Charter Review Committee – January 16, 2025

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the January 16th meeting of Glendale's Charter Review Committee. Item number 1 is roll call. Committee members Durham?

Here.

Flower?

Here.

Karibian?

Here.

Haroutounian?

Here.

Karapetian?

Here.

Menassarian?

Here.

Megarditchian?

Present.

Miller?

Here.

Meek?

Here.

Povalaitis?

Present.

Smith?

Here.

And you?

Present.

Okay, item number 2, regular business agenda. Report of the city clerk, reposting of agenda. The agenda for the January 16th, 2025 meeting of the Charter Review Committee was posted on January 13th, 2025 on the bulletin board outside of City Hall. Item number 3 is oral communications. Discussion is limited to items not part of this agenda. Each speaker is allowed 3 minutes. The committee may question or respond to the speaker, but there will be no debate or decision. The Charter Review Committee lead may refer to the matter— may refer the matter to staff for investigation and report. And committee members, we have no calls and we have one request to speak from the audience.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the Charter Committee. My name is Herbert Molano. I have been an activist in Glendale for the past 24 years and lived in Glendale for close to 40. I know some of you for decades, and I know some of you from a few years ago. I want to— I'm here to stress something that I feel is incredibly important, and that is that the decisions that you're going to make with regard to this charter will impact roughly the people who live in 75,000 dwellings in the city of Glendale, a lot of families for decades to come. And I'm going to suggest, if you don't already know, that you really should take this task as if you were preparing for board exams for a professional designation.

Thank you.

Because it is that significant how it will impact our quality of life. And in that light, I have some recommendations. But first, I want to urge you to consider the following. There is a significant— there's a significant flaw in a democracy. And the flaw is that we assign a significant amount of power to very few people. In the case of Glendale, 5 council members. And the other problem is, is that there is no requirement of education, training, capability for those positions. And then the voters who vote for these individuals often vote on a particular issue that is of importance to them, one, without understanding that there are multiple issues that a councilmember has to face in the future. So no qualifications and generally very few reasons why somebody would vote for Somebody elected for office. And it has significant impacts on our finances and our quality of life, on the quality of infrastructure, on availability of parks, and so on, for a very long period of time. So how do we fix that problem? How do we maintain a democracy while changing supposedly the structure, which I believe is one of your tasks? And I think that you would need the wisest person you could possibly can to assist you in that process. And I know of one that I want to recommend, and his name is Rick Cole. He is currently one of the council members of the City of Pasadena, but he was a councilman for 12 years from the 1990s through the 1980s, and through the 19— yeah, 1980s through 1990s, and he was also a mayor in Pasadena in the 1990s. I don't know how I'm doing with time. I hope I'm not taking—

You're good.

So I want to— Rick Cole has been a city manager for 3 different cities, and he has been in the Office of Assistant Controller or Deputy Controller for the City of Los Angeles. So here's a man with roughly 40 years of deep experience that I would like for this committee to consider to have as one person. I never talked to him with regard to this issue, but I strongly recommend that you get the best guidance possible, the wisest person that I know in LA County to come before you. Thank you very much.

Okay, item number 4, approval of minutes. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

And a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Committee member Durham?

Yes.

Flower?

Yes.

Garibian?

Yes.

Haroutunian?

Yes.

Karapetian?

Yes.

Maniserian?

Yes.

Megreditchian?

Yes.

Miller?

Abstain.

Meek?

Yes.

Povilaitis?

Yes.

Smith?

Yes.

And you?

Yes.

Thank you.

Just for the record, the minutes were on item 2. under 5G, so we'll just treat that as a motion to pull it and, um, approve it. No, I, I see that, but the actual agenda item wasn't described, so I just wanted to note that for the record. That's fine.

Okay, item number 5A, business discussion items, selection of a chair.

Apologies. As you all discussed at the last meeting, you wanted to have this opportunity now at this— the first item on this meeting, the first business item, to discuss selection of the chair. So if you wanna talk process, we can do that. Otherwise, the floor can just be open for nominations. Nominations don't require a second. They can be seconded, not required. And then you can have a discussion about those nominees or— I think we should have a discussion. Just, yeah, or move to a vote. So what is the committee's pleasure?

I have a question.

Are we also picking a vice chair?

Uh, that is not on the agenda, but, um, uh, it's, uh, something we maybe will bring back. We can bring back at the subsequent meeting.

So I was not here last meeting, so can anybody tell me that what are the roles of the chairs?

Certainly. So the chairperson will be the person who's the presiding officer over the meetings. So when the items are read into the record, either by whether it's— we have our clerk doing it or the chair is actually reading it, then the chair will be the person who calls on speakers in the public or members of the committee to speak when it's their turn to speak. The chairperson will be the person who guides the meeting, helps guide the meeting along with staff to— regarding presentation of materials and then will obviously be the one who's taking— presiding over motion, the making of motions, seconds, and the procedural aspects of the meeting. And I would note that we would see as often when we're preparing the agenda, we will— whoever is the chairperson, the staff will probably be coordinating with the chairperson beforehand just to make sure, you know, we didn't— like for example, we'll have some discussion today, there'll probably be some follow-up. I envision the staff will be coordinating with the chairperson to make sure from their perspective Nothing was missed as far as what's going to be on the subsequent agenda.

