1978/09/1278-1204
~i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry
RISK MANAGER: Jack Love
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was adopted
by the City Council to be presented to Congressman Charles E. Wiggins, congratulating
him for his dedicated service to his constituency and on his retirement this year.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"Leukemia Week In Anaheim" - September 17 through 23, 1978.
The proclamation was accepted by Edith Morgan.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the minutes of the regular meeting held May 30, 1978, were approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,269,293~27, in accordance
with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved.
153: CREATION OF NEW CLASS OF SENIOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER: City Manager Talley
explained for Councilman Kott that the position had not been formally established
by the Council and the proposed resolution would now establish it and it was in
the current budget.
78-1205
City H.all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to oppose the creation of the new position.
He had specifically ~t~ted his opposition to the course of action that the City
Manager had been directing the Data Processing Department in the pursuit of what
he considered to be business better done by the private sector. In his opinion,
this was just the first step in creating one of the larger bureacracies within
the City's government which was invading the private sector.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-593 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated September 5, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-593: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT AND CREATING A NEW JOB
CLASS. (Senior Systems Programmer)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Kott and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-593 duly passed and adopted.
180: LIABILITY.~INSURANCE: Mayor Seymour stated they were just handed a letter
from Continental General insurance (CGI) dated September 5, 1978, and also a
memorandum from the Risk Manager dated September 8, 1978, and he expressed his
concern relative to the Err~ors and Omissions portion. Councilman Roth also
questioned that aspect since the memorandum indicated that issuance of August 29,
1978 did not contain any public officials Errors and Omissions coverage due to
problems which developed subsequent to August 29, 1978.
Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, stated that Mr. Hal Parker of CGI contacted him on
August 31, 1978 requesting that he draft a letter stating to the current carrier
Surplus Lines Broker, that since writing the City's primary $1 million, nothing
had substantially changed regarding the underwriting information provided to them
on the prior issuance of June 20, 1978. He indicated he could not issue that letter
until he discussed the matter with City Management and the City Attorney. He sub-
sequently discussed the matter with City Attorney Hopkins who was in concurrence
that the letter should be issued with qualifications enumerating those items which
they believed should correctly be brought to the attention of the insurance company.
The quotation was supposed to have included Errors and Omissions. Mr. Parker
issued a binder, effective September 1, 1978 without Errors and Omissions because
the City could not provide him the unqualified letter stating that nothing had
happened since June 20, 1978. Thus, there was a lack of Errors and Omissions
Coverage on the $19 million until such time as the insurance company evaluated the
matter which should be submitted to them, those being, the investigation of the
City Manager, the legal suit by Mr. Patty against the City, the Rollins, Burdick
and Hunter submission, and the Council action awarding the insurance to CGI.
Mr. Hal Parker, CGI, explained that the coverage was quoted for $19 million
above Errors and Omissions Coverage, and in lieu of the statement that there
was no material change since the application of June 20, 1978, they could accept
78-1206
CitY Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
a new 4-page application signed by 2 officers of the City. They received a call
from the insurance company on August 29, 1978 and that day or August 30, 1978, he
called the Risk Manager advising that a letter was needed. At the time there was
a problem in securing that statement, as well as answers to the concerns as Mr. Love
reported. He confirmed for Mayor Seymour that the Errors and Omissions Coverage
could be obtained by either submitting a new application or the letter statement
with the exceptions that staff felt should be noted. He believed that the quickest
way would be to write the letter because it would eliminate the necessity of going
into detail on some of the exceptions.
Discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Parker wherein Councilman Roth
expressed his deep concern relative to the whole insurance program. He was not
prepared to continue on a weekly basis with CGI and Mr. Love without having factual
information, and he did not believe he was getting that data. At the conclusion
of discussion, Mayor Seymour stated that he believed Councilman Roth was talking
to the wrong man and he had seen enough evidence to assess the heart of the problem.
Mr. Love felt strongly in opposition to CGI and as much as said so on numerous
occasions. Relative to the matter before the Council today, Mr. Love received a
request for a letter on August 29, 1978 and initially refused to sign any letter
at all until he was pressed to do so. Subsequently, he consulted with the City
Attorney who wisely advised him to write a letter indicating the exceptions. He
had seen nothing done by CGI, the City's broker of record, in an incompetent or
untimely fashion, but he had seen every attempt made by the Risk Manager to circum-
vent the local insurance broker in favor of some Los Angeles broker.
Councilman Roth disagreed since the prior week Mr. Parker admitted he was not aware
the City could obtain a $35,000 less premium on the City's CETA program; Mayor
Seymour stated the reason was because no one in the bureacracy asked Mr. Parker
to look at the situation and a basic attitudinal problem existed with Mr. Love.
Councilman Roth reiterated he did not believe all of the problems were Mr. Love's
fault and thus would not support a proposed motion adopting an insurance proposal
from CGI relating to liability insurance.
City Manager Talley then briefed the Council on what had occurred which, in the
final analysis, was merely that Mr. Love told Mr. Parker that he could not certify
the statement that was requested by CGI, but he had no objection to filling out
another application or a letter with all new information. At the time, the City
Attorney was on vacation and the matter could not be discussed with him. In his
memorandum dated September 6, 1978, Mr. Love was only pointing out that Errors
and Omissions coverage was a claims made form as opposed to an occurrence form.
In his opinion, this was not as good a coverage as the current form. The recommen-
dation however was to adopt the insurance proposal for liability insurance from
CGI. Although it did not include Errors and Omissions, it would include that
same provision as soon as a statement could be filed that would be acceptable to
the City and the City Attorney. He reiterated that the statement they were re-
quested to sign was one with which they could not agree. If the Council favored
the motion accepting the proposal from CGI, the City Attorney had advised, and
Mr. Parker was willing to accept the letter containing the disclaimers and thus
there was no problem.
T m [[ [[[ ri
78-1207
City .Ha.i.,1, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MiNUTES - September 12~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Mr. Parker then answered several questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood
and Councilman Overhol't for purposes of clarification relative to specific coverage.
Thereupon, Councilman Seymour offered a motion to adopt the insurance proposal
from Continental General Insurance Brokers, Inc., relating to liability insurance
with the understanding that both Mr. Parker and Mr. Love would be back before the
Council to clarify the status of ErrOrs and Omissions coverage within 30 days.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "No"
CARRIED. MOTION
123: PRICE-WATERHOUSE AUDIT REPORT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No.
78R-594 for adoption, authorizing a first amendment to an agreement with
Price-Waterhouse & Company extending the date of the agreement to October 6,
1978, as recommended in memorandum dated September 11, 1978, from the Director
of Finance. Refer to Resolntion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-594: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PRICE
WATERHOUSE & COMPANY By~ AMENDING THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS'
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL~MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-594 duly passed and adopted.
127: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS FOR BALLOT MEASURE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the C~ty Clerk was directed to prepare an im-
partial analysis for a ballot measure relative to the expansion of the duties of
tine City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
101: AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE NO~' 3892: Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry ~
briefed the Council on his memorandum dated September 12, 1978, explaining why
the subject amendment was necessary. He also explained for Mayor Seymour the
effect of the amendment on earthquake or total destruction of the Stadium and
referred to pagel4, paragraph 23 of the amended facility lease. It merely
stated that the rental would be abated proportionately during the period of time
any collapse should occur. When built back up, the rental would again commence.
In the interim, payments would be made through insurance.
Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3912 for first reading.-
ORDINANCE NO. 3912: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FACILITY LEASE DATED
AUGUST 31, 1978, AND AUTHORIZING 'THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AMENDMENT.
78-1208
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
101: LETTER FROM ARTHUR GRAY RELATING TO ANAHEIM STADIUM, INC., CORPORATE STATUS:
Councilman Roth referred to the subject letter and asked staff to explain what it
meant.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that it was merely advising the Council that a motion
was made by the Board of Directors of Anaheim Stadium, Inc. (ASI) indicating the
intention of the Board that any contract let would be a matter of competitive
bidding and also that a committee of the Board was formed by direction of the
Board to enter into negotiations.
Mr. Lowry stated that he was present at the ASI meeting and the intent of the
Board was to inform the Council that they were prepared as a quasi-public
corporation to comply with the laws pertaining to public bidding so that con-
tractual obligations would be performed under some form of competitive bidding.
The selected committee would then be available at all time to work with the City,
the Rams, contractors, et al. He then explained for Councilman Kott what was
considered a quasi-public corporation and that ASI had previously been a non-profit
organization not subject to the Brown Act. Their status however had changed about
two or three weeks prior when the Council voted to approve ASI's amended by-laws
and Articles of Incorporation. It was thus the first time in the history of the
corporation that the Council had been asked to act upon matters involving ASI.
They would now also be apprised of meetings, appointments of board members, etc.
Councilman Kott stated that although he was not opposed to the Rams coming to
Anaheim, unfortunately the contract with them was a singular one incorporating
both the move to Anaheim and the real estate aspect and he felt there should
have been two separate contracts. As a result of that situation and because he
did not have a clear understanding and explanation regarding the matter before
the Council, he could not vote in favor of the issue, considering his responsi-
bility to the taxpayers.
Mayor Seymour noted that no motion was involved in the action.
113: PAYMENT FOR TRANSCRIPT - LITTLE PEOPLE'S PARK DISCUSSION OF AUGUST 8, 19/8:
On motion by Councilmmn Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, payment to
Macauley & Manning in the amount of $639.40 for a transcript of the Little
People's Park discussion held August 8, 1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the above
payment for the transcript was to be made from the Council Contingency Fund.
MOTION CARRIED.
156: CHIEF OF POLICE RECRUITMENT PLANS: (continued from the meeting of
August 22, 1978). City Manager Talley stated that on August 11, 1978, he
sent to the Council the Police Chief recruitment plans and in it delineated
steps to be followed from August 18, 1978 through approximately December 1,
1978, when the new Police Chief would be appointed. His interpretation of
the discussion today would be in relation to Step 3, Page 2 of the subject
plan, pertaining to the manner in which the final candidates would be screened.
He intended to have two panels to interview appoximately the final 15 candidates.
At that time, they would be interviewed by two panels or boards or committees--
one technically oriented and composed of experienced police administrators, City
management executives and possibly accounting or data processing experts, and the
78-1209
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - CQUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ !97.8~ 1:30 .P.M.
other, an advisory committee composed of individuals representing the communitY,
minority and business segments of Anaheim. Relative to the community board, his
office would request from what he considered representative citizen groups the
designation of a person to represent that group on an oral board that would
basically be community.oriented. The board would be required to sit down and be
briefed on the efforts of the City to date and be able to ask any technical ques-
tions they wished. They would then talk to the approximate 15 candidates with
the whole process lasting in excess Of two days. Following that, they would
present to him (City Manager) a rating of the candidates they had spoken with
from high to low with unacceptable candidates failing the interview. Me would
then take that information and, combined with that of the Technical Committee,
have a total ranking. Based upon that, he would assume that some of the final
15 candidates would have failed. The remaining would be the group emerging to
the top which he would use as his primary selected individuals. Subsequently,
a background investigation would take place after which a recommendation would
be made to the City Council that he would be appointing one individual and he
would also submit one or two others for consideration.
With respect to community input, it was his intent to advise fiVe groups as
follows which he believed to be most appropriate:
1. People for Community Development because of their recent involvement and
intense interest in the minority community and youth.
2. Visitors and Convention Bureau (services, restaurants, food, hotels, trans-
portation interests).
3. Chamber of Commerce.
4. Community Services Board.
5. Senior Citizens Group.
The five people selected would provide a broad range of interest and representa-
tion that would give him reasonable community input. Recruiting was now in process
and the application phase would be closing on October 12, 1978. Subsequently, there
would be initial screening and then he would be requesting the services of both the
citizens of Anaheim and the technical people.
Mayor Seymour invited those in the Chamber audience who wished to do so to speak
on the matter.
Ms. Ruth Alatori, Orange County Human Relations Commission, 1272 West La Palma,
stated she was pleased with Mr. Talley's clarification, but she wanted to know
in recommending to committees if there would be any screening by 'one committee
before the candidates moved to the next committee.
Mr. Talley answered No; his intention was that aach committee independently
rate the candidates with no passing of information between the two and there-
after, the rating of the two would be combined. Thus, they would be judging
and ranking independently without knowledge of the other board's action.
78-1210
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September' 12, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Alatori stated that Mr. Talley was undoubtedly aware that she was present at
the meeting of August 22, 1978 and made a recommendation from the commission (see
minutes that date). The only difference she could see in Mr. Talley'S Plan was
the two separate committees, whereas she recommended one committee combining the
technical and community components. Since that was the only difference, she could
not withhold support on that minor technicality. The plan met with her approval
and the approval of the Orange County Human Relations Commission.
Mr. Herb Leo, 2906 Bellamy, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the
Chamber was taking the position, along with Mr. Talley's suggestion that the
committee be composed of 5 persons, one of those being a representative of the
Chamber of Commerce. They did not specify the makeup of the other four persons.
They also took a position that the citizens committee should be relatively inde-
pendent and could report to the City Council independently if' possible. Other
than that, they could go along with the City Manager's recommendations.
The Mayor asked Mr. Talley if he could accept the recommendation made by Mr. Leo.
Mr. Talley stated he could not accept one part which he discussed briefly with
some members of the Chamber. The selection and appointment of the Chief belonged
to the City Manager. He had no problem with any member of the selected group
talking to the City Council or subsequently if the Council wanted to use that
same group for advice. However, the Council could not appoint a committee to
assist the City Manager any more than the Manager could appoint a committee to
assist the Council in their deliberations. There was a very clear and separate
distinction between the administrative process resulting in the appointment of
the Chief and the ratification process the Council would follow. In his opinion,
he was recommending a five-member group where each one of the organizations would
select their own individual and that was about the maximum amount of independence
that could exist.
Councilman Kott stated that he would like to have an opinion from the City Attorney
relative to the matter. He maintained the elected official was Supposed to repre-
sent the people and perform their will, and the City Manager was supposed to perform
the will of the Council. He believed Mr. Leo's suggestion as a rePresentative of
the Chamber of Commerce was in order--not only should it be possible, but also
mandatory that the committee report to the Council as well. He saw no reason why
the rating should all be under one person and not made public with n°' input from
the Council. He thus opposed what the City Manager had said:.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that Section 604 o£ the City Charter referred to
the powers and duties of the City Manager, one of which was to appoint, promote,
demote and suspend, or remove all department heads, officers and emPloyees of
the City. The last part of the section stated, "No department head shall be
appointed or removed until the City Manager shall first havereviewed Such
appointment or removal with the City Council and received its approval fOr such
appointment or removal." A committee could be charged with the duty of advising
the City Council as to its approval of the recommendations of the City Manager.
