Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee.  [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 2, 2019]
As I as I said, there's one or two things on here that Tony was interested in. This includes things that I will say I have heard from the community or Tony and I have heard from the community. But again, most that most of this is mine or from other council members during the election, etc. This is a proposed potential list of things we could say yes or no to. So it isn't we are not necessarily proposing we run forward with all of this. But Tony and I really wanted to come back to this body and say, hey, before we spend any time working on this stuff, what do we want to work on it? So I thought it would be helpful because I think there's only one or maybe two things on here that are my own personal like things that I threw on here of going through and kind of talking about where where these things came from so that there's a little bit more understanding that it's not. John just going completely wild districts and ranked choice voting have come up districts came up at a community meeting that Tony and I attended in I believe it was December the Alameda Citizens Task Force meeting ranked choice voting is something that has come from a variety of Alameda progressives, the element, Green Party, etc. The different groups there have talked about that direct elect the mayor is something I've been talking about for about a year and a half or so, which is the idea that we changed at one point in time from what what some cities have, which is we elect city council and then the city council, like the school board, adopts or appoints a mayor. And oftentimes that mayor rotates once a once a year. So I think that there are some benefits to that, especially with the way we do boards and commissions, etc.. So if there was interest, we could look at that. Term limits, definitely. Something has come up both in the community and I've heard members of this body talk about that with everything that's been going on lately, whether it's Measure K or Measures B or yeah, the Sun Cow Initiative and whatever else, this idea of charter charter ballot initiatives and paid signature gatherers and looking at what we know. First question, is the charter the right place for any of this? But is there something we could do in the charter that might require not just spending a lot of money to tell people something they want to hear, even though they don't understand what they're being asked to sign necessarily. Campaign finance reform is definitely something that came up in it through the campaign for me, but has been coming up for at least ten years in conversations I've had. Removing housing restrictions, measure a and moving that language to the municipal code. That was both a staff recommendation and things. I've heard members of this body say that they were interested in discussing and looking at board and commission appointments. There was discussion at one point in time, actually at the city council about four years ago about possibly changing it. It didn't get three votes to move forward, but I figured I would throw that out there. And then the question is, are all the right boards and commissions in this? Tony is proposed finance commission and whatever else the Open Government Commission is, that's something that should be in the charter. Are these the right ones? I just wanted to, since we're having this conversation, say now would be a great time to consider this. And then lastly, and this is I'm going to say we have we heard slightly two different takes on what this could mean. And that's why it was written the way it was clarifying county council interference. And Tony, I think has some interest in this item, so I'll let you talk about that one. But we also the city received an independent report that suggested that we look at changing the charter language to clarify what interference is as well, looking at the removal of the auditor and treasurer. So we made changes in 2008. We've made some changes through the years of what the auditor and the Treasurer is. You know, I've definitely heard many multiple people suggest that and I have also been one of those people suggest that they don't need to be elected officials. They do very, very little work actually. They spend a lot of time. But the actual their actual jobs are just a few hours a year for the most part. It's not clear why. It's clear why they used to exist, because they used to actually have a whole workload. But we now have a professional staff that does most of the work and they basically just sign off on most of it. So the question is, why are we electing these two positions and what are they bringing? Council pay has definitely been something that's not just me, definitely something that that former council people have talked about for many years. If we want to have a broad breadth of people who run for and tried to be on the city council, we can't assume that everybody can afford to give up 20 hours a week for $100 every two weeks. No, sorry. A month. Sorry. I just almost doubled our hour. And this is in the charter. We have to talk about it. So I think that's one. And then right now the council rules are suggest that if one were to give birth and live in their home in Alameda, they couldn't call into a meeting. And that just beyond that just seems beyond discriminatory. And I think we should ignore that one and let somebody sue us if we have to. But I also think we should change it so that we acknowledge that we live in a modern world where not just men sit on city councils. So that's my