Rushed Piedmont City Charter Changes Alarm Piedmonters
Piedmont League of Women Voters Joins Individual Citizens Expressing Great Concern About the Lack of Citizen Participation and Quick Timing of Proposed Revisions to the City Charter –
Councilmember Jen Cavenaugh suggested the newly proposed office holder limits appeared to be a solution looking for a problem.
As Piedmonters find out about proposed Piedmont City Charter changes, concern has grown. In years past when important City Charter changes were proposed, community involvement was primary. The majority of the City Council at their February 5, 2018 meeting made no attempt to require outreach to Piedmonters. Only Councilmember Jen Cavenaugh desired more civic engagement prior to placement on the June ballot, which would postpone the Charter ballot to November, 2018.
The City Charter requires all proposed Charter changes be placed on a Piedmont ballot and approved by Piedmont voters prior to becoming law.
The Charter changes were agendized by Mayor Bob McBain and the City Administrator with little time for general public input. After the February 5 introduction of Charter changes, the next Council meeting for consideration has been scheduled for March 5, 2018. A Council meeting typically would have been held on February 20, following President’s Day of February 19, however that meeting was cancelled making the Monday, March 5, 2018 the next and last regularly scheduled Council meeting to take action on the ballot measure for it to qualify for the special election in June.
City Attorney Michelle Kenyon told the City Council the numerous changes to the Charter came from the City Administrator, the City Clerk and the Council members. The public was not involved or informed of Charter changes until release of the staff report for the February 5 Council meeting.
Mayor Bob McBain immediately suggested that the June 2018 ballot measure only offer two proposed Charter changes, which evolved to: 1. Exclude former two term officials from seeking public office until an eight-year waiting period has elapsed. 2. Remove from the Charter the budget limitation of 25% in Piedmont General Fund reserves.
The Council has shown interest in changing the limit on General Fund reserves from the current 25% limit. To avoid the accumulation of reserves in the General Fund, the Council has recently established various reserve funds where excess money has been placed in an effort to avoid exceeding the 25% limit.
Cost to the City of up to $55,000 to vote on the Charter changes in June instead of November 2018.
The unexpected urgent placement of the ballot measure requires Council action within weeks of their first public introduction. The incomplete and unavailable form of the possible ballot language must receive Council action by March 8 if it is to be on the June 2018 ballot. (See Alameda County election deadlines below). The expedited timing eliminates the opportunity for broad citizen participation prior to a ballot measure and would cost Piedmonters up to $55,000 than waiting for the November election when there would be one ballot measure at a reduced cost.
Some Council members suddenly want Charter changes for Special June Ballot, rather than waiting for November Election.
City Clerk John Tulloch told the Council that City Administrator Paul Benoit had informed the Superintendent of Education Randall Booker the Council wanted to place further limitations on out-of-office former officials seeking election to the Board of Education. Benoit’s conversation took place prior to public information or Council consideration.
City Attorney Michelle Kenyon explained that the City Council and ultimately the voters rather than the School Board would make the decision on term limit requirements. Kenyon acknowledged that this was an “important change” to the Charter.
Importance of the Piedmont City Charter
The Piedmont City Charter is the underlying legal basis of Piedmont governance. Previously when significant changes to the City Charter were considered, a Charter Review Committee was appointed by the Council to review, carefully consider issues in open meetings, and then make recommendations to the Council.
The proposed Charter change limiting former office holders’ return to the City Council or School Board originated with Mayor Bob McBain. McBain explained to the Council he had been approached about office holder term restrictions and had decided it would be beneficial to end prior officer holders ability to ever serve again.
McBain stated he felt it was unfair, and created an uneven election if past officeholders, who he referred to as “incumbents,” sought election after an absence of only 4 years. He noted that many people want to serve and there are many volunteers. This City Council has had the practice of recycling prior commissioners and committee members between the various boards, raising a question of the appointments excluding new willing volunteers. Though he had suggested a permanent exclusion, McBain was later convinced during the meeting that an eight year absence from service was an acceptable time limit for an individual to once more seek election.
Council member Jen Cavenaugh stated that only one person in recent years had wanted to come back and returning past office holders were able to hit the ground running. She was repeatedly interrupted by other Council members during the meeting when she attempted to speak.
City Clerk John Tulloch had initiated outreach to other cities to see what exclusions on past officials they included in their Charters. He spoke of no outreach within Piedmont.
On February 13, Mayor McBain and City Clerk Tulloch made a presentation to the School Board. Following McBain and Tulloch’s presentation, the School Board was not prepared to take a position on the Charter changes. See Superintendent’s report below.
The City Council has not taken final action to place the term limit issue on the June 2018 ballot and despite the School Board’s inaction, Mayor McBain preemptively proclaimed to the School Board that the service limits impacting the Board members would be on the June 2018 ballot and he hoped that the School Board would vote for the new limits on public service.
McBain’s proclamation was on a split Council vote with Council member Cavenaugh seeking further information and citizen involvement prior to expending money for the ballot measure in June.
Given the few past office holders out of office for only four years, the limitation and barring of candidates appeared to be targeting specific individuals.