Relative to Mr. Leo's suggestion, the committee could report to the City Council
to advise them on the approval of candidates recommended by the City Manager. That
would be in addition to the City Manager's recommendation to the City COuncil re-
questing the Council's approval of his recommendation.
78-1211
City Hall~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how the City Manager could make the recommendation
without the con~nittee's input if the committee did not report to the City
Manager.
Mr. Hopkins explained that his recommendation would be based on his procedure
and the Council would then have a committee to recommend to the Council as to
whether or not it should approve or disapprove that candidate.
In answer to Councilman Kott's question asking if he intended to make the ratings
public, Mr. Talley stated his intent was to maximize the confidentiality of the
selection process as far as possible. The City had always tried to keep as much
data regarding the testing and selection procedures private. Otherwise, making
it public generally discouraged applications. He had no problem in recognizing
that the members of the committee he would solicit would be talking privately
and sharing that information, nor would he have any problem in sharing those
rankings when bringing the appointment to the Council in Executive Session.
However, he did not intend to make the total selection process public. Council-
man Kott expressed his'disagreement with that approach.
Discussion then followed b~etween Councilman Overholt and Mr. Leo, wherein Mr. Leo
confirmed that the Executive Committee of the Chamber had no problem with the
selection process as suggested by Mr. Talley. They were simply recommending that
one member of the Chamber be represented on the citizens committee. That committee
could be relatively independent and report to the Council, as well as the City Mana-
ger, but they were not taking any position on the procedure to be followed and timing---'
was not a part of their deliberations. Councilman Overholt concluded that from his
standpoint, the recommendation of the Chamber was not in conflict with the City
Manager's recommendations.
Mayor Seymour stated that the bottom line was a recognized difference of opinion
as to how the Chief would be selected. Mr. Talley was guarding the powers of his
office in attempting tO insure that he, as City Manager, controlled the entire
process, being careful not to permit the elected body in any way from interfering
with that process. He ~believed the Chamber's intent and his intent was to have an
independent committee outside the realm and influence of the City Manager and the
City Council, thereby making a recommendation to both at'the same time. He stated
publicly and still believed that without a strong Chief of Police-~a man who was
willing to stand up to not only his employees, the APA and all the officers, but
also to the politicians and City management--not a dictator, but a strong person--
with a type of relationship existing between the Chief's Office and the City Manager's
Office, he had little credibility they would find that type of man unless the Council
involved itself in that ~process or an independent citizen's grdup was involved in
the process. He opposed the plan presented from the standpoint that there was no
independence of action on behalf of the City Manager's recommended committee. He
thereupon suggested two ways that a truly open selection and independent process
could be accomplished: (1) that the City Manager back-off and agree to accept the
recommendations from the Citizen's Committee to both himself and the Council simul-
taneously, or (2) a Citizen's Commiitee that would review each recommendation of the
City Manager until they review all of them and subsequently make recommendations to
the City Council. Both would be an appropriate process in the opinion of the City
Attorney and he, for one, would opt to go in either direction, his primary objec-
tive being one of independence of committee action.
78-1212
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that it was no secret that he disagreed with the
Mayor's opinion of the credibility of the City Manager and his office and the
attempt to pull a so-called citizen's committee out of the process o~ selection
of the Police Chief was purely an attempt to discredit the City Manager. His
feeling was that any Council Member could go to anyone or all of the citizen's
co~tittee and the same was true with members of the Technical Committee. He did
not gather from the Chamber's recommendation that they wanted to usurp the autho-
rity, responsibility and function of the Manager's Office as directed by the
Charter. They wanted to make the members of the citizen's committee aware that
they would have input in the selection of the new Chief. The way they would have
the best opportunity to give that input would be as part of thatselection process
and then, if the Council chose to use that corm~ttee or another citizens committee
to assist in evaluating the City Manager's recommendation, they could do that
also. Thus, he disagreed with both of the Mayor's proposals Because he had a
basic disagreement with him on the competence, sincerity, credibility and dedica-
tion of the City Manager, not only in the function of selecting a Police ~Chief, but
also in all functions he performed in serving the City.
MOTION: A discussion then followed between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Talley,~prompted
by Councilwoman Kaywood's question as to how the last Chief of Police was chosen,
at the conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the City Manager's
recruitment proposal, including the two different coz~a!ttees making a separate
evaluation, with both committees giving their reco~m~endations tothe City Manager,
and that the appointment be reviewed by the Council. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt offered a substitute motion that the
proposal by the City Manager for the selection process of the new Police Chief in-
cluding the specifics of the two boards as set forth by him at the meeting be
approved.
Before action was taken, Councilman Roth asked how that motion differed from the
one offered by Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilman Overholt stated that it differed because the City Manager made a proposal
and he was recommending that the Council approve that proposal; Councilman Roth
thereupon seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley stated that the discussion involved that of
the ad~ttnistration's recruitment plans and he was not requesting any approval,
but merely setting forth what he was doing in conformance with the Charter and
soliciting Council input on his plan. He did not believe that any.action was
required and confirmed that he did not want the Council to take any action.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not want to withdraw hfs motion because he
maintained the Council should take action approving the process~whether or mot it
was required.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to amend the proposed motion that the citizen's
committee, subsequent to the City Manger's recommendation, meet with .the City
Council to discuss in detail their recommendations and to further make afinal
recommendation as to the singular candidate that the City Manager~would recommend.
Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
78-1213
C_~ Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley stated that an area of concern was that the
oral board should come to the process without any fear of being politicized later
or be involved with some other type of requirement beyond just serving on the
board. If, after the ratings were provided, the Council wished to call them in
as a group, reappoint them or anything else, he would be agreeable. HOwever, if
as a condition of serving in a recruitment process they knew they were going to
be required to report to the Council later, that would transcend the administrative
interference process of the Charter.
Both the Mayor and Councilman Kott expressed their disagreement with Mr. Talley s
assessment. '
A vote was then taken on the motion amending Councilman Overholt's substitute
motion as posed by Councilman Seymour and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
A vote was then taken on the substitute motion proposed by Councilman Overholt.
Councilmen Kott and Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS_____~ By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:21 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order all Council Members being
present. (3:31 P.M.) '
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-25A: In accordance with application
filed by the Public works Department/Engineering Division, public hearing was
held on proposed abandonment of a dedicated right-of-way contained in the prop-
erty line returns located at the southeast and southwest corners of Riverdale
and Starling Way, and the sale of a portion of excess land owned by the City
north of said southwest corner to adjoining property owner, pursuant to Resolu-
tion No. 78R-551, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof
posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated July 21, 1978, and a recommendation by the
City Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of the abandon-
ment, subject to the following: 1)Parcels 1 and 2 be abandoned subject to a
5-foot public utility reservation along the northerly 5 feet to be reserved
unto the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. as defined in the legal description,
and 2) Parcel 3 be conveyed to the adjoining owner. Owner to pay $50.00.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the
Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental ImpaCt Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
78-1214
~ity Hal~., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sept~m~,~e~!2.~p~1978.~. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-595 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 77-25A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-595: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF STARLING WAY AND
RIVERDALE AVENUE. (77-25A) ~
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-595 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3037: Submitted by Timothy Jay Miller, owner, to
construct a tennis court and accessory structure with waiver of minimum structural
setback on property located at 160 South Valley View Place.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-!85, reported that
the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Classes 3 & 5, of the City of Anaheim:Guidelines to
the requirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further,.approvedlVariance No.