list where they came from. No harm, no foul. I'll let Tony the one and. Then let's hear from Councilmember Desai. Oh, great. Well, thank you. I came into this with the opinion that we should, you know, cast the net widely in an effort to get as much input as to what people think they want to have the public further discuss. It didn't necessarily mean that agree with everything, but but I think we should at least have a conversation. And I also, in addition to what I would call cases in that widely in an effort to get, you know, as much ideas to to mull over, I, I also kind of imposed on myself what I think are reasons why certain issues might rise higher than other issues. And it was in an effort to, at least for myself, provide some kind of internal control as to, you know, what constitutes an issue worthy of consideration. For myself, recognizing again, that I said, you know, let's throw out everything that we can. So one of the things I was definitely interested in is there had to be a sense of political legitimacy to to the matter that there was that we are responding to or anticipating a problem that that we all commonly understand to be the case how we approach the problem from what angles. And you know what we come out of it, you know, it, it will be what it is. But we do understand that it is a problem. So one of the areas where I do believe that falls within my kind of the way that I filtered issues is certainly has to do with clarifying the council interference language. I think that's a discussion that we would have with that we should have largely because of the issues that had happened in 2018 and also because of we had the follow up report. Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the recommendations from the. From the report. But it is a conversation that we have to have, because my take away was that from the report and from what happened in 2018 was that nothing happened, even though there there there is pretty stark language in terms of council members interference in matters regarding employment that's stipulated in the in the charter. So we have to have that conversation on how to tighten that. Or not. I would I would ere on the side of tightening in the same vein when I talk about clarifying council interference. I'm certainly interested in a porous part of. A part of the charter that has to do with last time I call it to dash for it was actually to dash 11 and two. Dash 11 said that kind of separates the involvement of federal, state and county officials and why they can't participate in legislative bodies within the city council or or appointed by the city council . I would expand that and again, I would expand that in light of what happened in 2000, 2018. Now, another area that I do think falls within what I call, you know, a common problem. But instead of looking back, it's looking forward. I think clearly many cities across California are being forced to go into districts. So rather than being forced through a lawsuit, perhaps we are the city might take this opportunity to to come up with a way to to, you know, place the districts and in the charter as to how we go about, you know, what are the elements as to what's a good district or what's not a good district. So something that we I think we should address proactively because I think it will be a common problem because so many cities are being forced illegally to to go into the districts. There are some issues where I believe that that to me, in my opinion, I don't see it. It doesn't easily go through the filter with which I observe matters. Honestly, I don't look at the removal of the auditor or the Treasurer as something that people suddenly, you know, I don't see that community suddenly clamoring for that. I think there is a role for an independent auditor, independent treasurer or to a voted by the people of Alameda to review the work of of City Hall. I think there are other items also that I don't think they might be issues or interesting issues, but they don't necessarily rise to the level of of significance. For me, that is so I don't want to go into every of the details. But my main thing is certainly very narrow based upon the way in which I filter the issues. And it has to do, for example, with clarifying the council pay. I mean, I cannot council interference language. A district voting and excluding certain items that I believe don't necessarily have. There isn't necessarily a common agreement that this is a problem. On a final note, one of the things that I would encourage is if we are truly interested in changing the charter, and I think we will need to be strategic in how we go about doing it. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't approach undoing Measure eight from the city charter that was put in by the people of Alameda. And if people want to remove Measure eight from the charter, then the people, I believe, have to generate the signatures and remove it. Because I don't think that's a common problem that that that, you know, suddenly a lot of people are clamoring for. But that's my take on it. So I think this was very helpful. And I do think that we do need to improve to modify our charter. But I think we need to be very selective and strategic in how we go about doing it. I mean. For example, if you move forward on something that everyone agrees with, but then you also move forward on something that, you know, there's deep community division over, then I think you risk both of them not going forward because you won't get the votes for it. So. Thank you. And it's been very helpful. I appreciate it. John's assistance through this. It