The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About65B - PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTSREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 20, 2014 TITLE: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FROM COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE: CIVIL SERVICE APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT HEADS, COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL AND CAMPAIGN REFORM CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Receive report from the Ad Hoc Committee. CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1" Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 2. Direct City Attorney and Clerk of the Council to prepare necessary documents to place proposed Charter amendments on the ballot for November 2014 election. DISCUSSION The City Council considered an 85A request to appoint an ad -hoc Council committee to review possible Charter amendments based on the 2007 Charter Committee recommendations and additional items that have been raised since that time. The ad -hoc committee ( "committee "), consisting of Council Members Benavides, Martinez and Sarmiento have identified three possible topic amendments, including the following: 1. Department Heads and Civil Service 2. City Council Compensation 3. Campaign Contribution Limitations ANALYSIS Department Heads and Civil Service Santa Ana City Charter section 1002 provides for the City employees covered by the civil service system. Section 1002 exempts the "head of each department' with the exception of the police 65B -1 and fire chiefs. Given that the City no longer has a Fire Chief, the committee recommends eliminating this reference. In addition, the committee recommends that the police chief position be treated equally and that the position be at -will as with the other department head positions. Section 1002(c) of the Charter also provides that if an officer or employee holding a civil service position is appointed to a position exempt from civil service that person shall revert back to the protected position should he or she be removed from the exempt position. In other words, if a person servicing as an assistant department head is promoted to a department head position and does not work out as a department head then the person can return to the assistant position. The committee recommends deleting this provision because of the potential disruption it may cause to the organization when a person is promoted and their former position is filled. The Charter provision does not contain any time restrictions or provide for alternative placements. City Council Compensation California Constitution Article XI, section 5(b)(4) authorizes charter cities, such as the City of Santa Ana, to provide for the compensation of its officers in its voter - approved charter. Santa Ana Charter section 402 provides that Council Members shall receive compensation in the amount of $125 per month and the Mayor $200 per month. This compensation amount was set by the voters in 1958, more than 55 years ago. A survey of similarly situated charter cities with part-time elected officials demonstrates that Santa Ana elected officials are among the lowest compensated in the State of California, even though the City is one of the largest. The following information derived from City website postings or newspaper articles from 2009 or later. Most cities also provide health and welfare benefits and reimbursement for expenses or set allowances so the total compensation packages may be higher. City/Rank' Council Members Santa Ana (11) $1,500 per year Fresno (5) $65,000 per year Sacramento (7) $60,816 per year Bakersfield (9) $1,200 per year Anaheim (10) $18,000 per year Riverside (12) $39,408 per year Irvine (16) $10,560 per year Huntington Bch (23) $2,101 per year" '(HB allows additional pay, range $1,500 to $24,432) Garden Grove (25) $7,200 per year Pasadena (40) $16,903 per year Santa Monica (80) $12,888 per year Newport Beach (85) $14,872 per year "Ranking identifies largest cities based on population. 65B -2 Mayor $2,400 per year $130,000 per year $115,550 per year $24,000 per year $15,300 per year $78,828 per year $10,560 per year $2,101 per year $5,832 per year $25,354 per year $15,467 per year $21,101 per year Campaign Contribution Limitations Federal, state and local legislative bodies have grappled with regulating campaign financing for decades. The challenge has been to craft regulations that safeguard the democratic process by ensuring that large contributors do not dominate election results and also protect constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to participate in the electoral process. That challenge has been as difficult as the issues are important. At the federal level, the Federal Election Commission administers the extensive system of restrictions imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and implemented by federal regulations. The federal contribution limit for a contribution to an individual or non - multicandidate committee is $2300 per election. Contributions from federal government contractors, foreign nationals, and the general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations and national banks are prohibited, as are contributions made in the name of another. Federal laws governing contributions, particularly contributions by and to groups, have been subject to numerous court challenges. In California, the voters have weighed in repeatedly, proposing and adopting four major campaign reform measures in the last twenty years (Propositions 68, 73, 208 and 34). The first three of these were overturned by the courts. At present, Proposition 34 imposes a range of contribution limits for state offices from about $3,600 to $7,000 and allows contributions by corporations and unions as well as natural persons and PACs. Currently, state law expressly does not limit contributions to candidates for local offices, but allows cities to adopt their own limitations. Gov. Code 85703. Many local jurisdictions have chosen to exercise their authority to impose campaign financing limitations, and the local regulations they have adopted vary widely. Santa Ana has established a contribution limit of $1,000 in each election cycle. This limitation was adopted as a Charter amendment in 1992. The City further limits campaign contributions by ordinance. Section 2 -107 of the Municipal Code provides that no council member or committee controlled by a council member may solicit or accept a contribution of $250 or more from any person impacted by a final decision on a license, permit or other entitlement, for a period of three months following the decision. Finally, Charter section 425 disqualifies council members from participating in decisions affecting those who have made campaign contributions of $250.00 or more. The disqualification is for a period of 12 months. Section 425 models the State Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations concerning disqualification from participating in decisions affecting sources of income and Government Code section 84308 which disqualifies certain "officers" running for elective office from participating in decisions for a period of three months. However, the State law expressly exempts campaign contributions from the definition of income and the State law does not mandate disqualification of city council members, unless they are serving on certain regional boards or commissions. While Charter Section 425 and Section 2 -107 of the Municipal Code appear to be well intentioned they may increase misunderstandings and false accusations by those who don't fully understand the competing local versus state rules. Furthermore, these local provisions were adopted without L• MW fully defining terms. In some cases, the State definitions and practices are used to interpret them, but this has not been done consistently. As a result the rules are not equally applied or enforced. Thus, the committee recommends repeal and amendments so that the State law is applicable in all situations. This will result in equal application and an objective enforcement by the agencies designed and funded to enforce the laws. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the action. Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney L71MM