HomeMy WebLinkAboutCate memo to Council may 4
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
From: Cate Hartzell
April 29, 2004
RE: Council’s 2003-2004 Goal relative to this topic states: “
Consider update of City
Charter”
In setting Council’s 2003-2004 goals, there was agreement only for the “update” process.
To my knowledge, there have been no formal decisions by Council to move beyond a
basic update of the Charter. Substantial changes are typically initiated and campaigned
for by a group of citizens.
A fundamental question inherent in this matter is what role the Council should play in
governance changes to the Charter. If we decide that City Council should not be
involved, then we should rely on the legal options that citizens have to campaign for
changes through the initiative process. If we decide that City Council should play a role,
then we should discuss what governance changes we are asking the Committee to
examine and clearly state the problems we are attempting to address by doing so.
Recommendation:
1.The Council and Mayor create a list of individuals to comprise a Charter
Technical Review Committee. This Committee would be small and comprised of
people with knowledge of legal aspects of Charters and Oregon municipal
functions. Since we would not be addressing governance changes, it could include
a member of Council, past elected officials/mayors, and citizens experienced with
governance bodies and charters/constitutions that guide them.
2.Council direct staff to create an RFP for a consultant to assist in the updating of
the Charter. Reconsider the $5,000 spread in estimate. Since we’d be limiting
work to updating, there is a cost-savings that needs to be calculated into RFP.
3.Technical Review Committee meets with consultant to develop recommended
changes to the Charter to only update it. This may or may not involve the use of a
model charter.
4.Technical Review Committee would work with staff to convene at least one
public meeting before forwarding recommended changes to Council. At least one
non-public hearing public meeting will be held after Council receives
recommendations.
5.Meetings of the Technical Review Committee will be open to the public and
scheduled according to the needs of its members, with emphasis on evening
meetings where possible to allow for public attendance.
6.The process will not be rushed, but will be provided with the support needed to
accomplish the task in a timely way.
7.Council communicates to the public that we will not be pursuing additional
Charter changes at this time, but that it is their right to do so.
1 of 3
Advantages of completing an update separate from a substantive governance changes:
?
As stated by the consultant, this would be a rather straightforward process and result
in a) a shorter process, b) that would be more likely to pass a vote of the electorate, c)
savings of staff time, and d) a lower level of public debate.
?
It places the task of building political support for governance changes upon the
citizens, rather than Council.
?
If citizens advanced other political changes separately, the public would be voting on
them separately from Charter changes that are proposed for “housekeeping” reasons.
Disadvantage of completing an update separate from a substantive governance changes:
1.If a group of citizens secured support for other Charter changes, there would need to
be a separate vote of the public.
If majority of Council votes to include the option of changes to political governance
components in the update process, I have the following requests:
1.That the Council discuss governance changes that could be made in the Charter prior
to convening a Committee to determine whether Council wants to include or exclude
items from the work of a Committee. The Parks & Recreation Commission was
unaware of this process until this week; we might want to include them in Council
discussion.
2.That if a committee is created, the Council and Mayor work collaboratively on its
composition.
3.That the public process leads this process. Work by a consultant will be used to
inform the public and Committee on housekeeping items only. Any work by a
consultant to explore options for “non-updating” items will be made after the
Committee holds public meetings and deliberates.
4.That the schedule for proceeding not be bound by an election cycle, but defined by
benchmarks for progress checks with Council. Meetings at night allow for the most
public attendance and meetings every week are a burden on Committee members and
the public.
5.That the Council remove most of the meeting rules proposed and provide a
professional facilitator for the Committee work. If not, the selection of a chair must
be made based on evidence of strong, demonstrated facilitation skills. Neither the
Consultant nor staff should facilitate meetings.
6.Task the committee first with the updating process, exclusive of governance changes.
Charge them with presenting those changes separate from any governance changes.
7.If Committee is to work on governance changes, charge them with documenting the
problem the change is meant to address, and an assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages of each, in addition to any recommendations they make.
8.Require a minimum of three public meetings separate from the Committee work
sessions to ensure that the work of the Committee reflects a large segment of the
citizens.
9.Require that members of the Committee reside in the City and set a minimum number
of years they have been residents.
10.Strengthen emphasis on public input during each meeting, perhaps at different points
in each meeting as different topics are discussed.
2 of 3
11.Re-examine decision making quorum requirements. It seems inappropriate that 6)
establishes that decisions can be made by 3 people. 7) establishes that 4 people
constitute majority for final recommendations, rather than whole committee. We
should mandate that the whole committee vote on the final recommendation and that
2/3 vote constitute approval.
Remaining questions that I think need discussion:
? Is selection of consultant a low-bid? Who decides which consultant is selected? Is a
$5,000 spread in consultant budget appropriate?
? Is there an advantage to asking public to vote on a charter in sections, so that it’s not
an all-or-nothing campaign and people are given ability to approve/disapprove
components of proposed changes? If so, that influences how it is brought to Council.
3 of 3