Anything else?

May I suggest something? Maybe if there are people who would not want to be in the position— no, honestly, it would actually help, I think, everybody to put it down to a few. if that's an option. I was just thinking about it because there may be people who really cannot or do not want to. At least it will eliminate the process.

I'd like to nominate Mr. Flower as chair.

Are there any other nominations?

I nominate Carpo Valaitis.

I'll nominate Denise Miller.

And would anybody like to— would Mr. Flowers, Mr. Popolaitis, or Ms. Miller like to address the committee? Well, first of all, whether you'd be willing to serve as the chair, and then second, if what you might envision your role being if you were to take that responsibility? Go ahead, you were nominated first. I'll turn to Mr. Flowers.

Thank you.

Paul, thank you. Didn't see that coming. Whoever is selected as chair ultimately, I think the main job is to make sure that everybody is heard on this committee, that everybody has a chance to engage and share their view. and that we don't just keep hearing the same voices again and again and again. And with that said, I mean, I'd be happy to do the job. I also, you know, got to know Carl a little bit here in these last few meetings, and I know he has a lot of experience and time with the city, and I'd be happy to support him as well.

I guess from a personal note, it's like I joined this committee and the only reason I want to be here is to be able to help. I've worked through a number of meetings. I do want to make sure everybody's point of view is heard because that's part of us being able to consensus. But I'm also a believer in also trying to keep an agenda moving so that we're using our time effectively and we don't go in circles. There's a time where it's like, all right, we may have a decision there, a decision to make, and it might be unanimous, it might not be unanimous, and that's okay. But I've also learned that it's like there are sometimes people who are quiet in meetings, and sometimes you need to look at them and go, hey, do you have something to say to make sure that we're hearing that point of view so that we just don't keep rolling through? And so, again, I tend to agree. If you think I can help, then I'm happy to serve.

Ms. Miller?

Well, I want to thank you very much for the nomination. And I echo both of the things that have been put forth. I actually am going to not accept the nomination in the interest of— I have served in this capacity many times in my state role, and I think that it would be really good to hear from other people and have them take this on. I will look very much forward to being in a very important committee role. I think this is a very important task before us. I also look forward to supporting that chair with any thoughts or anything along the line. But thank you again for the nomination, and I'm going to decline at this point.

Okay. Would—

I mean, it's open for discussion, or—

May I ask a question?

Yeah.

I think it's a stupid question, but when we vote, Do we each only have one vote, or—

Correct.

Okay. Because—

Because of multiple nominees, you—

Both of the nominees are really well qualified, so it's a little hard to pick between them.

Understood.

Is it possible with 2 nominees— I recognize that Vice Chair is not on the agenda, but is there— do we either bring that back or— Is there a way to include that discussion as part of this, or—

I'd second that.

It's—

a chair is only as good as having a vice chair, should the chair not be available.

My suggestion would be is vote on the chair. If there's consensus that the person not chosen as chair should be the vice chair, sounds like that's where it could be, then we'll just bring that back for formal approval at the next meeting.

Could we call the vote on Carl's nomination?

That's nice. Would you— so normally when we have multiple nominees, we have a vote on them together and you nominate, but we can certainly take if you would like, if you would recommend. I'm about to say, one of you is about to be the chair, so if there's—

For the record though, don't they both have to accept the nomination?

I think they— it was implicit in their comments, but maybe formally, I assume Mr. Flower and Mr. Pope are both willing to—

Yeah, certainly.

Obviously, it's a matter on the agenda. If you'd like to speak, just if you could, Mr. Milano, Give a card.

Thank you very much. Just a suggestion on procedure. If you have 2 candidates for office for this nomination, that maybe they should not be present during the vote. I don't know if that's an appropriate thing to do, but maybe I'll recommend that. And the second thing I would like to simply voice is the fact that you have, with all due respect, Mr. Paulides, someone who's worked for the city for a very long period of time, has a lot of good institutional knowledge. But also many of the policies and issues that you're gonna be covering are basically in his interests. So I've— so my recommendation is that you choose someone who is not or has not been part of the institutional form of government, meaning a lifelong employee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So if— what?

I have one more question, if I may. I'm quite familiar with the exceptional resume of Carl Povilitis, but would Mr. Flower be willing, for those of us, to talk a little bit more about your background and such, for those of us who don't know you as well? Thank you.

Sure, happy to share a little bit. I'm obviously a resident of Glendale like you all. Been here about 10 years. I'm also an attorney. I've been practicing for going on 20, 21 years. My specialty is municipal law. I'm a partner with the law firm of Richards Watson Gershon, specializes in representing local public agencies. So I've been a city attorney, a colleague of Mr. Garcia.

Thank you.