3037, in part, subject to the following condition: .
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1,
provided, however, that no structures other than the tennis court and chainlink
fencing shall be located in the 15-foot setback areas adjacent to the property
lines.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public
hearing scheduled this date.
Mr. Ron Thompson described the location and surrounding land uses. He outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to'and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's agent was present, and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Timothy Miller, 160 South Valley View Place, posted a map showing the contem-
plated improvements to his property. Everything shown thereon was to be' constructed
in the future as opposed to being in existence With the exception of the actual
residence and the driveway. The reasons why he was before the Council had to do
with the fact that when he left the Planning Commission meeting, he Was unhappy
partly because of what they did and also the way they did it. He went to the
Planning Commission meeting with an application that enjoyed the recommendation
of HACMAC and staff for approval at which time he presented the subject map with
the contemplated improvements. Thereafter certain Commissioners made comments
relative to the improvements with which he took issue.
2~-£215
qity. Ha~!, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Miller then showed a tract map of the area in which he lived, his lot being
No. 5, and pointed out 'that no additional structures would be built as long as the
one acre zoning was maintained. Thus, what he indicated on his map of improvements
representing distances would always be the same unless zoning in the area was changed.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the Planning Commissioners were aware that the
zoning in Peralta Hills was one acre minimum regardless of what any parcel might
look like.
Mr. Miller continued that he removed from his appeal the question of the bathhouse
by moving it outside of the 15-foot setback. The Planning Commission had previously
approved the location of the tennis court, but found the greenhouse/lathe house on
the back portion of the property to be objectionable which he found hard to under-
stand since there was'no way that adjacent landowners would be able to see either
of those structures, the closest public view being down on Starlite Drive at a
lower elevation.' ·
Mr. Miller concluded that the plan was a reasonable one for the property and
would not destroy the open feeling of Peralta Hills. He therefore requested
that the Council approve Variance No. 3037, deleting only the request relative
to the bath house which was in the setback area. In essence, he was only asking
that the greenhouse and lathe house be permitted in the back corner of the
property.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there
being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the
Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Classes 3 & 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-596 for adoption, providing that the
greenhouse be permitted in the 15-foot setback with the petitioner having stipu-
lated to removing the bath house from that 15-foot setback. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-596: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3037, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-596 duly passed an'd adopted.
78-12~6
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septemb~ 12~ 1978~, 1:30 P.M.
175: STREET LIGHTING UNITS IN CANYON AREA: Report relative to.use ~of Traditionaire
and/or Cobra-head luminaires in the Canyon area. (continued.from.the.meeting of
July 25, 1978) - ~
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, referred to the detailed and exten-
sive report dated September 1, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Of£ice) which he
was requested to prepare relative to Traditionaire Luminaire Street' lighting in
the Canyon area. The recommendation was that if maintenance of the fixtures was
of concern, the City's standard unit was the lowest cost maintenance. They were
however cognizant of the desires of the developer and people in the Canyon to
have an aesthetic unit. Thus, they had been working with Mr. Horst~Schor of Anaheim
Hills, Inc., and his consultants and advisors in trying to improve.the unit and/or
to come up with a new unit.
Mr. Edwards then answered questions posed by Councilman K°tt.relative to the
differential in costs concerning maintenance which were included as a Part of
his report.
Councilman Kott questioned why the Traditionaire fixtur~e was so much more~expen-
sive to maintain if the maintenance base for the standard unit .was zero~.
Mr. Edwards explained the period they researched was September through March,
during which period there was excessive rainfall resulting in a number of
moisture, lamp failure and photocell problems. They determined that the moisture
problem was caused by the fitting between the handhold cover and the bracket and
they were going to fit it with a gasket to eliminate that problem.-.~ Imploding
lamps were also caused by moisture getting into the hot lamps as well as failure
of the photocells. The photocell was in the bottom of the fixture and thus it
was time consuming to change. They were proposing when making the fix to put in
a solid-state photocell which would offer two advantages: (1) the salid-state
cell would be smaller and easier to install and (2) the price would be comparable
and moisture would not affect the new cell.
Mr. Philip Bettencourt, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
stated that he wanted to put the role of their company in perspective relative to
the light fixture situation since they were not the only property owner in the
Santa Ana Canyon and the Traditionaire fixture was a standard specification, with
City approval, for the Hill and Canyon area. However, they did initiate the
development of it in the interest of attaching a special elegance and style to
that area. Also, they had not walked away from the disappointing maintenance
experience the fixture had evidenced. They had expended some $5,000 developing
what they hoped was an approved replacement fixture that would meet the technical
needs of the Electrical Division and would be competitive with the CObra-h~ead
fixtures relative to maintenance. Secondly, they had at their expense,'paid for
the retrofit kit experimentation which was underway in trying,!to ~educe the main-
tenance exposure of existing lights. Finally, the number presented~represented
less than 10 percent of the street lights within the City's total elec~trical system.
Thus, the fact that the maintenance cost was unfavorable had to be kept in perspec-
tive since the maintenance history evolved after the greatest period of rainfall
in the City's history since 1888 and it had to be a contributing factor to what
had been the dominant maintenance problem, the leakage of water inside the fixtures.
78-1217
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In concluding, Mr. Bettencourt stated they were proposing that staff look at their
latest and hopefully acceptable fixture to ascertain if it could meet the standards
and secondly, that if major specification change was to take place, that some
opportunity of notice be given to them. They had lights in inventory for all tenta-
tive tract maps that had been approved. They believed that the state of the art
had gone as far as it could. If maintenance cost of that fixture was unreasonably
over and above City costs at large, he maintained that the people of the Hill and
Canyon area should be asked if they were willing to establish an assessment district
to pay for that differential maintenance cost. If not, they knew they had tried,
but would then have to go back to the conventional fixture.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the glare situation; Mr. Bettencourt stated he
did not believe the glare situation was a significant issue any longer.
Mr. Edwards stated that some shields were given to Mr. Horst Schor and they were
still working on that matter. He believed they had come up with a shield to re-
duce glare at the locations where complaints had been received.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to accept the recommendation of the Utilities
Department relative to the street lighting units used in the Canyon area as out-
lined in memorandum dated September 5, 1978. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt asked for clarification
relative to the motion and wanted to know if the recommendation was to continue
working on a substitute fixture. Their recommendation was, if maintenance was a
concern, that the standard fixture be used. However, with aesthetics in mind,
they would continue working with Anaheim Hills on an acceptable unit.
The Mayor clarified that his motion was to accept the recommendation as follows:
"If it is desired to retain the "Traditionaire" luminaire for aesthetic, decorative
and appearance reasons, the alternatives should be identified which are to be
retained and/or implemented. The formation of a street lighting maintenance district
should be reviewed."
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
180: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - CETA PROGRAM: Authorizing the Risk Manager to insure
the City's CETA program with Argonaut Insurance Company relative to Workers' Compen-
sation. (conginued from the meeting of September 5, 1978)
Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, stated that the CETA program having been in existence
since approximately 1973, when it was initially developed, all public agencies
involved were of the opinion that they had to insure that exposure and liability
with the State Fund. Consequently, most or all did with the exception of those
who self-insured the program. It was common knowledge that the State surcharged
the program 25 percent over and above any experience modification. Within the
last year or so, two enterprising brokers in C81ifornia, Mr. Terry Chapman of
Pasadena and Mr. Ron Cadbett and Ed Speights of Insurance, Inc., developed pro-
grams for insuring the exposure and went around the State selling the program to
various public agencies because they believed it could be legally insured with a
private carrier. The State Fund did not object and, at the present time, there
were a number of cities throughout the State whose CETA program was insured with
one of the two carriers, National Indemnity and Argonaut.