was a very good process. Councilmember Vela So can I just ask a clarifying question, though? So this item is titled Review and Discuss Charter Amendment, Timeline and issues proposed by the Council Subcommittee. I have heard you both describe the issues. What's the timeline? I think we can talk about the timeline separately or we. Can talk about it. You want me to. So that's this the meeting plan? Is that okay? And I think that. Yeah, let's just because everything's on the agenda and then we'll take council communication through the session. There was a little confusion, so we were proposing. But there was. Councilmember de SAC made the very wise and compassionate identification that every two years some of us are running for election. And it would be unfair to put ballot changes on that could that people could feel we're going to impact their race. So I guess the question we would have is I thought that because there was a primary election, we would actually already have covered the cost of having something on the ballot. So there's only about like $20,000 costs, but it turns out we have nothing on the primary ballot at this point in time. So we would have to actually. Make two or. $300,000 to put it on. So that would be a cost question. But we so this is a very tight timeline. If we were going to try to get something to March 2020 and basically ignoring the actual dates, the idea was like this meeting, come to the council, talk to people, what do we want to work on? Go out and have a community meeting, come back to the council and talk about what we got from that community meeting and how to move that forward. And so it'd just be kind of bouncing back and forth with the council basically checking in long before anything is written or direction is given. And have you had any communications with the League of Women Voters because had heard from. Yes, they are very interested in working on some of these issues. If we were to decide to move. Forward, that's what I'd heard. Okay. All right. Did you want to add anything to that timeline process so you could pace? And just to piggyback just on what Vice Mayor Mike was saying is there's also prohibitions that are not allowed as part of the March 2020 and council pay happens to be one of those that would have to go to November and the auditor and treasurer issue. So those. Offices that would be those offices that would be. Up would be going in March. And that makes sense. So yeah, they'd have to go November. Okay. Well, so you but you're working with the city clerk to to I take it to. Yes, yes, yes. And the city attorney. Okay, perfect. So Councilmember Vela. So. I guess I'll respond to kind of substantively and then the the timeline. So section two, Dash nine is the one that says that if if a council member is absent from the city for 30 days or more consecutively without the permission of city council, your office is considered vacant. We can give you permission. So I think this this comes up in two different ways. One is I've known several people who were actually do right around my due date who were put into the hospital on bed rest. We are alameda hospital does not have the capacity. We don't have and have. Labor and. Delivery. We don't have labor and delivery anymore. And so if you are a member of council who happens to be pregnant and you do have an issue relative to your pregnancy, you will be removed from the city of Alameda and that will not be a choice of yours. And it would you know, I think that the process of getting council approval, to be honest with you, is a little bit demeaning in that instance. And so I think that that that language doesn't really contemplate that. It also doesn't subject the the the auditor or treasurer to the exact same standards that we as a councilor are held to. I think that's a little bit concerning. Additionally, if I were to say take maternity leave and not be in the city of Alameda for for 30 consecutive days, I would have to come here and get permission as well, which is currently what I'm going to have to do this summer. So I, I especially where we have an audit in August, break from council where we there's a period of time it's actually closer to six weeks from our second meeting in July until we reconvene in September. I think that that language is a little bit outdated. Again, Section two, Dash 14, why does this not apply to the auditor and treasurer? Again, it concerns me that we're holding the city council as elected officials to one standard and not the auditor and treasurer to the same standard. And again, that has to do with if you missed so many meetings or if you are vacant from the city again for 30 days, it's it doesn't apply to them. There was the mention of of Section seven, Dash three, which was mentioned in the Jenkins report. I certainly think that that's something that we we should be having a community conversation on articles four and five, which deal with the auditor and treasurer. I think whether or not those positions continue to exist is, is certainly one conversation. Also, the benefits that they receive and again, the, the standards that apply to them that that or that apply to the Council rather and don't apply to them are concerning because technically under the Jenkins language, they can have a conversation with the city manager that would be considered interference so they could bribe, let's say, the city manager , or they could do something like that relative to that. But the council is held to a different standard. I think that that's just maybe it was overlooked, but I think that it's bizarre. Section eight, dash one. We recently