Um, represented city coun— or worked with city councils, planning commissions, et cetera. Um, I'm on the advisory side, not so much litigation, though I've done some litigation, but things like the Brown Act and so forth are pretty much my bread and butter.

Does any other committee member have a question for either nominee or would like to make a point?

I think it's fair for us to hear from the other person because I don't know much about him.

Sorry.

I've been a resident of Glendale for about 32 years. I actually did work for the city. I retired as chief of police in 2022 after, as I said, 32 years of working for the city. So I guess I've lived in the city a little bit, just a little bit longer than that. Currently doing a lot of volunteer stuff in the community. I sit on hospital— one of the hospital boards, president of Glendale Kiwanis, work at— spent 10 years on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission in past history. So there's a few things that go on. Retirement is busy and community involvement, giving back time.

I move to vote.

Go to the vote?

Yeah.

Okay. So what we'll do is, um, uh, Mr. Kaizo will take roll. When your name is called, please name the nominee that you are voting for to be the chair.

Okay. Roll call. Committee Member Durham.

Steven Flower.

Flower.

Flower.

Garibian.

Flower.

Haroutounian.

Mr. Pavlidis.

Karapetian.

Flower.

Manassarian.

Carl Pavlidis.

Megradichian.

Mr. Pavlidis.

Miller.

Flower.

Meek.

Carl Povilaitis.

Povilaitis.

Povilaitis.

Smith.

Flower.

And you?

Flower.

We have 7 votes for Flower. 5 votes for Povilaitis.

Congratulations, Mr.

Flower.

Thank you.

You're meeting. We'll bring it next week.

Yeah.

All right, um, thank you all. Um, I guess on my first action as chair, I would like to request the agenda, uh, at the next meeting have a formal item to Okay.

Is there consent?

Okay.

I guess the next item on the agenda is 5B, review the proposed charter language regarding the local— the location of city council meetings.

Staff report?

Sure.

Mr.

Chair, the— our staff has put together a memorandum for you with the 3 items, 5B, C, and D. I will, I will turn it to either Mr. Israel or Ms. Quach to go.

Would you prefer to take them all?

It's up to you. I'm just pointing that out.

Okay.

We can take one. It's probably easier to take them one at a time.

So, uh, good evening, members of the committee. Aaron Israel, I'm Senior Assistant City Attorney. As a reminder, at your last meeting, the committee requested without objection that we bring back that staff bring back 2 alternative amendments to Article VI, Section 2 of the charter regarding location. The first is a— the first alternative provides that meetings be held in the City Council chamber except in the event of an emergency during which the council shall meet in a place designated by the mayor or majority of the council.

Second.

The latter alternative provides greater flexibility, and one point noted in our cover memorandum is that it speaks to regular meetings but not special meetings, which means location of special meetings would fall back to the requirements of the Brown Act. So although it's not specifically mentioned, by leaving the charter provisions silent as to location on special meetings, it actually affords maximum flexibility. ability to the council to set their location. We're happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the red lines.

Just a point of clarification, the materials that we were provided, it looks like there was duplicate pages included. Is that— am I reading it correct?

I think you're correct. The first memorandum regarding location, titles, and employment, I think, was included 2 or 3 times.

Because I disregarded some pages. I just I just want to make sure I was right.

It is the same material.

Okay, great. Thanks. I guess my second question regarding alternate number 2. There's a qualifier at the end that the meeting location can be designated by the mayor or by 3 members of the council. I'd just like to discuss that, the difference between mayor or by 3 members of the council versus just having 3 members of the council. So that's, I guess, more a question to the committee as something— topic to discuss.

Is it a concern that the mayor could call a meeting?

I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of why we would designate the mayor as—

It's fairly common.

Okay.

Under the Brown Act, for example, the mayor can call a special meeting. Or a majority of the body can call special meetings. So if the majority wants to hold a special meeting, the mayor can't block it. At the same time, as a matter of convenience, it's good to have one person designated, and just naturally it becomes the mayor.

Got it.

Okay.

Can I ask a clarification? Because when you ran down the options, in the packet Alternative 1 is the really simple one-liner, and Alternative 2 has the emergency reconstruction language?

That's correct.

Okay, just want to make sure. So, um, are there any other questions? Yeah.

Did you want a motion?

Oh, I, I was actually just right now I was asking for questions, if there's questions from any of the committee members. About the language, about the differences?

Is a special council meeting, if it's called, always— can be always in chambers, or can it be anywhere?

If the question is under Alternative 2, it does not— Alternative— let me put it this way. Alternative 2 affirmatively sets location of regular meetings at the council chamber except as provided. Because it's silent, because this language would be silent as to the location of special meetings, location would fall back to the Brown Act, which would generally provide that the quorum of the body has to meet within the territorial jurisdiction of the city. And there are carve-outs for members to meet remotely in emergency circumstances or with just cause. So that is the general law that would apply.

Thank you.

I think Alternate 2 addressed all the concerns that we were talking about.

So unless—

unless there's any more discussion, I think we can move on to vote.