78-1218
C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SePtember 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
In May, Mr. Chapman contacted him to see if Anaheim would be interes~&d in insur-
ing its exposure. When he learned that the program of National-Indemnity was on
a non-participating policy, he indicated his intention Was~ to recommend self~
insurance. However, with the passage of Proposition 13, he reconsidered and
decided to pursue the question of insuring the program. Sometime~in July, Mr.
Speights contacted him by phone and indicated he could possibly insurei~the pro-
gram with Argonaut on a participating policy. He invited Mr. spieghts to his
office to obtain necessary loss information to take back to Argonaut'.~ The infor-
mation was provided to him at the end of July and on August 24, 1978, he'~ent a
letter confirming that Argonaut would accept the risk. It wasthe enterprising
of these gentlemen who brought the coverage to his attention, as well as to others
throughout the State. He was not aware of it and was not adviSed of its existence
by the State Fund. Further, it was common knowledge among inSurance brokers in the
State handling Workers' Compensation that the State Fund surcharged the program.
He had presented the information to the Council a week Prior and the COuncil believed
that the City's current broker should be provided the oppOrtunit~ to present a quota-
tion to Anaheim and at 1:30 p.m. today, Mr. Parker of Continental General Insurance
(CGI) delivered his response. At the previous Council m'eeting, Mr. Parker had indi-
cated he believed a week would be ample time in which to develop a'quotation. He
thus submitted a quotation contained in his letter dated September 12, 1978 with
Zenith Insurance Company, essential elements of which were that it would be written
at manual rates without surcharge, the same as with Argonaut's; it would be a
participating plan, i.e., if losses were below a certain margin, esSentially
65 percent of the premium or greater, a dividend would be'pa{d up to a maximum of
20 percent. Having had a great deal of experience in workers~ compensation, Mr.
Love stated some of the reservations he had regarding the quotation.
First, manual rates in California provided for 62 percent of the premium for claims
and 38 percent for cost of the insurance company, i.e., retention. Zenith was
asking for 65 percent retention and he found that to be unattractive. He did not
know what the dividend plan of Argonaut was, but a representative from Insurance
Indemnity was present to respond to questions. In his opinion, bOth were goOd
insurance companies and if the City's losses were below a favorable margin, the
City would be receiving a dividend from either of the companies with the exact
amount to be contingent upon the profits or surplus of the insurance company on
Workers' Compensation at the end of the year in which the policy was written.
Mr. Ron Carbett, Insurance Inc., Downey, stated that they had spent a great deal
of time with different cities and counties working on CETA insuranhe programs along
with Mr. Terry Chapman. They came up with basically two market places where the
subject type insurance could be placed, National Indemnity and ArgOnaut~ Argonaut
being the company providing insurance on a participating basis which Coincided with
Anaheim's program. The company had been in business for over 27 years and had paid
dividends for 27 years, but Mr. Love asked him for a retention'program which he
could not give him in honest conscience. He explained that When insurance companies
offered a dividend or retention program, that program was based on what the company
was doing presently and not what they would be doing 12 months henc~·~ If he indi-
cated that Argonaut was going to retain 50 percent of the premium~w{th the other
50 percent, pay out losses or make a return back to the City in the form of a
dividend, it would be an erroneous statement due to the fact that there was no way
of knowing what the insurance company's profits were going to be, Thus, Argonaut
78-1219
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
said they would write the insurance on a participating plan with dividends being
at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors of Argonaut and no one else al-
though he had no reason to believe that dividends would not be forth coming for
the City of Anaheim if there was a good, acceptable loss ratio. Mr. Carbett then
confirmed for Councilman Kott that approximately 12 other cities had their CETA
programs insured with Argonaut.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council received a letter today from CGI dated
September 12, 1978, which described the fact that Mr. Carbett and Insurance, Inc.,
had been appointed exclusive agents for Argonaut for the subject program. The
letter also stated, "Mr. Carbett advised if the City elected to appoint CGI as
Broker of Record with the Argonaut that book or appointment could be forwarded
directly to the Argonaut Insurance Company with the request that Argonaut under-
write the program for our agency. Argonaut will make no decision on such an
appointment until it is submitted."
Mr. Carbett stated that he was approached today with a phone call asking if he
would accept a Broker of Record Letter from the City's insurance broker since it
was already decided that an Anaheim broker was going to handle the accounts. The
only way he would be involved was to accept the Broker of Record and to him it was
an unethical question and he would not do it and so informed the caller. (Later
in the meeting, Mr. Carbett revealed that Mr. Parker of CGI was the caller.) He
told the caller if he was going to get a Broker of Record Letter, he would have to
do it through Argonaut Insurance.
Discussion then followed between Mayor Seymour, Mr. Carbett and Mr. Love relative
to the amount of commission that would be paid to Mr. Carbett if he wrote the
policy for Anaheim. Mr. Carbett was unwilling to reveal what that commission
might be before writing the policy, but would do so thereafter. The Mayor took
issue with the fact that he would not make that disclosure since Mr. Love recom-
mended that the City's Broker of Record (CGI) be subjected to an audit to obtain
full disclosure of commission. Mr. Carbett pointed out that regardless of the
commission made by an agent or broker, that commission would not affect rates
such as on a liability insurance policy or any other policy because the commission
was not built into a rate. As well, rates were set by the California Inspection
Rating Bureau.
Mr. Carbett then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the amount of insurance
that was involved was based on actual payroll, times the rates, times the experience
modification, but he did not know what the new experience modification was at present
nor the upcoming payroll.
Mr. Love stated that the City's experience modification would be around 100 percent
which would be the manual rate or equal to the manual rate and expected payroll was
approximately $100,000 which would be the total premium on the CETA program. The
City's experience modification would also drop radically because the losses in the
rating formula when the City was totally insured with the State Fund was still
included. He pointed out that Mr. Carbett had also just given him further informa-
tion which would probably result in a substantial savings for the City on the past
years it had been insured with the State Fun~ which information was unknown to him
until it was brought to his attention.
78-1220
_CCi~ty ..Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hal Parker, CGI, first responded that he had no knowledge, nor had Mr. Love
shown him any letter quoting insurance to the City. Relative to the comments
that a Broker of Record had been appointed, they called Argonaut stating that
they were directly appointed agents with Argonaut and asked if they~wo.u!d consider
quoting the plan since they understood they had already quoted it fOr ~another
broker. At that time, Argonaut advised they had an exclusive Program~ith
Insurance, Inc., to whom he was referred. Subsequently, he made.the call to
Insurance, Inc., and advised that CGI was the Broker of Record for the City of
Anaheim on liability insurance policies and the City, in the past, indicated a
desire to do business with businessmen in the community, and asked t~em if they
would consider quoting that risk for their agency. He was ad¥ised~$pecifically
that had they not already been out to see the City, they Would do so.,~but since
they put time in on it, they would not. Mr. Parker then advised that he would
like to have them reconsider and suggested that he woUld submit a Broker Of Record
Letter directly to Argonaut which was included in the letter submitted to Mr. Love
today although he did not know whether or not Argonaut would honor that letter.
Mr. Parker also indicated to Mr. Love that as the Broker representing both of the
companies involved, he was not satisfied with the indication of a 3~ygar retention
which would be lower than that which he quoted. He was unable to ~.complete that
aspect in the 3 days he had to work on the matter. However, he had two other
companies who indicated interest, but they wanted to see the stat~ C~mPensation
Fund loss run for the past 4 years. The Risk Manager advised that t~e State Fund
had given only one loss report, which he had to pick up himself, representing only
a 9-month period. However, he did present a quote with Zenith and he was not
going to take a position one way or the other.
In answer to questions posed by CoUncilwoman Kaywood,' Mr. Parker revealed the~
following: The maximum commission that any carrier was permit'ited on the s~ubject
type insurance was 15 percent and at no time in the history Of Anaheim had that
commission been received. He agreed with Mr. Carbett that commission should
not be disclosed prior to the time of sale of a policy becaUSe the California
Insurance Code stated that there were problems with their, legal, r~ebates in
discussing any reduction in commission. The total commission and brokers' fees
on liability insurance CGI was carrying with the City was less ~han 10 percent.
Some policies were written with no commission, but with a broker's fee, some
were written at 4 percent commission and a broker's fee of betw~een.5 and 6 percent.
Mr. Love interjected that he had been trying to find out the distinction between
the two relative to the last statement made by Mr. Parker. The Risk Management
Consultant believed that broker's fees were in addition to commissions. If Mr.
Parker was indicating that he was charging that in addition to the commission and
the total amount of 10 percent, he would be inclined to believe that. The point
however was that the commission on $599,000 (the amount of insurance ~n~er discus-
sion) was not $17,000, but closer to $60,000, and he did not want the Council to
be misled by the fact that in the August 29, 1978 letter where Mr. Parker indicated
fees of approximately $17,000, that was the total of his commissiOns and earnings
on that issuance. ~.
Discussion was then held between Mayor Seymour, Mr. Parker, Mr. Love and Mr.
Carbett relative to broker's fees and commissions, how they were set, why they
would not be disclosed and the difference in practices between marketing liability
and workers' compensation insurance.
78-1221
~ity Hal~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt emphasized it was important to know there was a difference
between liability and workers' compensation insurance and CGI was the City's
Broker of Record with respect to liability insurance only. His feeling was,
therefore, that since CGI was not the City's Broker of Record on workers' compen-
sation insurance and Mr. Parker now had an opportunity to submit proposals which
did not meet the proposals submitted by Mr. Carbett, it was pure and simple
that Mr. Parker had lost out on this particular program.
Mr. Parker stated that he had no argument with that although he did not under-
stand where the Zenith quote did not meet the other quote. All he asked was an
opportunity to come up with a quote to prove that they did have markets available
and could provide the desired coverage to the City.
Councilman Overholt stated that he believed the Council was saying that, if
feasible and consistent with good ethics and business, that the City do business
with the local people, keeping mind that they wanted the best for least for the
taxpayers of the City. Mr. Parker had been given the opportunity to bid, but
had lost out to a more favorable quote. Thus, he would have to support the place-
ment of the business as originally proposed by the Risk Manager with Argonaut
Insurance and, as well, their package was tried and true and had worked for other
municipalities.
Extensive discussion and questioning then followed between Mayor Seymour, Mr. Carbett,
Mr. Love and Councilman Overholt relative to the differences between the two quotes
and why it was considered that Argonaut's quote was superior to that of Zenith. The
technicalities involved in the coverage were explained as well as the financial
status and stability of each of the companies, their experience in dealing with the
subject coverage, and what would affect their ability to pay or not pay dividends.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Roth asked why Zenith did not approach
Mr. Parker to inform him about the program which would save the taxpayers of Anaheim
$25,000 to $35,000.
Mr. Parker explained that Zenith did not have such a program, but that CGI went
and sold them on underwriting the program.
Councilman Roth stated that was where he had a problem with the whole situation.
An enterprising program had been presented to the City reflecting a savings of
$25,000 to $35,000 through Mr. Carbett and his partner. Mayor Seymour stated his
argument to that was the fact that Mr. Love provided no opportunity since July
to encourage any local participation in such a program and contended that he did
it with intent.
Councilman Roth maintained if the two gentlemen had not presented the quotation,
the City would be going along as before and would not have saved~$35,000. As Mr.
Love pointed out the previous week, if each time someone came in with better
insurance programs which first had to be submitted to the City's Broker of Record,
nobody was going to want to come to Anaheim with a presentation. He agreed with
Councilman Overholt and was ready to act on the matter.
78-1222
--City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SeptemberI 12~i978i 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was also clear to her that if someb6d~ else was
more aggressive than the City's agent in an area where they could saVe the City
and taxpayers $35,000, there was nothing further to discuss.~ .~ · ·
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City's CETA program relative to Workers'
Compensation Insurance be placed with Zenith National Insurance through CGI based
on the strength that the City would be saving the same $35,000 as with Argonaut,
that the profitability of Zenith appeared to be better as well as their performance
over that of Argonaut and therefore, there was a higher likelihood that dividends
would be paid by Zenith and finally, the City would be doing business with a local
insurance broker thereby insuring jobs within the City that would create payroll
and that payroll, would turn through local businesses. Councilmah Kott Iseconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the'Mayor WaS tooking to
give CGI all of Anaheim's insurance business.
Mayor Seymour stated it was a very simple principle, that if the local business-
man could meet or better the price over the out-of-town company, he wanted to do
business locally.
Councilman Overholt stated that a problem had been created because the Council
had not made its policy clear relative to having the local businessman meet or
beat a bid proposal submitted by a non-local businessman. There were situations
where the City would not get a non-local proposal if that firm~ knew their proposal
was going to be first turned over to the local firm to meet or beat ft. The policy
needed refining so that it would not prejudice the taxpayers ~in getting the best
for the least.
The Mayor did not agree that such a policy would keep an outside .firm from bidding
because, (1) if the City had a Risk Manager who was of the same philbsophy as the
Council and his interest lay in doing a better job for the City while at the same
time doing business with a local broker, the Risk Manager would not have encouraged
Mr. Carbett, but picked up the telephone and contacted the local broker to ask what
he could do for the City. (2) There was an already existing poli'cy relative to
bids that if, for example, a local automobile dealership presented a bid within
5 percent of an outside bid, the City would do business with the local' dealership,
thereby gaining a greater percentage of sales tax.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that if someone came to the City with
a quote and in turn it was given to the local broker who did not.know about it on
his own, then outside input would stop.
Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that by the motion that was approved
the prior week, Mr. Parker was directed to look at all of the City's insurance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was incorrect; Councilman Overhol~t stated the
direction was given for Mr. Parker to look at the City's liability Pbrtf01io and
he made the motion.
78-1223
~ity H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Love stated that he understood Councilman Overholt to mean all insurance and
it was suggested that Mr. Parker and he get together to look over insurance areas
to determine where they could mutually agree that cost savings could be derived
relative to property insurance and other areas, all of which were with CGI. He
sat down with Mr. Parker the previous week where they did just that, and thus
he did follow the Council's instruction.