went through a recruitment for the city attorney. One of the things that I found when I was looking through the charter was that our city attorney, in order for them to get the appointment, must have must have admittance to the California Bar for at least five years preceding their appointment. And that was something that didn't really come up while we were having that conversation. But it's concerning to me because it means that essentially the person must be bar licensed with an active bar license in California for five years preceding what if we had wanted somebody that had been practicing outside of California but had previously been practicing in California, but hadn't practiced here for five consecutive years? It kind of limits the search. I just would want to have a conversation about that. I thought that was kind of interesting and I caught that when we were doing that recruitment. More out of just going through and seeing. Is there something that we're missing? As for the timeline, I don't have a pricing. There has been kind of public conversation. It's been a while since we've done a real charter review, and I think there are a lot of issues that people have been asking questions about. I don't mind having those conversations. I would just ask that we kind of bifurcate things. So there are the kind of substantive things that we've we've been tasked with that deal with specific issues in the charter. And then there seem to be kind of good governance questions about district elections, ranked choice voting, those sorts of questions, campaign finance that seem to be a separate track. It's not that they're not part of the charter conversation, but I think that it's a more robust conversation that's needed where we need to kind of think about the big picture and what we want Alameda elections to look like and what we want the elected body to look like. So I would just ask, because it seems like a lot to tackle in one meeting that we may be bifurcate those two things. And I think the interest is going to be different. The different community groups that are going to want to be involved or have a say might be different. And so perhaps if we bifurcate that with some guidance from the city clerk's office about different campaign requirements, about having it on certain elections, that sort of thing, and what the deadlines are, when when would the charter language have to be put in or when would the proposals have to be submitted? What's the process for notification and transparency on all of those things? And so that we can actually work from that timeline and people can understand is part of the conversation, you know, what that looks like and then what the whole package looks like. Because I think when we talk about district elections or ranked choice voting or the role of different positions, that's really a conversation where I want to have a conversation about what what's the overall package and rather than kind of picking them off one by one. So that's, that's my feedback. And I, I think the subcommittee for their work, I think our charter is a lot there's a lot to it. And, and it is an organic document. It's not a dead document. It's something that has been amended multiple times over the years. We continue to look at it. It's a living document. And I think part of this is it's pretty apt that we're having this conversation and I think timely. So thank you. Councilman Brody. Sure. I don't have too much more to add. That hasn't been said. I mean, I appreciate that the committee is looking at everything in addition to some of the stuff that I thought we were mandated to do. I do agree with customary values comments. Some of these can be compared compartmentalized into like buckets. And, you know, those buckets should kind of be looked at together. But, you know, I'm interested to hear the conversation on all of the ideas that are coming forward. And I'll just wrap up and say thank you very much for your your work on this. And I really do want to encourage you to live up to the League of Women Voters in because we don't need to reinvent the wheel. And they've done a lot of work and their organization, not just, you know, the Almeida League, which is phenomenal, but statewide, Des has done the deep dove into some of these. So, you know, again, no need to reinvent the wheel. I and I would like to know, can we do something about paid signature gatherers? Because I always get a little nervous when you're treading near First Amendment and other. So do you want. To I mean, I think we'd have to look into the specifics of what is requested. But the way that the since we are a charter city, we if we have things in the in our charter that trump the elections code, we follow our charter. Okay. I don't believe. That we council member I mean, first, Mayor Knox. I don't believe we can say that. For me, what I would say is the first question is, is this something that should be in the charter or is that just something we should do by ordinance? I think there are restrictions that we can do, but it we can't stop it. Yeah. So that might even be a step. Okay. That and some cities have gotten into trouble, I believe, too. Yeah. But I think maybe the threshold question is what belongs in a charter revision and what belongs in, you know, the separate, the buckets or whatever we're calling them these days. I think this is good timing on a number of fronts. We are getting a new city manager and a new city attorney, and we're still a relatively new city council. So it's kind of a good time to to tackle all this. And I think we can always learn from other communities and, you know, maybe other experiences they've had, by the way, and the five years of bar membership by membership in California. I could probably argue that one both ways, because I don't really want your experience with Nebraska law, but, you know, it's I think it's something to be something to be looked at. I, I think Councilmember De Sugg raised an interesting point about measure a the density limiting measure A that it was placed on it got into the charter through a citizens petition signature gathering initiative. And that's the way if it's to be amended or removed, it should happen again. But I just might anticipate that there might be organizations who have gotten pretty good at going out and pounding pavement who might be willing to do that. So maybe those are some other side conversations. I think it's a fair point, though, that you raise, because we never want to look like we're usurping the the the actions of the people by a vote of a five person body. So good point. I mean, you're raising good points. The I think that it is worth looking at the removal of the auditor and treasurer, probably not the most significant issue we face. But as we go through our budget and there's never enough money to do what we want to do these I'm not sure the return on the investment is there because I'm not entirely sure what they do that isn't redundant. Does something that an outside professional already does for us. But I, you know, I will contemplate that. But the very at the very. End, they don't have term limits. Councilmember vote. Yes, I was about to say that. I was going to say that at the very least, if if council in it has term limits, shouldn't they as well? But I don't know enough about the history of how those positions even came to be. I had no idea about them being away and remote meeting rules and to accommodate New Parenthood, clearly we need to update the charter there. The only problem is can't do it in time for this baby. But. Well. Well. There you go. I granted it. And then I would just say, I think you probably need to revisit your scheduling because, you know, doing anything by April is just about here. So but yeah, please come back to us with more refinement. But and I do think the point that that was councilmember so well all three of you have read you have made about our accountability to the public. We do need to do something about the issue that was raised in Mr. Jenkins report and at least make sure that the language is unambiguous and in. Some thought and discussion got to do it, but that's part of a public process. So with that, think. More of us agreeing with that. Okay. Thank you all for for your hard work on this. And we look forward to your next report. Thank you. Sorry, I just I heard a few things. Are you here to public comment on this? Do we have a speaker slip? I'm actually I didn't know how to get in line until tonight. All right. Well, tell you what. And I just want to do one or two sentences. Oh, okay. Well, why don't you see the assistant clerk here, and she will help you with the process? Is that about this, what we're talking about right now? Okay, no comment. Great. All right. Mrs. Ms.. Is going to get you a speaker slip that you just fill out, so I just bring it to you. Oh, ouch. Okay, so face to face, Mayor, there's. There's no opportunity left tonight. For no apology. You know, I think we might reopen oral communications because this gentleman has been sitting here and it seems a bit cruel, unusual. And so. Yeah, but he's got it. I just want him to understand something. Okay. If I can just summarize some, because there are a couple of places that I'm not clear on. So it sounds like working with the League of Women Voters, elections districts, ranked choice, voting, direct conversation. See what comes up. Come back with. Okay. Something, even if it's nobody's interested. Right, but. But not you. I guess what I'm saying is nobody's saying don't talk about that. So I would just say, no, I wouldn't tell you not to talk about anything. I will say on the issue of district elections, it's certainly come up at the League of California Cities because that's happened to some cities. Usually it's been in areas where they were a larger cities. There were more distinct neighborhoods like a particular ethnic group, lived in one area and definitely didn't have representation in the councilors. I mean, I, I mean, we certainly can look at it, but doing it to preempt the legal challenge might not be my idea of the best reason to bring it forward. But I think anything's on the table. It's just where in the table you put it. Um. So I guess what I know nobody wants to limit things that people can talk about, but at the end of the hand, it's a big there's a big lift. I did tell you to triage it, remember? Well, yeah, but I guess I'm looking for help. On if there are things where people are like, Yeah, let's not go there right now. We can do that. We can put that in our second bucket. Yeah, I really like the way Councilmember decide. I like the way Councilmember Vela and Councilmember Odie framed it by calling it either bifurcating and or bucket lists. And because that's a framework and how to deal with issues without picking and choosing which issues. So I think as we go to the League of Women Voters or whomever, that we can at least say that that's one of the directions coming out of here. Help us choose what goes into what bucket. Okay. So serious bucket in minor league bucket. Okay. The major issue, because I've actually heard some people say one thing one time and another thing tonight. Are we going to move forward with that? Are we saying that some groups should deal with that and. I would put that at the top of a discussion to be determined, because I think I mean, how can we talk about all the issues we grapple with homelessness, affordable housing availability, the cost of housing? Without looking at this one instrument that has kept us from building anything more dense than a duplex since 1973. It's not to say we haven't done multifamily with, you know, multifamily overlay, zoning districts and density bonus and all that. But, you know, maybe it's time to come in the front door. But who brings that forward? I think that's a fair question. But I I would put that I mean, I just think that housing is so important to us that that should be up near the top. My idea. Of things for us to discuss, we might come back and say we think somebody else should move. Forward. That's my that's my thought, I hear. Okay. Okay. Sorry. We couldn't overrule that. Yeah, we. If we decided to tackle it, it would be putting it on the ballot, letting the voters decide. Correct. Matter of how it gets to just make. Sure people don't understand. Don't misconstrue that. You know, we're plotting to do all this stuff. About boards and commission appointments. I didn't hear one person mention that. I'm going to just strike that on the list of. I didn't hear anybody say that. It could be interesting. Okay. I'm going to strike anything from, you know, just to be clear. But I'm asking for you to. I'm asking for some for some clarity there. Council pay. I saw a lot of nodding heads. I didn't necessarily. But I think I think that stays there. I think it stays. Everything else seemed to well, I think move paid signature gatherers to somewhere else, not the charter. And I didn't hear anybody talk about charter initiatives and, you know, to to your point and to just disagree. Councilmember Thank you. Shaking his head, I'm like, Yeah, I think I can get away. Let's get rid of that one as well. Because, you know, it is the it is the document of the people. So try and just suggest that the people should say and the people can't change that. The charters. A little. I don't think we can. Okay. Okay. Okay. I think. I think, therefore, we got that where we. Go. In terms of the timeline, I guess ignoring the dates, is everybody okay with the general flow whereby we're coming back and checking in and not writing anything? With that, you guys seemed bullet pointed in either direction. And can can we direct you, though, to check in with the League of Women Voters and maybe set up some time between now and next time you report? I already have. I mean, I've already met with them specifically on this. Okay. Councilmember Disorganized. In our first meeting, we were like the League of Women Voters. They already had that meeting. But maybe a framework of what you're going to do with them. Okay. Councilmember has got her hand up and then we'll go to Councilmember Ody. And I would just talk all you want, but it's almost 11:00. Yeah. So regarding the the timeline and the process, one thing that I would I would like is if we could schedule or if there is a joint meeting with the League of Women Voters, perhaps that we agenda set as a work session, a public work session so that the entire council can attend. I think that that would be helpful. In terms of the paid signature gather issue, perhaps we can have a staff presentation at a later meeting about what other cities have done relative to regulating that. It's similar to kind of time, place and manner restrictions because it's a First Amendment right. You essentially can't you can't say no, you can't spend money in elections, but you can regulate how it's sunshine to the public and what the requirements might be. Then the names of the the names of the organizations, what's required, and then in the name of the of the pack or whatever that's behind it, whether or not we have additional disclosures that are required that have to be included in like a petition that they circulate at the bottom of it said that says, you know, paid for by with their top donors or something like that. So I know that there's things like that. And if we could maybe get a staff report back on that, I'm not saying anytime soon I would want to give staff time to put that together. That might be helpful. And then we could report back to the League of Women Voters or to the public who've raised these concerns to say we're at least looking at it . Councilmember Odie thinks that was pretty much what I was going to say. If we do have a meeting with the League of Women Voters, it would be good to be noticed in a way that all of us could participate, not just attend. You okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, that's what the vice mayor. Are you okay? Physically okay? Yeah. Sorry. We can. We can be. Yeah. Okay. And then so, you know, because like the subcommittee, we, we wouldn't come to them. We couldn't speak at a meeting of the subcommittee, apparently. And then to your other point, would it be I think that's a good thing for our new city attorney to kind of bring back, you know, what we're allowed to do, what we're not allowed to do. And, you know, if we can regulate how someone is paid, whether it's piecemeal or or hourly, you know, what our options are. In our city. Clerk Okay. Okay. Is that enough on this graph there on this? Okay. So we've got we have ten C, are we doing that today or should we hear a public speaker. Just kind of oh. You sort of said that. Okay. So then we do have a public speaker. You can come on up if and one minute is exactly what I'm offering you. Okay? Yes, I'm okay.