HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 30, 2003 SMLODI CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2003
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Special City Council meeting of July 30, 2003, was called to order by Mayor Hitchcock at
7:00 p.m.
Present: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, Howard, Land, and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and City Clerk Blackston
B. REGULAR CALENDAR
B-1 "Discussion and possible action regarding residency requirement for City board and
commission members"
City Manager Flynn noted that this matter appears before Council at the request of Mayor
Hitchcock. He reviewed the following survey results tabulated by the City Clerk's Office
and distributed to Council on a blue sheet (filed):
➢ Of 73 California cities that responded, 61 had a residency requirement for their
boards and commissions, and of these, 18 also required that members be registered
voters;
➢ 6 cities did not have a residency requirement;
➢ 6 cities were categorized as "other" due to various responses.
Mayor Hitchcock explained that the issue of residency recently arose and she felt it was
an appropriate policy topic for Council to consider. She noted that there are quite a
number of individuals that apply to serve on City of Lodi boards and commissions, who
live outside the city limits.
In answer to Mayor Hitchcock, City Clerk Blackston reported that the East Side
Improvement Committee bylaws describe the boundaries of Lodi's east side; however,
the bylaws state that, "general membership shall be open to all persons." The Parks and
Recreation Commission bylaws state that the Commission is made up of members from
the Lodi service area. The Lodi service area is not defined in the bylaws, though it is
generally considered by the Parks and Recreation Department to be areas encompassing
the Lodi Unified School District. The Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission was formed
by adoption of a resolution and has no formal bylaws; however, within a document
describing its mission and makeup it stipulates that the Commission is to be comprised of
youths and adult advisors from the greater Lodi area community and lists the specific high
schools served by the Youth Commission. It is generally assumed that members will live
within the Lodi Unified School District.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
• Eileen St. Yves was opposed to instituting a residency requirement for Lodi boards
and commissions, as she believed there had been no problems that would warrant
such restrictions. She recalled that at one time the East Side Improvement
Committee required its members to either live on the east side or own or manage
property within its boundaries. Subsequently the requirement was removed from its
bylaws.
Bob Johnson recalled that he was appointed to the Parks and Recreation
Commission in 1988. Currently two members on the Commission live outside the city
limits. According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 30% to 35% of the youth
participants live outside the city limits. He noted that two new subdivisions are being
built in Lockeford, which will likely increase this percentage. If the Commission were
represented similarly to Lodi Unified School District, 40% would be from outside the
City. This would qualify the Commission to have two of its five members as non-
residents.
Continued July 30, 2003
Mayor Hitchcock reported that she received an e-mail communication from an
individual who felt strongly that there should be a residency requirement to serve on a
City board or commission. Reasons cited were that Lodi residents pay taxes that
support the City, pay for staff, etc. In addition there could be conflicts of interest in
voting if, as an example, a non-resident member was considering a fee increase for
recreation program participants who live outside the City, or might encourage a bond
because only City residents would be paying the taxes.
Mr. Johnson replied that, in his experience, the question of "inside" versus `outside"
commissioners has never been raised. He commented that a $5 non -residency fee is
charged, which he believed to be woefully inadequate. Mr. Johnson had encouraged
a higher fee for non-residents over the years; however, he had been voted down
unanimously by commissioners regardless of their residency.
• Ann Cerney asked Council to consider the policies of other cities and, in addition to
residency, that owning or leasing a business within the City also be factored into the
decision.
Council Member Beckman voiced support for changing the City's policy to include a
statement that the Mayor give preference to candidates that live within the City, and that a
requirement be added that all boards and commissions members must be registered
voters of San Joaquin County.
Mr. Flynn pointed out that there would need to be an exception for student members of
the Youth Commission, to which Mr. Beckman agreed.
Council Member Hansen concurred that boards and commissions members should be
registered voters and suggested that a residency requirement be instituted for members
of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hitchcock agreed that Planning Commissioners should be residents of the City.
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard believed that the only board or commission for which a
residency requirement would be appropriate is the Planning Commission, due to its
unique role. She voiced support for the concept of the Mayor giving preference to a City
resident when two candidates are equally capable. In addition, she was in favor of
requiring boards and commissions members to be registered voters of San Joaquin
County. She noted, however, that anyone currently serving on a board or commission
who is not a registered voter should be allowed to finish their term.