I have a comment. I think it's a little— still a little confusing. For the regular person to read this, because what's a regular meeting, what's a special meeting? And I think it should be open to all meetings to be met anywhere the council chooses.

That sounds more like alternative 1 to me.

It's a—

can we just go down the line then?

Do you have any comments or questions you want to To me, number 2 was more specific too, so addressed more details. So I think I was going with the alternative 2 as well. Um, and if something is not met, then it falls down to the Brown Act. That, that sounds fair to me, reasonable.

Uh, yeah, I think, uh, alternate— Alternative 2 is, is more in line with, I think, what we were trying to achieve, to give council flexibility should there be some flexibility, but also give the public assurance that regular meetings are going to be held at a regular place and a regular time.

I agree with what's been said.

Do you want to share any— what you're thinking about between alternatives 1 and 2?

This term, the regular, like she pointed out, it raises some concern because when I just checked the charter, there is no definition of what's regular. And do we have any meeting other than regular? city posts agendas for special meetings, but I think there has to— I think it would be better if there's some sort of definition as to what's the scopes of the meeting, regular, special, I don't know what third one could be. So just to further clarify.

Can you clarify where those definitions come from?

Sure. Committee Member Yu, those terms are found in state law. Those are the terms regular and special meetings have the same meanings as they're used in the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is California's open meeting law. And there are, under our charter, topics that can be discussed at regular and/or special meetings. And that's kind of where our more specific city provisions come in. But the Brown Act has provisions— how long, for instance, an agenda has to be posted for a regular versus a special meeting— 72 hours for a regular meeting, shorter for a special meeting. Council could also call emergency meetings to discuss certain topics. without notice or notice as far in advance as reasonably possible. That's a long way of saying that the terms regular and special meetings take on the same meaning as they're used in the Brown Act.

Is it fair to say that it's— there are 3 types of meeting under the Act: regular, special, and emergency?

And adjourned.

Adjourned regular or adjourned special, but generally, yes.

Rachel, do you have any more questions for now?

I don't.

Denise, comments, questions?

For all the comments that were just made regarding the terms regular, special, emergency, and adjourned, as well as being in line with the Brown Act, I would look at I prefer Alternative 2.

I like the fact that regular meetings would be in council chambers except in an emergency. That way people don't have to guess and, you know, keep checking the city website for locations of regular meetings. Thank you.

Um, I agree with Mr.—

Durham.

Durham, sorry. Yes, I think that the fact that we have the regular meetings at the council chambers is what I'd like, and I'd like to go with Alternative 2 as well because it's pretty comprehensive. So thank you.

I do like Alternative 2. I am also in favor of the council meeting in neighborhoods. And would those be classified now as regular meetings if they decide to meet somewhere else in North Glendale or something?

So if they're meeting to conduct their regular business agenda, it would more likely than not be held in the, in the council chambers. They would— my understanding is that all the neighborhood meetings have been have been special meetings, and I expect that they would continue to be, to be special meetings even if this were language.

They've also been like study sessions essentially with no actions taken because they couldn't.

That's correct. That's true too.

So I would like to have— if they do those neighborhood meetings, they would be able to actually listen to whatever the topics were and take action. Not as it is now, they can only listen and then at the next meeting they can talk about it. Can that be done?

I think that works under either alternative.

That's correct.

That's why I read it because we've—

if that's correct, then I will go for alternative 2.

I said I think alternative 2 covers it. Just to make sure, it's like theoretically a council could cancel a regular meeting. And then do a special meeting and conduct business in a neighborhood?

I think that they could, yeah.

Okay.

So that gives them the flexibility to do meetings in the neighborhood, conduct business. We're arguing over term of art, regular versus special, but I think it's also important that people know where the regular business is being conducted and it just doesn't move all over the place all the time. So I'm— I would prefer Alternative 2.

All right, I, I actually have a quick question. Um, I believe you said that there are some places in the charter where it says the council can only take certain actions at a regular meeting.

Are—

what are those, or some of them?

Sure, so some of them are— include voting on an ordinance, so voting to adopt the ordinance, and I think a budget appropriation, although I'd have to— no, we've done those at special meetings. Voting to adopt an ordinance.

Is that first reading and second reading?

No, just the second reading.

Okay.

We call adoption.

Yeah, you can do everything at special meetings.

The reason I asked about that was just because if we were to go with option 2 and we said that the regular meetings can only happen at City Hall, And there are certain actions that may need to be taken at a regular meeting by law, and say it's an action that you'd want to have at a neighborhood meeting where the people are, you know, it's a more localized action and you want the public who's actually most directly affected to be present, that might be a limitation that we don't foresee at this point. That was my question. That was the purpose of my question. You know, I don't— my own thought is I prefer Alternative 1 just because it defaults back to state law that I'm most familiar with and provides the most flexibility. But, you know, I understand absolutely the idea of setting an expectation that the regular business is conducted at City Hall so everybody knows where it's going to be. With that, is there any more questions, discussion, or is there a motion?