Deadlines for June 2018 Election Ballot:
Close of Nomination Period for the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election – March 09, 2018
Deadline to file Arguments In Favor/Against a Measure on the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election – March 14, 2018
Deadline to file Rebuttals to Arguments In Favor/Against a Measure on the June 5, 2018 Direct Primary Election – March 19, 2018
Ballot arguments are filed with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Board of Education current Policy 9110 states in regard to terms of office:
“BB 9110 Board Bylaws Terms Of Office: The Piedmont City Charter contains the following provisions relative to the Board of Education: 1. The Board shall consist of five members elected from the city at large for a term of four years. Board members shall be elected at the times and in the same manner provided for members of the city council. Only qualified voters of the city shall be eligible to hold the office of Board member. No person who has served two full consecutive terms as a members of the Board shall be eligible to hold office until one full intervening term of four years has elapsed. Any person who serves as a member of the Board for more than eighteen months of an unexpired term shall be considered to have served a full term.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TO: Board of Education FROM: Randall Booker, Superintendent DATE: February 13, 2018 RE: POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE PIEDMONT CITY CHARTER
___________________________________________I. SUPPORT INFORMATION
At its June 19. 2017 meeting, the Piedmont City Council directed staff to review the city charter and point out provisions that may be outdated. Subsequent to that meeting, Councilmembers also reviewed the charter and made suggestions regarding provisions they thought might need amendment.
At the February 5, 2018 City Council Meeting, City staff presented on the culmination of this review. As part of the discussion, a Councilmember suggested a possible revision of term limits (which in turn, could affect the [Piedmont Unified School District] PUSD School Board). City staff then requested direction from the City Council on further proposed Charter amendments and the possible placement on a ballot for consideration by Piedmont voters.
The following are the proposed changes that could specifically affect PUSD:
Article II – City Council
Section 2.03 Term of OfficeArticle VII – Public Schools
Section 7.02 Membership, Term of OfficeBoard Bylaw 9110
A question was raised as to whether Piedmont should amend the existing term limits provided for in the Charter. Currently, the Charter (and Board Bylaws) limits Councilmembers (and by extension Board of Education Members) to serving two consecutive terms. The current provision, however, does not prohibit a Councilmember (or Board Member) who has served two consecutive terms from running again after a full term (four years) has elapsed. The question for Council (and Board) consideration is whether there is a desire to impose stricter term limits than currently exist.
If there were such a desire, an option described for Council (and Board) consideration would be to limit Councilmembers (and Board Members) to serving two full terms in office. Should the Board wish to consider this option, both Section 2.03 and Board Bylaw 9110 would need to be revised as follows:
No person who has served two (2) full consecutive terms as member of the Board shall be eligible to hold such office again. until one full intervening term of four (4) years has elapsed. [Editors Note: This appears to have been an error.]
II. RECOMMENDATION: REVIEW AND ACTION
Review the City’s proposed changes to the City Charter and, by extension, Board Bylaw 9110 and provide direction to the Superintendent.
Read the Piedmont League of Women Voters letter to the City Council HERE.
I must add my voice to those who question the rush to put newly minted amendments to City Charter on the June ballot without informed public comment and discussion. I have had more opportunity to comment on the Climate Action Plan 2.0, the Beach School playground and the City’s own website than these proposed changes to the way government and the electoral process work in Piedmont.
Years ago the City and its citizens underwent various public review workshops regarding our school system and the City’s Master Plan. Where is that concern for the democratic process now? We may come to agree with the Mayor who “feels” former council members ought to be barred from running for City Council again. But let’s have a public discussion about this proposal along with the list of other Charter amendments developed for us by the City staff.
The Mayor’s pretext for the term limit proposal is that it will facilitate others running for office by requiring once elected officials to sit longer before running again, thereby diminishing their notoriety. That’s highly debatable, but raises the question of how the Charter should be changed to increase turnover and diversity of City Council. Rather than rush to the ballot with a hastily conceived idea, let’s have the discussion of alternatives to our term limits. Is there a problem with diversity on Council? Would neighborhood districts help? How about 1 five-year term? As conceived, the current proposal does give an electoral advantage to the council members who may seek re-election in November.
Feb. 12 – The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a recommendation that Staff have more input on window reveals. If the distance a window is set back from the horizontal exterior wall plane is worthy of committee review, surely changing the City Charter also deserves a thoughtful committee investigation and report.
Regardless of whether it makes sense to limit a citizen’s opportunity to serve, it seems wasteful to spend $55K to put the issue on the June ballot if that cost is avoided on the November ballot, as stated in some articles.
The explanation provided by the City Attorney for the June ballot is that the term limit changes need to be in place by the November ballot so they apply to sitting council members. This opinion was not documented in the staff report and barely discussed at the Council meeting. If others could comment, why would term-limits imposed at the next election not apply to incumbents seeking re-election on the same ballot? If they do, then Rick is absolutely right – avoid spending the $55K and consider this for November. If they don’t, then a very rapid discussion of the merits is needed because Council is slated to take action on this proposal next Monday.