Council Member Land concurred with the suggestion to require all members of boards
and commissions to be registered voters. He also agreed with requiring Planning
Commissioners to be residents of the City, and in addition, suggested that the Site Plan
and Architectural Review Committee also have a residency requirement.
MOTION:
Council Member Beckman made a motion, Land second, to direct staff to prepare a policy
to be brought to Council for adoption with the following elements to be enacted for all
future appointments to City of Lodi boards and commissions: 1) institute a requirement
that, in order to qualify for appointment, applicants to City of Lodi boards and
commissions must be registered voters in San Joaquin County; 2) require all Planning
Commissioners to be residents of the City of Lodi; and 3) that the Mayor give preference
to residents of the City of Lodi when considering recommendations for appointments to all
other boards and commissions.
DISCUSSION
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard preferred that the issue of preference not be in the policy, as
it would be at the discretion of the Mayor of whether or not to exercise that suggestion
when making a recommendation for appointment. She also pointed out that the motion
should include a statement that current members would be allowed to finish out their
terms.
2
Continued July 30, 2003
Council Member Beckman clarified that his intent regarding the residency preference
issue was that it would be at the discretion of the Mayor. In addition, the proposed policy
was intended for future appointments.
City Attorney Hays further clarified that he understood the motion regarding preference as
not being mandatory, but rather an expression of the Council's wishes that the Mayor in
his/her judgment consider residents ahead of non-residents, all things being equal. Staff
will prepare a resolution incorporating the elements of the motion for Council's adoption at
a future regularly scheduled meeting.
VOTE:
The above motion carried by a unanimous vote.
B-2 "Roles and responsibilities of Council Members"
City Manager Flynn stated that this topic appears on the agenda at the request of Council
Member Beckman. He introduced attorney Tony Manzanetti who was referred by the
League of California Cities.
Mr. Manzanetti reviewed his background and experience, noting that he now serves as
the City Attorney for Elk Grove. He began by stating that as public officials, "how we do
what we do, is just as important as what we do." The Council -Manager form of
government is analogous to the system of checks and balances, and separation of
powers. The International City Managers Association estimates that 70% of cities in the
United States are operated under the Council -Manager form of government. The people
of Lodi have chosen this form of government. The city council is responsible for policy
making, while the operation and management of the organization is under the direction of
the city manager. All five council members have equal powers. The mayor runs the
meetings and may work with the city manager on organizing agendas, but is not given any
greater policy function than the rest of the council and has no veto power. The council
members act as a unit and, once a decision is made, no member has the right to veto the
council's decision. It is management's job to administer policy decisions of the council
and make day-to-day operational judgments. Mr. Manzanetti noted that if council does
not like the way management is handling this, it has a solemn obligation to change it
through the evaluation, correction, dismissal, and appointment processes. The City of
Lodi has embodied these principles in its ordinances. He read the following excerpts from
the Lodi Municipal Code:
2.12.060 — The city manager shall be the administrative head of the city
government. He or she has the power and duty... to employ, discipline, or
remove all heads of departments and all subordinate officers and employees of
the city... to exercise control over all departments and divisions of the city
government...; and
2.12.070 — Except for the purpose of inquiry, the city council and its members
shall deal with the administrative services solely through the city manager, and
neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any of the
subordinates of the city manager.
Mr. Manzanetti stated that the sole power of being able to make policy rests with the
legislative body of the city, while the city manager is expressly confined to administrative
services.