I move to—

I just want to ask a quick question before we take an action. Do we have to take public comment on each item, or does the—

Yes. I mean, that's the way we've run them here.

So, all right, public comment.

Thank you very much, members of the committee. My name is Herbert Molano. I want to— my interpretation of your duties is that you're not limited Do they choose one or two, or is it acceding to what the staff is giving you for you to choose? You have the prerogative to actually modify this significantly, and I'll tell you the reason why. If you look at the coming agendas for the City of Glendale, there are 13 meetings less that are being planned for this year. The trend that I have seen is that there are fewer regular meetings being held, which means fewer chances for the general public to make their views felt or heard by the City Council. Special meetings have a very short window of time. If my recollection is correct, something like 24 hours or 48. It's less than the regular meetings, which is 72 hours. So if you start replacing regular meetings for special meetings, you not only don't have the videotaping and the video conferencing that usually comes in for the general public— for example, there was one given with regard to strategic planning It was done within 48 hours. Very few people of the public attended. And those are essential topics, and it was done in a special meeting at a different location. And I've seen events like that before. My suggestion is that you bring this back and reconsider it with all of the necessary implications that it has that some of you were catching on to, that changing it to special meetings or putting it in a different place may reduce public input. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I—

I will just—

may I ask a question, Chair? Um, to the public's comment though, when you look at Alternative 2, there's strikethrough on special meetings. If, if we read it, the council shall hold regular meetings. So it's a reinforcement of the regular meetings is how I am reading that.

Maybe I can address that, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

That— going back to the committee's discussion at your last meeting, our understanding as staff was that the committee wanted to look at 2 potential alternatives, one that provided the utmost flexibility and would default to the requirements of the Brown Act, and one that held regular meetings in the council chambers while affording greater flexibility for special meetings. under the Brown Act. As the charter exists now, the provision restricts all meetings where action is going to be taken to City Hall. So the removal of language regarding special meetings is to free up the council to hold special meetings in a location other than the City Hall council chambers, and that's why the language is stricken.

So even though it's deleted, council can still have special meetings?

Yes.

And as a— may I follow up then with a question to that? Then where is it written specifically about special meanings in either of these alternatives to that point?

So—

The government code.

That's correct. It's in the Brown Act.

If I may. To address a concern that Mr. Villano brought up, is there any affirmative requirement of council to hold regular meetings per some regular cadence, or—

Correct, Mr. Kerby. Our charter requires that the council hold regular meetings and do so every Tuesday.

Mr.

Flower will tell you it's pretty unique, every week. So yeah, so we have them every, every week. unless the council by calendar cancels meetings. So that's our rule adopted. And again, your regular meetings are what you adopt by charter, ordinance, or resolution saying this is your— this is when your regular meetings can happen. Sometimes it's twice a month, sometimes it's every week, sometimes it's once a month. And ours is every Tuesday.

So I'm trying to square that with the comment that we're having fewer meetings Yeah, I think that—

and I did want to address that, thank you. This whole discussion on this point was not about having fewer meetings than we currently do or having more special meetings than we currently do. I think the idea here was to provide more flexibility in where special meetings— either regular meetings or special meetings can occur depending on which model you choose, not the switching from regular meetings 2 special meetings more, just having more authority to have those meetings at locations offsite from City Hall. That was the discussion. And as you know, these 2 options that were presented to you were based on the extensive discussion you had at the last meeting about this subject. So just wanted for the speaker and for anybody, remember, the public—

Yeah, thank you for bringing that up because I wanted to address the public's comment that we should bring this back and consider it further. This was probably the main topic of conversation at our last meeting. I know not everybody could attend, but it's one of the reasons to bring it back. I'm glad to see everybody here. So we've now had this conversation twice, so I'm happy to entertain more comment and discussion on this, but we also have other things to get to.

Um, Mr. Garcia, is it— isn't it true that the council basically sometime agreed Uh, to basically limit, on average, council meetings to 3 times rather than 4 times a month. And so they regularly cancel, um, every 4th meeting. I mean, it's not precise, but pretty much what Mr. Milano said is correct, that they've agreed to cancel, say, 12 meetings a year.

Uh, let me— I wouldn't use the word agree. Mr. Chairman, but you're correct. Over the last few years, the council has established a calendar prior to the commencement of each fiscal year establishing how many meetings will occur and how many will be canceled. And the council, on average, as a practice, has established it at trying to hit that 3-meeting-a-month target, knowing that oftentimes there's a month where there's a Tuesday after a Monday holiday, and that makes it very challenging for everybody involved. But it does vary.

Thank you.

depending on who the mayor is at the time. Sometimes there's more meetings, sometimes a little bit less. But there's no rule or agreement that the council made to cancel meetings going forward forever. So I hope that answers your question.

Anything further from anyone?

For myself, I still want to make sure that if the council holds a meeting not in chambers, They can still take action.

Other than for— if you adopt Alternative 2, sounds like other than those items that the charter requires to be taken at a regular meeting. And the only thing that comes to mind at this point is adoption of an ordinance. So when council can have a discussion about an ordinance and introduce it when that first meeting, when it introduces it, can take that action, can take all the other actions at a special meeting. Only thing that comes to mind at this point is adoption of an ordinance.

