Loading...
1964/03/047572 Q~ity ,Hall.,~ Anaheim~ California - COU~NCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1964~ 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Chandler and Schutte. ABSENI: COUNCILMEN: Coons and Krein. PRESENT: ASSISTANT GIIY MANAGER: Robert Davis. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. CIIY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. Mr. Harry Williams, Legal Counsel for Citizens' Charter Study Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Chandler called the meeting to order, and announced that this meeting was scheduled to continue the informal discussion on the proposed Charter, as recommended by the Citizens' Charter Study Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Chandler thereupon invited comments from the audience. Mr. Joshua White, referring to dissenting opinion previously filed, continued comment on said opinion~ as follows: CHARTER AMENDMENT BY ORDINANCE: Mr. White read recommended new section, to follow Section 1502~ stating that a section of this type was necessary to inform the voters how an amendment to the Charter can be accomplished. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1205, SECOND PARAGRAPH - BUDGET - APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. White advised that in his opinion~ the type of meeting should be noted, and suggested it be ~'Regular Meeting", and further recommended a procedure to be followed for the amendment or supplement to the budget, establishing a public hearing thereon~ and a ten day notice of said public hearing. ARTICLE VI, SECTION 606 - CITY MANAGER: Mr. White read his recommendations wherein provision would be made to provide for a public hearing, if requested~ prior to the removal of a City Manager. Discussion was held regarding the number of votes required to remove a City Manager and the possibility that, under certain clrcumstances~ removal could be accomplished by two affirmative votes. Mr. White felt it should require the affirmative vote of all but one o£ the Council total membership. Consideration was given to the requirement of the affirmative vote of one more than the majority of the total membership o£ the Council. Mro Harry Williams, Legal Counsel to the Citizens' Charter Committee~ was asked to comment on suggested amendments made by Mr, White. Mr~ Williams advised that it was not competent in the Charter itself to specify the method of amendment, as the method of amendment must be as set forth in the Constitution of the State of California. Regarding a provision to guide the voter to the Constitution for amendment, Mro Williams stated that if this philosophy was followed, there would be a great many more ins- tances where reference would be made to the State Constitution~ and the Charter would become a cross index to the Constitution. However, more important was the language set £or2h in the recommendation, that it shall be as provided in the State Constitution, that shall be initiated in this or that particular fashion, which, in his opinion~ did not correspond to the Constitution, and if it did, may not correspond to the Constitutional provis- ions tomorrow. ~or these reasons, Mr. Williams was of the opinion that a provision such as the one recommended~instead of serving the people, could lead the people to damage and detriment by following the Charter provisions, not knowing that it is absolutely immaterial, and that they must follow the existing Constitutional provisions at the time an amendment is initiated. Councilman Schutte asked if the majority of the Council would be three, regardless if an occasion existed where there were only three members of the City Council? Mr. Williams advised that when it is stated "majority of the total membership of the Council is required'', it is also stated, "that the total membership of the Council is five~'; the difference being "membership" and not "members". Further, the Charter Committee deliberately did not use numbers, and if there was a concern regarding this matter, it could be clarified under "Definitions"° 7573 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1964, 7:00 P.M. Regarding the City Budget, Mr. White was of the opinion that copies of the Budget should be more widely distributed, in order to generate public interest and eliminate public apathy; and in conclusion, requested the City Council to give serious consideration to the dissenting opinion which he filed, of which the main points were the establishment of a Personnel Board~ and the combination of district representation - Council- men at Large, and possibly increasing the membership of the City Council to seven. Mr. Don Roth, voting member of the Citizens' Charter Committee, commented on the provisions regulating the removal of the City Manager, advising that th~s particular issue was discussed at length, and that the most interesting comment made was the comment by Mr. Murdoch, the City Manager, relative %o the various reasons for removal that could be used by the City Council° Further, Mr. Murdoch not only endorsed but supported the recommended provisions for the removal of the City Manager. Mro Murray Hoffman, 2415 East Sycamore Street, commented on the sections pertaining to the Library Board, and advised that it was his firm opinion that the Library Board must be separated from the political pres- sures of any