At the request of Council Member Beckman, Mr. Manzanetti explained that the
communication between council members during meetings should be unrestricted with
full First Amendment rights. Community standards, decorum, and courtesy are informal
restraints. The Brown Act governs communication between council members once the
meeting is adjourned. A majority of council members may not discuss or hear information
about matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the city unless it is at a formal meeting. If
3
Continued July 30, 2003
three council members are together they cannot talk about city business. Two council
members can discuss city business; however, one of them cannot then discuss the
matter with a third member in an attempt to develop concurrence on a position, as this
would be a serial meeting. The city manager cannot act as a device to get three council
members to come to a collective concurrence on a particular item. The city manager, or
other staff member doing so, would then be acting as the "hub in the spoke of a wheel"
that may create a serial meeting. Communication between a city manager and council
member should be free and unfettered. The city manager is the council's primary policy
advisor. One on one communication between a council member and the city manager is
absolutely allowed, as is such communication between a member of the public and a city
council member. He warned, however, that a member of the public could also be used as
a conduit to create a serial meeting. Communications between council members and the
city attorney should also be unrestricted, as he is the legal advisor as to what the
implications and ramifications are of any policy that council might be contemplating. With
regard to council member communication with subordinate employees of the city,
Mr. Manzanetti stated that it is a matter of management preference. He emphasized that
it is not appropriate, however, for council members to give direction to or discipline
subordinate employees. To do so creates "ripples" throughout the organization because
there would be uncertainty about who to take direction from and what the proper course of
action is.
In reply to specific questions posed by Council Member Beckman regarding
communication with staff, Mr. Manzanetti advised that Council speak with the City
Manager and decide on the ground rules so that every Member has the same
understanding. The policy of how the city administers itself is within the Council's domain.
With regard to follow up on direction given to staff, Mr. Manzanetti stated that in most
cities it is handled by the city manager.
Council Member Beckman asked what the proper course of communication would be if a
subordinate staff member became aware of potential litigation, i.e. when should they
communicate this to the city attorney, and at what point should the city attorney inform the
council.
Mr. Manzanetti indicated that there should be an internal understanding about such
communications; generally, it is handled through the chain of command within staff. The
process is within the management function.
Mr. Flynn commented that Council has been given a copy of the League of California
Cities booklet entitled, "Mayors and Council Members Resource Guide," which describes
role and responsibility issues.
In response to Council Member Beckman, Mr. Manzanetti characterized a city council as
more like a board of directors for a corporation, than state legislators. He explained that
the Council -Manager form of government was formed upon the corporate model and the
idea that directors are the policy making body of the corporation.
Council Member Beckman asked whose responsibility it is to point out during a meeting
that a member appeared to be in violation of the law.
Mr. Manzanetti explained that in closed session it is a violation of the Brown Act to
discuss something that is not noticed on the agenda. He stated that as a city attorney in
these situations he typically advises the council that it is an inappropriate discussion. He
reiterated that no individual council member has veto power over council's decisions. It
does dishonor to the process, and what public servants do, to disregard or fail to follow
council's decision.
In reply to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Manzanetti stated that it has been his experience
that citizens differentiate between council members, but when a negative situation occurs,
it reflects on the council as a whole. He added that though a council member may
individually disagree with a policy, as it moves forward, the member needs to honor the
policy by "sticking with your team."
4
Continued July 30, 2003
Mayor Hitchcock asked where a minority report comes in on an issue that is of great
concern to the community and council does not agree on it.
Mr. Manzanetti replied that courtesy is tremendously important and extends to a minority
viewpoint. 'The people" ask that other council members keep an open mind to the
minority view. It is incumbent upon the majority view to listen to the minority, and it is
incumbent upon the minority to vote their conscience. He stated that it does disservice to
the process to do otherwise. Once the council has acted, even if on a 3-2 vote, it is
incumbent upon the minority to "step in line" with the majority. Council members who still
feel committed to a minority position have the absolute obligation to advocate for that
minority position. He reiterated that the council acts as a whole and to act contrary to a
decision does disservice to the council's action. The minority can, however, continue to
advocate for the position they feel is important.
Mayor Hitchcock inquired whether Mr. Manzanetti has ever seen a council make a
decision that was illegal, to which he replied in the affirmative and stated that they have
that right, just as the community has the right to have the judicial system decide whether
the council is right or wrong.
Public Works Director Prima interjected that he serves as an alternate member on many
of the same water boards as does Council Member Beckman and they frequently have
extensive dialog on those issues, which he felt was completely appropriate. He stated
that there is an internal understanding that he is to keep the City Manager informed of
requests from Council.