Councilman Kott believed that the point had been missed--first there had not been
a good rapport between Mr. Parker and the Risk Manager and secondly, the policy of
the City had been to have its CETA Workers' Compensation coverage with the State
Fund. Therefore, considering the previous policy and the lack of rapport, he
could understand why the situation stood as it did. Further, he agreed with the
Mayor relative to doing business with local people. He thereupon called for the
question which the Mayor confirmed as follows: Approve Zenith National Insurance
with CGI as the Broker on the City CETA program relative to Workers' Compensation
insurance for reasons being: (1) the same savings of $35,000; (2) a better oppor-
tunity for dividends and (3) doing business with a local broker. The motion
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kott and Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
None
MOTION: Councilman Overholt~moved that Mr. Parker be given an opportunity to
submit a better quote as he suggested he could do.
Before any action was taken, Council.man Overholt asked how much time he would
need to do so.
Mr. Love interjected that the policy renewal date was October 1, 1978. He also
needed time before that date to set up the program with the City agencies and
departments to finalize the procedure for payment. He advised that since he was
expert in the field of Workers' Compensation which he used to sell for the State
Fund, he maintained that Mr.~ ~arker could not come up with a better deal. The
Council had before it two good proposals and it was pure speculation to attempt
to determine which dividend plan was best because, as pointed out, dividends were
declared at the end of the year.
After discussing the possibility of giving more time to Mr. Parker, Councilman
Overholt asked him specifically if given that time, could he come up with a
better bid.
Mr. Parker stated that he could not better anything except dividend participation,
but dividends were not guaranteed.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Risk Manager to insure the
CitY's CETA program with Argonaut Insurance Company through Mr. Ron Carbett rela-
tive to Workers' Compensation. Councilman Rotk seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he would vote against the motion
because, (1) there was no additional cost savings to the taxpayer of Anaheim, (2)
there was less chance for dividends and (3) it was completely avoiding and turning
their face to a local businessman who supported local payroll, salaries and jobs.
78-1224
--City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septemb~er .127 .~197.8...~.:~ 1,:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that both brokers represented that the dividend payment
was based upon experience in the workers' compensation business of 'that company.
Thus, to say that one had a better financial statement than the.other did not mean
that they would not pay dividends. He asked Mr. Parker if that were true.
Mr. Parker stated that in California that was true, but if there was no profit, the
company could elect not to declare dividends.
Mr. Carbett also confirmed that general profitability would affect the company's
willingness to pay dividends, but he pointed out that dividends could.only be'
paid from workers' compensation and Argonaut did not write anything but Workers'
Compensation and therefore had no other business on which to draw,. -
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she wanted to leave the door open for anyone and
everyone to come to Anaheim with all the best possible deals for the citizens--the
best coverage at the lowest price. The City had just given $600,000 worth of busi-
ness to CGI which certainly did not reflect the local company was being bypassed.
She asked that CGI be more aggressive in seeking whatever was the best deal for the
citizens of Anaheim in all areas of insurance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilwoman-Ka~ywood, CounCilmen
Kott and Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. ~.. ~ .
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes: (5:32 P.M,')
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order alI Council Members
being present. (5:42 P.M.) '
124: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT TICKET BOOTHS:
(Account No. 64-307-7107-9120) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by
Councilman Seymour, the award of bid on the Convention Center East Parking Lot'
Ticket Booths was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE POWER TRANSFORMER - BID NO. 3449:~ 'On motion
by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, consideration, of.'purchase of
one power transformer, Bid No. 3449, was continued for one week. .MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9749 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9749, proposed RS-HS-10,000 subdivi-
sion located on the east side of Imperial Highway south of Nohl Ranch Road, was
submitted. '
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an extension of
time to Tentative Tract No. 9749 was approved to expire November 10 1979,'as recom-
mended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED. '
VARIANCE NO. 2252 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by JQsephine B. LoPez f°r an
extension of time to Variance No. 2252, to permit a free-standing sign on property
located at 3136 "B" West Lincoln Avenue, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an extension of time
to Variance No. 2252 was approved, retroactive to August 27, 1978 to expi,re August 27
1980, as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED.. '
78-1225
C%ty. ~.all~ Ana~im,~ q~!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Constance Gazelle for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of a rut in the road (Miraloma Avenue, south of Miller, near
the intersection of Third Street) on or about August 22, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Darlene M. MacDonald for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about April 26, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Tim Michelson for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of a power shortage on or about July 18, 1978.
d. Claim submitted by Utica National Insurance Company for personal injuries and
damages purportedly sustained as a result of a traffic signal malfunction at Katella
and Harbor Boulevard on or about June 19, 1978.
e. Claim submitted by Jo Ann Stephen for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about May 28, 1978.
f. Claim submitted by Arnold L. Tiscareno, Jr. for personal damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about May 6, 1978.
2 CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Monthly report for August 1978 - Building Division.
b. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of August 23, 1978.
3. 108: PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit for three pin ball machines at Minit Market #3,
541 South State College Boulevard. (William Archer Collar, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit for two pin ball machines at Minit Market #9,
685 South Manchester. (William Archer Collar, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit for one video game at the Golden Horse Chines'e
Restaurant, 2141 South Harbor Boulevard. (Sumiko Kataoka, applicant)
d. Public Dance Permit submitted by Empresa Frias for a dance to be held
September 23, 1978, 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Cruz Frias, applicant)
78-1226
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September !2~ !978~ 1:30 P.M.
e. Entertainment Permit submitted by the Capri Lounge, 1728 SOUth EuCtid for·
two musicians, seven days a week from 9:00 P.M. to 1:30 ~A,M~ (Conmtantine'Sei~vos,
applicant) ~
f. Private Patrol Permit for W. A. Hall Security Services an~ tnpe~tigationS, to
provide security servics for special events at the Anaheim Convenkion 'C&nter and
Disneyland Hotel Exhibit Hall. (Ward A. Hall, applicant)
4. 164: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER IMPROVEMENT~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: Ch~an~ge ·Order
No. 1 to said project, in the amount of $2,776.02~ was approved, as recommended by
the City Engineer, bringing the original contract amount to $1!,676.02, Fleming
Engineering, Inc., Contractor. ~·· .· '~
MOTION CARRIED.
178: ALLEGATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MWD PRACTICES: Couhcilman~I(o'~t stated'~hat for
approximately 2 years, he had been trying to get a report as to the operation of
the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and why they continued ~to raise Water rates
in spite of the fact that there was now an abundance of water. In~ lin~ With~ h'is
concern relative to rates as well as to his lack of RnoWle~ge'~-'~nce~h'ing the~MWD
operation, he took the liberty of contacting Ellen Stern Marris, Board Member of
MWD from Beverly Hills, who had much the same complaints~'~as~he~~ ~HaVing been on
the Board for 6 or 7 months, she requested a Grand jUry invemtigatiOn of t~e MWD
and offered to send him the list of things that she had encountered and on which
she tried to obtain information without success. Those ConcernS. and· ~Ilegations
were expressed in her letter to the Grand Jury dated September 5, 1978~, a copy of
which she sent to Councilman Kott (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Council-
man Kott then read from the letter a number of the allega~i0ns ~C°nt~n~ t~r°ughout
4 of its 5 pages. As the result of questions he had and those posed by Mrs. Harris
that thus far had gone unanswered, he maintained that 'the City's MetrOPolitan Water
District representative should be directed to cooperate with Mrs. Harris in order
to ascertain the answers to those questions. . ~
MOTION: Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the City's repres~n'~iva on ~he
MWD be directed to, in every way possible, cooperate, aSsist and work With'Mrs.