community. Regarding the selection of books, he advised that a good library that offers a wide selection of books to the community performs a service that cannot be matched. Mr. Hoffman further advised that in his opinion, the administra- tion of the library must be buffered by some means from the political pressures that could be present, and thereupon recommended that in Section 908, the Library Board be made administrative~ rather than a recommending group~ and further recommended that the present existing ordinance regulat- ing the library be maintained, and ~hat there be added a provision whereby members of the Library Board could be removed by vote of the City Council. Councilman $chutte asked Mr. Geisler or Mr. Williams to state the Council's position regardin9 right o£ removal of an appointed member to any Board or Commission. Mro Gelsier advised, regarding appointments to most administra- tive boards 'that have regulative powers of their own, unless there is a provision for removal~ they may be reappointed only at the expiration of their term~ ~urther, regarding the present existing regulations of the City Library, the City Council has the power of appointment, but to the best of his knowledge~ had no power of removal. Mr. Geisler further reported that many of the powers that the present Library Board has are not presently utilized, such as the hiring and dismissin9 o£ personnet~ and the acquisition of property. One power that has been exercised was the independent employment of a Library Director, who has cooperated thoroughly' with the City Manager and City Council; how- ever, under their authority, the Library Director is not answerable to the City Manager nor the City Council° Regarding the selection of books, Mr. Geisler reported that according to his recollection, the City Council has never exercised any authority over ~he selection of books. Councilman Dutton called attention to the fact that the Library Board also had a taxin9 authority, and that the Board, once appointed, would be beyond the reach of the voting public. Mayor Pro Iem Chandler stated that in his opinion, there was no real point of dissention; that it was just a question of understanding each other° /he Library Board, as it presently exists, apparently does not care to exercise the powers that are objectionable, such as their taxing authority and removal° 7574 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ ..!9.64, 7:00 P.M. Regarding the selection of Library books, Mr. Geisler advised that Section D, pertaining Zhereto~ could be modified to give the Library Board absolute power in the selection of books. Mro Arthur Gray, Jro, 550 South Wayside, member of the Library Board of Trustees, addressed the Council advising that in his opinion, the proposed Charter went further than the two issues on which they were in agreement, in that it changes the nature of the Board completely from an administrative board to a recommendatory body. This, he believed, would destroy a great deal of the vitality' of the present City Library system. For this reason, he stated he would be opposed to the Charter as written, and recommended provisions be established, somewhere between the Charter as written, and the present system. In support of the administrative type board~ Mro Gray advised that a Library Board in a real sense could not be compared to a govern- mental function, nor could it be compared to police~ fire, engineering, etc., and in his opinion would be more comparable to an educational system. Mro Gray explained that the decisions made by the Library Board ar~ for the majority, policy decisions, such as standards for use of the facility, and he doubted if the City Council would have the time to make these minor policy decisions important most especially to the Library; and because of the Library Board's constant interest and knowledge obtained, in his opinion, they were best equipped to make decisions affecting Library operations° Regarding 'the employmen% of Library personnel, Mr. Gray reported that the City Personnel Department testing process is utilized, but that all Library personnel is hired by the Library Board~ and in his opinion, the employment of personnel particularly on the professional level should remain with the Library Board° Mr. Gray advised tha~ the Library Board has never pretended to have the authority to tax or %o obtain any fund~, other than the funds allotted to them by the City~ however once the fund5 have been allotted, in his opinion they should have the authority to expend the funds as they see fifo In conclusion regarding ~he power to tax, Mr. Gray advised that the Library Board did no~ wan[ ~his power, and felt that only people elected by the citizens should have the right to exercise this power. Regarding the removal of a Library Board member, in his opinion, the City Council should have the right of removal~ but he further felt that the members should have the right 'to request a public hearing prior to his removal to allow him a chance to be heard. Speaking for himself~ Mro Gray stated he £elt that the authority generally given to the Library Board under the Educational Code, such as the authority to hire and fire, expend money allotted to the Library, the authority to make the day by day decisions and Library policies, should remain with the Library Board; that under the proposed City Charter, this authority is taken from them, and he further questioned whether under a Charter, these powers could be delegated° Mrs. Helen Ruatti~ 2649 Bruce Avenue, raised questions concerning the number of Charter cities in the State~ full time Councilmen, and whether or not the City Council must present the Charter issue to the voters for a decision, and whether or not the City Council could change the Charter from the one recommended, prior to submitting it to the voters. Mayor Pro Tem Chandler replied that the committee to study the feasibility of a charter, and frame a proposed charter, was appointed by the City Council~ as a technical matter~ the Ci'ty Council can amend the recom- mended Char%er and present it to the people, or they can vote not to present it. 7575 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 196~, 7:00 P.M. Mr. Williams, in answer to Mrs. Ruatti~s question, reported that the City of Anaheim was the largest city in 'the state without a charter; that approximately' seventy-eight cities in the state are Charter Cities; further, he could only recall one city having full-time Councilmen, and that was the City of Los Angeles. MtSo V~ckle Sowle, 2648 Bruce Avenue, advised that she had read the proposed Char~er, and felt i't was very reasonable, however asked what the main difference was between a General Law City and a Charter City, and further, what were the advantages of a Charter form of government. Mro Williams advised that the General Law under which General Law Cities are 9overned is found in the Government Code of the State of California, Sections beginning generally with 35,000 through about 40,000; however there are provisions relating ~o General Law Cities scattered throughout the General Law, so not every provision will be found in these sections noted° He gave as an example the provision relating to Public Libraries. Under the General Law~ these provisions are found in the 5ducationai Code~ Regarding advantages and disadvantages, Mr. Williams advised that probably the greatest disadvantage, particularly if the Charter departs very much from the General Law, would be that Charter provisions would not be subject ~ho the myriad of legal cases in this state interpreting the General Law~ Charter provisions would require independent interpretation of the courts~ rather than depend on decided cases, as they relate to General Law. ~'ur%her, ano%iner disadvantage might be in amending the Charter, which requires the vote of 'the people, ~hereas General Law amendments are by the State Leglsiatur~ Yhls, bowe'ver~ could also be considered an advantage, in 'that the change in a 'General Law would not apply to a Charter City. In answer to a ques'c;on of Councilman Schutte"s regarding ~axation, Mro Williams advised that except to the extent that the Charter limits the power of taxation, a Charter City' has unlimited power of taxation within lhe confines o£ ~he ConsZitutiono 'The type of tax imposed~ and the amount of taxation~ are unlimited except as the Charter provides. Further, the proposed Charter lim}_ts to a greater extent the power of taxation than does General LaWo Discussion was held re!al, ive to the recent decline of General Law Cities changing zo Charier form of governmen, t, and Mr. Williams was of the opinion %hat this decline was due io the fact that the Legislature has been quite generous, in giving multiple choices to General Law Cities. Another factor was a change in-the General Law that eliminated those cities whose motive was to effect a merger of school district boundaries coextensive with city boundaries. Regarding the proposed Unruh bill, as it relates to school dis- tricts~ Mr~ Williams felt ~chai it would be next to impossible to write the provision in the proposed Charter, not knowing what the bill will be in final form, or if the bill will be adopted° Regarding the district system, Mr. Williams was of the opinion that the principal evil exists where the election is by party system. Further, those who are ~n favor of the district system can only accomplish this by means of a Charter° Once a Char%er is adopted, it would only require a slmple amendment~ and the people can express themselves on this question alone; Out, if the Charter was not adopted in the first place because district representation was no't included, they forever close the door to ever getting district representation. As to placing the proposed Charter and this question on the same ballot~ Mr. Williams was of the opinion that it could legally be done; however, he definitely would recom- mend against it, because of confusion and time-consuming legal actions that could follow° He gave as an example the case of the City of Los Angeies~ where a similar actlon took place~ 7576 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1964, 7:00 Regarding the salary of Councilmen, Mr. Williams was of the opinion that both issues were likely to be defeated if placed in the Charter and further explained how this could come about. He again advised to first get a Charter, if it is the desire of the people, and then submit the salary question to the people~ in 'the same manner as the question of dis- trict representation, Mr. Jack Ward~ 215 Echo Piace~ addressed the Council favoring the adoption of a Charter, being of the opinion that the City would be in a better position to 9overn the affairs of the city than the State Legislature. Mrs. Nancy $chma!l~ 108 Cliffwood~ asked how soon after the adop- tion of a Charter an amendment can Ce submitted to the voters; further, can a Special Election be called for an amendment, or must it be incorporated with the next regular election... Mr. Williams replied that there was no specified time after a Charter is effective when an amendment can be proposed, that it can be at a Special Election or at a General Election; however, the amendment would not be effective until it nas Oeen ratified by the Legislature. Mr. Williams further advised that experience indicates that a Charter's chances for success~ or an amendment %o a Charter, is better when not included ina General Election, but included in a Municipal Election or Special Election. Mr. Williams warned that if any changes are made in the Library Board's power~ care must be exercised, as it ~ouid reflect on the rest of the Charter, and would necessitate changes elsewhere in the Charter. Jo Ann Da!~on~ 808 Geneva Street, addressed the Council favoring election of Councilmen at Large, stating her reasons there£or, and further £avored the Library Board bein:~ an admip~istrative board~ responsible to the Council, with power of removal° Mrs~ May Belle Spencer., Ci+v~ Treasurer, addressed the Council concerning the du~tles of tae City Treasurer as proposed in the Charter. She called attention to the presen-c system of cen'tralized collection, and asked if the proposed Char~er was es-cabliskin9 this function as the responsibility of the City Ireas~:rer~ Excerpts of the Santa Cruz Charter and resolution adopted by %he California Municipal Treasurers" Association were read relative to the collection of City £unds~ Being responsible £or City £unds, Mrs. Spencer was of the opinion that the duties should De seI~ forth very clearly in the Charter, and that the City Treasurer have a p!ace in City Government° In answer to a question of Mrs, Eugene Thomas, 2080 South Loafs Street, Mrs° Spencer explained ~he duties and £unc~ions o£ the City Treasurer as they presently exist. In answer 'to further quest:ons, Mrs. Spencer felt that if the responsibility was that o~ the City Treasurer, all collections should be under the City Ireasurer's control~ and the City Treasurer should be the head of that department. Mr, Williams advised that the proposed Charter, as it relates to the Treasurer, was pat~ce:-:':ed a~+'tez ~. City of Sa~:.~a Cr~.:z Charter, and fur- ther expia~ned the presen'-t ~'espo?.szO~:ii-zzes cnJez General Law~ stating that both under Gener.~.! Law and as proposed Ln the Charter, the City Treasurer is responsib.!e for .zhe col.!ec-::~;on and deposZt of ali. C.~'~cy funds. A brief discussion was held relatlve to the question of election of the City Treasurer, as opposed to appointment of the City Treasurer, 7577 City Hall~ Anaheim~ Caiifqrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1964~ 7:00 P,;,M, Mrs~ Marge Richter, 3111 West Lincoln Avenue, addressed the City Council advising that she served as an Alternate Member of the Citizens~ Charter Committee for one year, and felt very strongly that the City Treasurer should be elected, rather than appointed. Mrs. Barbara McKntee addressed the City Council regarding the Library Board~ and felt the philosophy of the Committee was consistent in this area, as throughout the Charter, it was £el'~ that any final authority of important government should remain with elected representa- tives of the people. She agreed that the Library was in the field of education, but called attention to the fact that the School Board is elected by the people. Further~ Mrs. McEntee advised that the majority of the Committee felt that the Councilmen should be elected at large, thereby representing all of the people. Mr. 3chh Wright, 1620 South Euclid Street, advised that in his opinion, the Library should remain as i~ is; further, that he had attended some of the Charter Committee meetings, and although the work that was done in his opinion was very good, he felt that the voice of the people should be heard~ especially on these controversial issues, not at these public hearings but at an elec'[~on. ~urther, as this is a most serious decision, he suggested %ne hearings be continued until after the Municipal Election, so it would not Oecome a poliiicai issue; '%hat even though a ~arget date in 3une has been set~ in nls oplnion it. would be much better to wait until November~ and have %he Charter as near r:ght as possible, before putting the ~ss~,~e to the 'voters, Ma"yor Pro 'Zem ChandLer agreed that 'the discussion should be further ¢onzi. n':~ed, and no~ed o~hez items that might be oonsideredl refer- ring to Sec~zion 70! - Appointment and Removal~ asked if th~ Chief of Polloe sho.'::id Oe _:nder -~Lis seot:on~ or under the authority of the City ~anage~, Ano%~ter thot_::gnt wa;~ the line of declination, with respect to the City Manager ~o c'ne Azs;stan~ C:l;'v Manager~ to an appointment by the City Counc i Lo A~ the conc!'~:.s::on of the discussion~ it was moved by Councilman Schutte~ seconded by Co:nc~!Ln',.an Dui. Ion, 'that the informal hearing on the proposed C;'i.'~¥ Char'ret Oe con'zlnued to March 26~ 1964, 7:00 P oM. MOTION C ARR I ED ~ ADJOURNMENT; Co~.nc:ilman Dutton moved 'to adjourn~ Councilman Schutte seconded the mot. ion~ MO?iON CARRIED, (0:37 P,M,) City Clerk