Mr. Flynn stated that he encourages communication between people. He instructs staff
not to take action based upon the direction of any single council member. If a situation
appears that it is getting into the policy arena, he sees that it is brought back to Council
for direction. He does expect Council to keep him informed on issues of interest to them
so that he can ensure it is followed up on. He often refers Council inquiries directly to the
appropriate department head for response. Mr. Flynn stated that whenever information is
given to one Council Member, he does his best to ensure that all Council Members
receive a copy, so that no one Member has more information than another.
Mayor Hitchcock asked Mr. Manzanetti if it is general practice that city managers who are
communicating or providing information to one council member, see that all council
members receive the same information.
Mr. Manzanetti replied that it is nearly a universal rule. He added that city managers
generally do not survive in an environment where they are giving preferential information
to one council member. The equal sharing of information is absolutely the rule throughout
good government.
Council Member Hansen asked Mr. Manzanetti if he believed that 99% of the time council
members should not be giving direction to subordinate staff, to which Mr. Manzanetti
agreed and added that the percentage might be low.
In answer to additional questions posed by Council Member Hansen, Mr. Manzanetti
recalled that he experienced a situation, when involved in litigation, where the judge
asked to see his client in court. He explained to the judge that his client was the city
council and for them all to appear in court would be a violation of the Brown Act.
Ultimately, Mr. Manzanetti received direction from council on which members would
appear in court; however, he noted that it would never be more than two members. Mr.
Manzanetti clarified his earlier statement that once the council makes a decision all
members should "step in line" with the majority, i.e. he meant their conduct, not in terms
of advocacy. If a council member still firmly believes that it is important, they should
continue to advocate the minority position.
5
Continued July 30, 2003
Mr. Manzanetti read the following 1830 quote from Alexis de Tocqueville:
Local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science. Local institutions
put liberty within the peoples reach. They teach people to appreciate liberty's
peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of liberty. Without local
institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of
liberty.
Council Member Beckman asked, in light of what he had heard this evening, that a
reevaluation of the City Manager be scheduled for a closed session meeting.
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard believed that it would be a beneficial approach for
Mr. Beckman to share concerns directly with the City Manager in an effort to work through
issues and allow the opportunity for dialog prior to bringing the matter to Council. She
asked whether Mr. Beckman intended the City Manager to be present at the closed
session meeting.
Council Member Beckman replied that the closed session meeting should be scheduled
as was the previous evaluation, where the City Manager was present only during part of
the meeting.
MOTION / VOTE:
No Council action was taken or required—information only.
RECESS
At 8:47 p.m., Mayor Hitchcock called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at
8:58 p.m.
B. REGULAR CALENDAR (Continued)
B-3 "Discussion and possible action regarding Council Members serving on City boards and
commissions"
City Manager Flynn noted that this matter appears on the agenda at the request of
Council Member Hansen.
Mayor Hitchcock announced that Council received communication from former Mayor
Pennino regarding this topic. He had given a historical perspective on the Youth
Commission and explained that the reason for a Council Member to serve on the
Commission was to give it some credibility. When the Commission was initially formed it
was thought that the adult community might not take it seriously, but would be more apt to
do so if a Council Member served as a representative.
Council Member Hansen stated that he was very impressed with the Youth Commission
and believed it to be an outstanding organization. He stated that the Commission has a
lot of credibility and is well respected. He pointed out that of all the City of Lodi boards
and commissions, the Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission is the only one with a Council
representative. He felt that this policy should be changed because of potential bias and
unfair influence that could result. The boards and commissions are formed to make
recommendations and suggestions to Council who then make decisions about policy.
Having a Council Member serve as a representative would tend to lend more weight to
these recommendations.
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard explained that the seven adult advisors on the Youth
Commission, which includes the Council representative, are not voting members. The
adults participate only as advisors. She noted that former Council Member Phil Pennino
served on the Youth Commission for eight years and asked what had changed to bring up
Mr. Hansen's recommendation to eliminate the Council representative. She believed that
6
Continued July 30, 2003
the Youth Commission was unique because it is funded jointly by the City and Lodi Unified
School District (LUSD). She cited a situation where, in the absence of the Mayor, she
was able to advise the Youth Commission on a time -sensitive matter, which they in turn
voted on in time to be prepared for an upcoming event. Ms. Howard expressed hope that
beyond her term, Council representation on the Youth Commission could continue.