Ellen Stern Harris to try to obtain answers as to what was transpiring relative
to the District's financial status, expenditures, bank accoun~S~'~e~c!, ~hd a%so
to try to have them operate in a more efficient and less bureaCratid manner.~
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott also referred to a lettec received 'frOm
Karen Dorff, Executive Secretary to MWD. He had asked her if he could visit their
office during a Board meeting so that he might talk to the directo~s"and'.ask them
questions. The answer was "No", the reason being that he wOulH have to·be~·~Pproved
first by a committee to ascertain whether or not the topic for discussion was
worthwhile. ~-~ ~ ~
78-1227
City.Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated that first, he did not have enough information relative
to the matter and secondly, he wanted to know when Keith Murdoch, the City's
MWD representative, was going to be back in town to give him an opportunity to
respond to the allegations. The last time he spoke to Mr. Murdoch he stated he
was not even getting paid for travelling for the District. He would prefer to
have copies of the documentation Councilman Kott had, submitted to Mr. Murdoch
to give him an opportunity to respond.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Mr. Murdoch reported to the Council in
May and had been giving them a quarterly report.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-597 and
78R-598 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and
certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-597: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Donald R.
Spackman, et ux.; Mark Wertheimer, et ux.; Robert D. Wiens, et ux.; John D.
Lusk & Son; Dennis L. Lusk; George E. Oestreich, et al.; Frank Anthony Doll,
et ux.; Jaques Isacc Assayag, et al.; Dan Wilbur, et ux.; SOG Enterprises;
Porphee Ruiz Castillo, et ux.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-598: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, NINTH TO EUCLID, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 13-792-6325-2120, A.H.F.P. NO. 859 & 913; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened October 12, 1978, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-597 and 78R-598 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9262: Developer, Coastal Developers of Orange; Tract
located notheast of Martella Lane and Martin Road containing 9 RS-HS-22,000 zoned
lots.
The City Engineer recommended approval subject to removal of Condition No. 7 of the
approved tentative tract conditions and the addition of the following two conditions:
78-1228
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- s~pt~erl2,~ i97~8!,.1:30 P.M.
i. That provisions for the temporary retention of the mud and/or.deB~i~ within
Tract No. 9262 be constructed to the satisfaction of the City'Eng~neer.and main-
tained by the developer during the grading operation of Tract No.~ 9262 and after
the grading is completed until such time as the ultimate storm drain within Tract
No. 9262 and to the existing storm draim is constructed.
2. That a bond be posted, prior to approval of the grading pian, 'to Cover any
flood damage to Santa Ana Canyon Road or the existing downstream storm drain
located east of Mohler Drive that may result from the grading of Tract~ No. 9262.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Propose~d sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to~be~.~o~sist.ent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No.
9262, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated!septmmber .6
1978. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 3910: Councilman Seymour Offered Ordinance ,NO.. 3910 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3910: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'REPEALiNG~SUBsECTioN
18.61.020.310 OF CHAPTER 18.61 AND SUBSECTION 18.63.020.460 OF' CHAPTER. 18.63,
TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN~THEiR PLACE
AND STEAD RELATING TO ZONING. (Primary uses and structures) .-~ ~
Roll Call Vote:.~ ..... ~,
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, R~th.and SeymoUr,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3910 duly passed and adopted...
ORDINANCE NO. 3911: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No 391i fo~,adoptf~n.'
Refer to Ordinance Book. ' '
ORDINANCE NO. 3911: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-1(2), CO) .~
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3911 duly passed and adopted.~ ·
ORDINANCE NOS. 3913 AND 3914: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance NOs. 3913 and
3914 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3913: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AME~NDiNGTiTLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70258(4), ML')
ORDINANCE NO. 3914: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~24ENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-53, RS-5000, Tract No. 9857)
78-1229
City Hal!~_Anaheim~ California _ COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12, 1978~ 1:30 P.M.
173: SOLICITATION OF PASSENGERS IN THE CITY BY OUTSIDE CAB COMPANIES: Councilman
Overholt referred to the mailgram received September 12, 1978, from Lozano Taxi
Cab Company indicating problems he was encountering in his operation with outside
cab companies. He wanted to know if it was a situation the City could do something
about.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had not received a copy of the communication.
Councilman Overholt stated briefly that it demanded action be taken against
Santa Aha Yellow Cab and E1 Toro because Lozano Cab Company had been invaded by
12 to 14 cabs on a daily basis.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would have to investigate the matter. He
also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the problem was not one of bringing
passengers into the City from another destination, but in so doing, soliciting
passengers within the City.
REFLECTORS ON TRASH BINS: Councilman Overholt noted that the trash companies
were putting 'reflectors on trash bins and some were now painted white. It was
something that he brought to Mr. Talley's attention, and he, in turn, brought it
to the disposal companies' attention. It was quite an improvement and a factor
in reducing hazards.
116: NEW APPOINTMENT TO ECONOMIC CORPORATION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
aPpoint RObert J' RiSteen to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing
Gary Weaver who was unable to serve. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
148: CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITIES CONVENTION: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that
at the forthcoming League of Cities Convention to be held in Anaheim, on Tuesday,
September 26, 1978, there were 4 or 5 concurrent workshops and she only wanted
to attend 3. She was trying to ascertain who would be attending so that all the
workshops would be covered. She believed of particular interest to all 5 Council
Members would be the workshops entitled, "Council-Staff Relations--Pull Together
or Fall Apart."
Mayor Seymour suggested that the Council discuss the matter in one week.
166: CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. RELATIVE TO SIGNS ON UTILITY POLES: Councilman Kott
reported that some citizens had visited him and presented him with signs they
had removed from utility poles. The signs advertising a variety of entities
had been on the poles for a long time and were a source of unsightliness, along
with the many others throughout the City. He explained to them that the City
Manager would handle the matter and that the Utilities Department was suppose
to investigate such matters.
City Manager Talley took the posters and stated that he would submit them to
the Utilities Department for handling.
105: PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY: Mayor Seymour stated that since the necessary
time had expired to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission, the Council should
be prepared by the next meeting to make an appointment to the Commission.
78-1230
City Hall,_~ahe.!9, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 12~ 1978, 1:30 P.M.
156: HIRING PRACTICES IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mayor Seymour stated it was his
understandimg"~a'~'~er 'than hi~ing lateral replacements in the Police Department,
meaning experienced officers from other departments, supposedly at the same salary,
they hired people with no experience. Thereafter, they sent those people through
the Cadet Program and paid their salary while they were going through the program
and upon completion went to work for the Police Department. He had been told that
there were plenty of lateral assignments from other departments who would come to
work for the Anaheim Police Department at the same pay as those inexperienced
people. He thus asked the City Manager to consult with the Police Chief to find
out why that was happening and if it would not make more sense to hire lateral
replacements from other departments.
City Manager Talley stated that he would obtain a report on the situation immediately.
On occasiom, they had used the Lateral Transfer Program particularly in minority re-
cruiting. A report would be submitted on present hiring practices, as well as the
advantages and disa4vantages in the Chief's mind of lateral transfers.
Mayor Seymour explained that he was specifically interested in the class scheduled
to begin at the end of September where some inexperienced people were going to be
sworn in.
Mr. Talley stated if that were true, they had probably gone through the entire
selection process and ordered to report.
Mayor Seymour wanted to know why those people were not lateral transfers.
ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded
th'e ~'n'~' MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:12 P.M,
LIN'DA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK