election of a Mayor. After a further brief discussion revolving around the matter, a vote was taken on the foregoing motion as articulated. Council Members Overholt ~andKaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott submitted the names of his two appointees to the CRC, Glenn Fry and Jane Jowdy. The first meeting of the Charter Review Committee was then set for Monday, June 12, 1978, 7:00 p.m., in the Multipurpose Room of the Main Library, wherein the Mayor indicated he would be in attendance to give instructions. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:35 P.M.