Mayor Hitchcock acknowledged that if a Council Member serves on a board or
commission they would have an emotional investment in it and increased advocacy for
the group. She suggested that it may no longer be necessary for elected representatives
(i.e. members of the City Council and LUSD) to serve on the Commission now that it is
well established.
Council Member Hansen believed that the City liaison would be quite capable of handling
the functions that Ms. Howard stated the Council representative accomplishes. He noted
that the other five adult advisors on the Commission are not tied to the City, which he saw
as a significant difference.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bob Johnson, speaking from his experience on the Parks and Recreation
Commission, noted that on a number of occasions the annual Youth Commission
event "Wet 'n' Wild" seemed to be given top priority, which affected the Parks and
Recreation staff and may have been influenced by the Council representative. He
believed that the possibility of a commission feeling unduly influenced by a Council
representative should be taken into consideration.
Richard Dean, President of LUSD School Board and adult advisor on the Youth
Commission, reported that of all the meetings he has attended with Ms. Howard, he
had not seen her attempt to assert influence on the Commission. He acknowledged
that a lot had changed since the Youth Commission was created in 1993. LUSD has
extensively cut back its financial contribution and the Commission is now recognized
as a City -run program. LUSD participates only by having an advisor and on occasion
providing in-kind matches in terms of transportation or use of facilities. He believed
that LUSD and Council representatives on the Commission allowed for more
efficiency in "getting things done" and noted that the Commission's primary goal is to
put on events for the youth of the community.
In answer to Mayor Hitchcock, Mr. Dean believed that the City continues to call the
Youth Commission a joint venture out of courtesy. The City has its staff running the
program and it is housed in a City facility. The School District's financial support is
minimal compared to the way it was originally designed. The City supports the vast
majority of the Youth Commission financially and functionally.
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard believed that this discussion was centered directly at her in
an effort to remove her from the Youth Commission. She expressed sadness that the
action against her would impact the Commission. She indicated that in her opinion this
matter was related to an incident that took place within the past couple of months.
Mayor Hitchcock did not believe it was a good idea for Council Members to serve on
boards or commissions where there is an opportunity to have influence in affecting
policies. She did not believe this was the case with the Youth Commission, however,
because it merely plans activities and has a small budget.
MOTION #1:
Council Member Beckman made a motion that the Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission
no longer have a City Council representative at the conclusion of Mayor Pro Tempore
Howard's tenure on the Commission. The motion died for lack of a second.
Continued July 30, 2003
Tea Silvestre, Arts Coordinator, stated that as a City liaison she would be pleased to have
a Council Member attend and participate in commission meetings. She felt it would make
a positive statement to the community and she welcomed such involvement.
In response to Ms. Howard's implication that a particular incident was the driving factor of
this topic, Council Member Hansen acknowledged that it did cause him to rethink this
matter. He reiterated that no other City boards or commissions have a Council
representative serving on them and therefore they have no potential conflicts. All boards
and commissions have a City liaison assigned to them, who Mr. Hansen believed were
doing an excellent job.
MOTION #2:
Council Member Hansen made a motion, Beckman second, that effective immediately the
Greater Lodi Area Youth Commission no longer have a City Council representative.
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Pro Tempore Howard again expressed sadness that this action would have
impacts extending beyond her tenure on the City Council.
Mayor Hitchcock did not believe that the Commission would have the strength that it
needed in the long run without having a Council representative. She stated that youth
members do not have the kind of clout needed to sustain the Commission and the adult
advisors come and go. She felt the makeup of the Commission with the Council Member
representative was working well.
Council Member Hansen countered that the City liaison could quite capably be able to
serve in the capacity that Ms. Hitchcock suggested the Council representative did; and as
they do for all other City boards and commissions. He emphasized that it was not his
intent to harm the Youth Commission in any way and believed that they were so well
established that they had earned the credibility necessary to sustain them.
VOTE:
The above motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman and Hansen
Noes: Council Members — Howard, Land, and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
C. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
D. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
9:51 p.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk