Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0527 CC ADJ ITEM 11A.. THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor CLINT HARPER , Ph.D. Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Council member JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember BERNARDO PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WAL L City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: MOORPARK M E M O R The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager March 18, 1987 A N D u M ;2c)1/',) ITEM /1,½L STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ .KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C .P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GE NOV ESE City Treasurer MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of __ 3 -~5 198 ACTION , SUBJECT: Revision of Ordinance 33, An Ordinance Relating to Commissions At the Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission held on January 26, 1987, an inconsistency in the Ordinance creating the Parks and Recrea- tion and the Planning Commissions was discovered. The City Attorney has ruled that Section 2.06.130(c) is superceded by Section 2 .06.140 concerning removal of respective members from office. Currently, the only means of removing members from office is by a majority vote of the Council , or the individual member's absence from three consec - utive meetings without the formal consent of the Commission. At the March 4 , 1987 meeting, staff was directed to place Ordinance 33 on the agenda to consider not only the change necessitated by the above action , but also to consider items needed for clarification such as making the ordinance consistent with the recent amendments to the Brown Act. In addition, there was concern expressed that a person elected to the Council at a Special Election or appointed to fill an une xpired term should possibly have a nomination to the Commissions. The alternative available to allow a person appointed or e·l ected to the Council other than at a regular election to nominate a person to the Commission(s) are as follows: 1. Depending upon when the vacancy occurs, the City Council may take no action and lea ve it vacant until the ne xt regular election, or conduct a Special Election . a. Continue with the present practice and leave the affected Commissioners in office until the next reorgani zat ion in November of even-numbered years , unless sooner removed pursuant to applicable removal procedures . b. Leave affected Commissioners in office until the Special Election results are certified and the Council confirms appointments based upon nomination s of the newly elected Councilmember , 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 11.A . The Honorable City Council , March 18, 1987 Page Two c. Affected Commissioners would leave office effective with the Councilmember leaving office and there would be a vacancy on the Commission until the Special Election results are certified and the Council confirms appointments based upon nominations of the newly elected Councilmember. 2. If an interim appointment is made pending a Special Election, the alternatives are: a. Continue with the present practice and leave the affected Commissioners in office until the next reorganization in November of even-numered years, unless sooner removed pursuant to applicable removal procedures. b. Affected Commissioners would leave office upon the Councilmember leaving office, and the interim Councilmember will be allowed to make nominations for those positions on the Commissions subject to confirmation by Council majority; they would only serve until the Special Election results were certified, and the newly elected Councilmember makes a nomination for confirmation by the City Council, c. Affected Commissioners would remain in office until the Special Election results are certified and the person elected makes nominations which are confirmed by the City Council; the interim Councilmember would make no nominations for appointments. 3. In the event the City Council makes an appointment to fill the unexpired term, the options are: a. Continue with the present practice and leave the affected Commmissioners in office until the next reorganization in November of even-numbered years, unless sooner removed pursuant to applicable removal procedures. b. The affected Commissioners would leave office at the time the Councilmember left office, and the appointed Councilmember could make nominations to the Commissions with confirmation by the City Council. 4. Allow individual Councilmembers to make appointments without confirmation by the full Council, with or without the ability of the majority of the Council to remove individual members from office. When the Council originally enacted Ordinance 33, the terms of office were set at two years to provide a continuity of service and to allow consideration of appointments at the time the City Council is reorganized. It was also expressed that it was the Council as a whole who was making the appointment since individual Councilmembers generally do not take actions apart from the full Council. Another concern is whether or not any changes to the Ordinance would affect members currently serving on the Commissions depending upon what option is selected by the Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review Ordinance 33 and the above alternatives concerning City Council vacancies, and its impact upon Commission appointments, and direct staff to return with a draft ordinance. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Fellow Moorpark City Council Members John Galloway May 20, 1987 PROPOSAL FOR REVISION OF ORDINANCE 33 As per Council consensus that each member provide suggestions for resolving inconsistencies in Ord. 33, the following is submitted for consideration: This proposal is designed to remove from commission appointments overt political alliances and patronage. I recommend installing a new system of appointment reliant primarily upon selections based upon relative qualifications. This process removes any correlation between specific councilmembers and commissioners. - [tis in the public interest to encourage independence of city commissioners. 1. Commission vacancies would be advertised. 2. Applications accompanied by resumes would be accepted for review by a committee comprised of (two?) councilmembers. 3. The committee conducts interviews of candidates and makes recommendations to the full council for each position to be filled. 4. Where the committee recommendation is deadlocked, applications of the finalists would be forwarded to the full council for review. 5. Appointment to each commission would remain by majority vote of the full City Council. 6. I suggest terms of two years, with appointments made in the spring. Staggered annual appointments are suggested to promote continuity and stability by avoiding replacement of all five members of a commission at the same time. 7. REMOVAL: Should requir~ a majority of council membership to put issue on the table and removal would remain by majority vote: Moorpark's current system allows the City Council less flexibility because nominations are determined by single councilmembers and as a rule, they are generally not opposed. A system based primarily upon qualifications and ability to perform on the respective commission would be an improvement over current procedure. ITEM 11. A. M E M O R A N D U M From: Clint Harper To: Honorable City Council Subject: Changes in Ordinance 33 Date: May 25, 1987 As I have mentioned during previous Council discussions regarding Ordinance 33, I favor leaving the basic mechanism of appointing and removing commissioners as it now stands. For consistency I favor removing the language that states that commissioners "serve at the pleasure of the nominating councilmember". I have attached a column on this subject that I wrote for the Moorpark Mirror that explains my reasoning. I do like the suggestion of Councilmember Galloway that some type of formal vacancy announcement and application process for commission positions be adopted. We could keep the nomination, appointment and removal process that is currently in use and augment it with a public presentation period similar to the one we utilized to fill the recent council vacancy. I suggest that we move on this matter in a conservative manner. The commissions are vital to our city and we should only make changes in the present system if we are sure that the changes will improve the current situation. The old adage, "don't fix something that isn't broken", may have some application here. April 5, 1987 Moorpark Mirror Column #23 Council Comments Clint Harper, Ph.D. Last week's column concerned the somewhat rocky relationship between the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission. At our meeting of March 25, the City Council considered a matter which, at first glance, may not seem directly related to the current debate over park development. I am referring to the City Council's deliberations regarding modification of Ordinance #33 -the ordinance which specifies how City Commissioners shall be appointed and removed. It is fairly common knowledge that one Councilmember is less than delighted with the performance of his nominee to the Parks and Recreation Commission. It appears that the Commissioner in question does not always vote in a manner that this Councilmember thinks is proper. As it appears that there is at least one vote lacking on the City Council for removal, the next course of action for the dissatisfied Councilmember is to attempt to modify Ordinance #33. Without a doubt, Ordinance #33 is poorly written. I am forced to admit this even though I was on the City Council in October 1984 when the ordinance was adopted. The problem arises because when specifying the manner in which Commissioners shall be removed, the ordinance is internally inconsistent. In one section of the ordinance it is stated that "Each Commissioner shall serve at the pleasure of his or her nominating Councilmember or his or her successor." The City Attorney has determined that the meaning of this language is that an individual member of the City Council may remove his or her nominee without concurrence from the rest of the Council. But in the following section the ordinance states that a Commissioner may be removed for only two reasons: {l} "A majority vote of the legislative body;" {City Council) or (2) "Absence from three consecutive regular meetings without formal consent of the Commission ... " The City Attorney has ruled that in a case where an ordinance is inconsistent, that section which is more specific prevails. In other words, the later section of the ordinance which specifies only two methods of removal has the force of law. My opinion is that the earlier language stating that a Commissioner " ... shall serve at the pleasure of his or her nominating Councilmember ... " should be removed from the ordinance. I don't believe that an individual City Councilmember should have the right to remove either a Planning Commissioner or a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. My reasons are as follows: 1) Commissioners should be as independent from politics as it is possible to make them. Their decisions should only reflect their best judgment concerning what is right for the community. 2) Commissioners work for the entire community, not for an individual member of the City Council. Making their jobs accountable to individual Councilmembers encourages them to become a political clone of that one Councilmember, rather than an independent voice. 3) Commissioners are nominated by individual City Councilmembers but appointed by the Council as a whole. The method of removal should remain consistent with the method of appointment. 4) Requiring a 3/5 vote of the City Council adds some needed inertia to the removal process. This inertia decreases the chances that a member of either Commission will be removed by a City Councilmember in a moment of anger. By slowing down the removal system, time is provided for cooler heads to prevail. Curing the debate over Ordinance #33, expect to hear statements regarding a Councilmember's right to remove an unfit Commissioner. But in reality, under the present system an incompetent or otherwise unfit Commissioner can be removed with a 3/5 vote of the City Council. As a special election is scheduled for June you can also expect that the argument will be made that the winner of that election should be able to nominate his choice of appointees to the Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions. In respect for the winner of the special election, the argument will go, Ordinance #33 should be modified to allow removal of Commissioners by a single Councilmember. I also find that argument less than persuasive. Such a system would significantly decrease the stability of our Commissions. Instability caused by a high turnover rate on the City Council is disruptive enough, why extend the problem to the Commission level? Also keep in mind that under the present system Commissioners can be removed to make way for new nominees after a special election -if the incoming Councilmember can obtain two supporting votes from his colleagues. Furthermore, Commission appointments are for 2 years. This gives each City Councilmember a reasonably frequent opportunity to reassess the performance of his/her nominee and to decide either to re-nominate or look to another person to serve. Ordinance #33 does need to be modified in order to assure internal consistency. But I support the current system of appointment and removal and will oppose any efforts to introduce more politics into our City Commissions.