So if there was like a community— like a community more focused decision, say, about a land use project where there was an ordinance related to it, they could still take the initial vote on first reading, but they wouldn't be able to take the second— take both votes at the same place. So this final adoption would come back.

They basically would have to tell the people at the neighborhood meeting, listen, we— this is our vote now, but we— to legally follow the Brown Act, we have to go back.

Yeah.

Okay.

Maybe just, Mr. Chair, I just want a clarification. It would have to come back a second time regardless?

Regardless, yeah.

But the second time it comes back, it has to be at a regular meeting. But at least the initial vote is on record at that special meeting. If there's nothing further, I'll accept a motion from anybody.

I move to adopt Alternative 2.

Second.

Can we get a roll call?

Commission Member Durham?

Yes.

Flower?

No.

Karubian?

No.

Hartunian?

Yes.

Karapetian?

Yes.

Manisserian?

Yes.

Megurdjian?

Abstain.

Miller?

Yes.

Meek?

No.

Povilaitis?

Yes.

Smith?

Yes.

Yu?

No.

We have 7 yeses.

Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda, uh, 5 C, obsolete employees. Not applying to any of you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, this one's a little bit more straightforward. It's just removing the— as previously discussed, some of these titles from the code, including Director of Administrative Services, Maintenance Services Administrator, City Assessor, and—

Mike, can you talk Into your mic.

Oh, I apologize. So this, this, this amendment is removing the— some of the obsolete titles that we referenced in the prior meeting, including, um, the Director of Maintenance Services, City Assessor, um, and replacing Director of Administrative Services with Director of Finance. Uh, the— I'm trying to think if there was another one. That was it. City Assessor and Director of Administrative Services. So happy to answer questions, but that was—

that was it.

Let's start over here this time. Carl, do you have any questions about any of this?

No, I think this one's pretty straightforward. Just cleaning up the language. It might spill over when we start talking about civil service as to making some other changes down the road, but this is fairly straightforward.

Okay.

I think it's pretty straightforward also. I want to throw in, it may not always be a he. So we could take general neutral comments rather than saying he, him, his. But other than that, I'm fine.

I'm fine with it. Pretty self-explanatory. Thank you.

I'm fine with it.

Agreed. One thing I would just state to the point that was made by Mr. Meek, um, I recognized that as well, but it is written in the charter how it's referred to the language. So I guess if we were to go there, we would have to look at changing that paragraph, just to consider.

Thank you.

I don't have anything but agree. I second the comment about the gender, especially as a female, personal. So if we can change, make that change throughout the entire charter, that would be great.

Yeah, I agree. And also for the gender, they, they, their would work.

In terms of the positions, it is straightforward. We'll recognize, I think, a lot of old older documents, that's what it is. But if that's something that can be changed, that would be— that would be good for the public's reading too. Thank you.

I don't have anything to add.

No, I think you did a great job.

No comments on this.

Yeah, I agree with her.

All right. I agree that this is rather straightforward, and I also agree, and I'm glad people brought up the issue of gender-neutral language. My ask is going to be when we talk later is that we add that to the agenda for possible future item. I know that just from a drafting perspective, going through a document this old and this large and trying to render it completely gender-neutral could be a large ask of the staff. But, you know, just get some discussion about what the options are since there does seem to be a lot of interest in that. With that—

I would just add, well, certainly when you give us that direction to bring back cleanups and miscellaneous, we'll certainly put that. There is a section of the charter which talks about, you know, masculine gender shall include the feminine, et cetera. But that was the last Charter Review Committee. This is a new one. So if you want us to go through that and make that change when we bring you back changes, that's—

we'll do that. Any comments from the public on this item? All right, thank you. Um, any further comments from the committee? Do we have a motion?

I so move that we accept it as written.

I second.

All right, uh, motion by Meek, second by Manzarian. Can we get a roll call?

Committee member Durham?

Yes.

Flower?

Yes.

Garibian?

Yes.

Hartunian?

Yes.

Karapetian?

Yes.

Manassarian?

Yes.

Meghredjian?

Yes.

Miller?

Yes.

Meek?

Yes.

Povilaitis?

Yes.

Smith?

Yes.

Yu?

Yes.

It's unanimous yes.

Thank you. Uh, next item is the last carryover from our last discussion, so this is 5D, review of proposed charter cleanup language. Regarding council members holding other offices during term and 2 years after leaving office. Staff report, please.

Apologies.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as you mentioned, this is the last item from the previous meeting, and this was to amend this section related to council members holding positions within the 2-year period after stepping off council or after, you know, departing council. And so that, as, as per the discussion, we've added that last sentence to that new— that section, Section 12, which will see the preceding sentence shall not apply to the elected positions of city clerk or city treasurer or an appointment of a council member in the event of a vacancy. So whereas a council member may not serve in an employment position with the city for 2 years after, that rule does not apply for a clerk or treasurer or appointment of a council member in the event of a vacancy.

vacancy.

Happy to answer any questions.

I have a question. There, as you know, Mike, there's a public speaker who speaks at council meetings and has often said, uh, and no judgment intended, that the position of city attorney should be elected rather than appointed. And my question is, is there any possibility that sometime In the future, elected positions might become appointed positions or vice versa, that your appointed position could become an elected position. And therefore, should the language be, rather than naming the city clerk or city treasurer, just say shall not apply to any elected position, city position, so it could cover those contingencies if they are contingencies?

I would say 2 responses. One, that's certainly an option that it can be written that way. I'm looking at Mr. Israel, making sure we're not missing anything. But yeah, that's one option. The other option is if there's ever to make any of that type of change to turn an appointed office to elected or elected to appointed, those would, those would be required to go through a charter process. So at that point, the change could be made. But certainly whatever direction the committee wants to follow.

I'm not sure if I understood the scenario. Can you Go through it again, Alan.

What— and I don't know what the— if this is even possible or what the process would be, but what if the 2 elected positions currently, City Clerk and Treasurer, one or both became appointed positions appointed by council rather than elected, or an appointed position such as City Attorney became an elected position? I mean, we're naming 2 current elected positions, but we could be more general and just say, shall not apply to any city-elected positions. And then you don't have to change the charter if anything changes.

Any city-elected position other than councilmember, right? Or we could just say, it only applies to councilmembers. Elected council members.

I think I understand what Alan's saying is that we've specifically identified city clerk or city treasurer. If we simply said the preceding sentence shall not apply to elected positions, or if you need elected City of Glendale positions, then that covers any elected— any future potential elected position within the city if that ever were to occur.

Okay.

And if you had to do a charter, and I said there may be a process, but it doesn't require cleanup At that point, and then you all then continue it with an appointment of a council member in the event of a vacancy. And it just leaves it a little, a little broader. So if someone's coming in, any elected position is exempt.

I said, I don't know, from my— our staff perspective, I don't know it's necessary to make the change, but we certainly can make the change while we're here.

We could clean it up. I personally like the idea. I'd like to hear if anybody else has any thoughts on the proposal and then Alan's addendum.

Yeah, I tend to agree with what Alan is saying. It's more broad, so we don't have to do a cleanup on our cleanup. So, you know, so I think it's—

yeah.

And for those members who weren't at our last meeting, we got a very nice review of the history behind this. And there was a very specific case that created some problems that this proposed amendment is intended to kind of guard against in the future.

So—

I like the cleanup of the language. I also like the proposal by Alan.

Um, I think I like Alan's proposal, and I like your language adding that elected officials are considered— like, the council is considered like a position, correct?

Yeah, I wasn't making any—

Not a specific, but you mentioned that they're also considered elected position, or are they not?

They are. The specific scenario we were dealing with in the history was somebody who had been appointed to be a councilmember.

Right. I guess I'm not asking that question properly. But so city councilmembers are also considered elected positions, right?

Yes.

Okay. So if we take out elected position— if we just say elected position, we would have to say specifically except for city councilmembers, right?

I believe so. It would be— just to be clear, it would be good, I think, to say elected positions or appointment of a council member in the future in the event of a vacancy. That way, for, for even though—

So removing from after the word positions, beginning of city clerk or city treasurer, yeah, parentheses, close bracket, that would be removed and it would just be to the elected— elect to any elected position or appointment of a council member. Alan, is that what you—

Yes, but I'm confused about whether we need to make the exception for council members.

Because if I was reading it not being in this committee, if someone says elected position, what does that mean? You know, any elected position?

Find in—

Including city council.

Yeah.

It just— the word position, I don't know.

Of the city.

Yeah. Just a thought.

It's covered in the same article under Section 1 of the charter.

It defines who's But I guess I, I do see your point. It's like, no formal council member shall hold income stated office, and then right after, the preceding sentence shall not apply to elected positions, meaning the council people we just removed from it. So now I've kind of turned back to, let's keep it with the specific carved-out language, just not to create unnecessary confusion, unless I'm missing something as well.

I think we need some help.

Sure.

Well, if you—

would you— I don't know if you have any thoughts, Aaron.

Could I make a comment before— I think the existing language achieves what we wanted to achieve at the last meeting. I previously, a long time ago, used to work in software engineering, and you don't want to solve for a problem that isn't a problem yet. And I think If there is a problem in the future, the mechanics of it will address itself. So I'd like to leave the language as drafted.

We can leave it for the next committee as well.

That's right.

Thank you.

The elected city attorney.

I mean, is there a way to keep Alan's suggestion? Because I like the simplicity, but add some language to let people know that council members are not part of this.

I think, committee member, I, as a point of clarification and follow-up to what the city attorney said, I think that the strikethrough that the chair read effectuates that goal, which is striking the words of city clerk or city treasurer. Because although you're certainly correct that The council members are elected positions. In this scenario, they would not be elected to those positions. In this scenario, the carve-out, they are appointed to those positions that would otherwise be elected. I know that that's, it's a bit circular, but it contemplates the situation that I think we're trying to address, that the committee is trying to address. So if the committee were to vote for the carve-out, favor Committee Member Durham's recommendation. I, I do think it's effectuated by simply striking those 5 words or 6 words.

The elected positions.

Elected positions, 7 words.

Yeah.

So it would read, the preceding sentence shall not apply to elected positions, comma, or an appointment of a council member in the event of a vacancy, period.

And, and to Mr. Flowers' point, that, that addresses the situation we actually had where this became a litigation, where it was an appointment of an individual to a council seat that created litigation. So this is making sure everybody's clear it won't apply in that situation.

Thank you.

Any further comments, or are we inclined to invite public comment?

Oh.

I'd like to ask for some clarification.

Go ahead, Rachel.

Yeah.

Second sentence applies to the former council member.

Yeah, second sentence applies to the former council member, and the third sentence, meaning the second sentence, meaning the former council member. Is, is that correct logic? Then how do I read the third sentence?

So it's a limitation on the second sentence. So again, so city a city council member his or her term ends or they come off council for whatever reason, they cannot be appointed to be the city manager or the city. attorney or any other position.

Stand us alone.

But if they run for a seat on— if they run for city clerk or they run for city treasurer or they are subsequently appointed by the council to fill a vacancy, those things will all be able to occur notwithstanding sentence number 2.

I think the operative term is the preceding sentence, so that limits the scope of the 3rd sentence to the 2nd sentence.

Sir.

Thank you very much. My name is Herbert Molano. What you are doing right now in terms of doing this discussion and trying to make a decision is something that I have seen hundreds of times in the number of times that I've been to City Council, where you are presented with something that is ambiguous, it's not clear, you don't know the full impact of it, and yet you feel as if you are forced to make a decision. But you do have options. You could table this portion and bring it back once you know more about it. My rule is, if in doubt, don't, because you may not know the full implication of what it would bring. And we have an example of a major decision made on April 24th, 2001, that it got us into a multi-billion-dollar debt for which we are paying today significantly because the council members did not ask, because the information wasn't presented in full. And in less than 1 minute, it had that level of impact. My suggestion on anything presented to you now or in the future is, if you really don't know, postpone it. You'll be much safer for us. This is the charter. This is our constitution. This has a very long-term implication. Thank you. And if there are some examples given to you, there are probably more examples that you could actually come up if you use artificial intelligence to look for the potential problems.

Thank you.

Now, I think from last week's presentation by the city attorney and the explanation of the litigation that occurred, I think you know this is a very specific. I don't see any ambiguity. We're solving for a very specific contingency from a legal perspective, and I don't think we need to table it. Thank you.

And there's still a couple more steps in the process. We'll be at this for a while, so if we need to re-review something, that's possible. It still has to go to City Council, and ultimately, if it goes there, it has to go to the ballot for voters. So I think there will be ample opportunity, but I don't see the ambiguity in this one.

Any further comments from anybody on this one? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

I'd like to move adopting the language with my suggested revision to make it more general.

So we've had a couple different versions of that.

I think the version I heard was from Attorney Israel.

I'm happy to read it back to the committee if that would be helpful. So my understanding of the language that Mr.— that Committee Member Durham is proposing is the preceding sentence shall not apply to elected positions, comma, or an appointment of a council member in the event of a vacancy, period.

And that is what I'd like to move.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right, motion by Durham, second by Miller. Roll call, please.

Committee member Durham?

Yes.

Flower?

Yes.

Karibian?

Yes.

Haroutunian?

Yes.

Karapetian?

No.

Manassarian?

Yes.

Megurdjian?

Yes.

Miller?

Yes.

Meek?

Yes.

Popolaitis?

Yes.

Smith?

No.

And you?

No.

Motion carries. Next item, this is a new one, 5E, discussion of the subjects pertaining to council districts, expanded council, directly elected mayor, and role of a directly elected mayor. This will take no time whatsoever.

And Mr. Chair and Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have one caller on the line. When would you like to address the caller?

Is it regarding this item?

Yes.

After the staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. As noted, this item will be a weighty item, and so we ask your indulgence a little bit, but also understanding that we might— probably won't get to it all tonight, but this is to lay it out for you, maybe get some preliminary thoughts and see where you want to go with it. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Israel and Ms. Quach from my office to provide the presentation on the topic.

The first thing we'd like to go over is some definitions. So, at-large method of elections, there's 3 different types. is that the council members live anywhere in the city, and then voters in the entire city elect the members to council. The second one is councils live in an area or district, but voters in the entire city elect the members. And then the last one is a combination of both an at-large and district. They're both still— it's still treated as an at-large method of election.

Next slide.

A district-based election is where the candidates must live in a district and are— and is elected by voters residing within that district. Next slide. Some pros and cons of district. Some pros are that council members will live in or near their constituents' neighborhoods and will be directly impacted by the same quality of life issues. They will also— residents will also have a designated councilmember to contact if they have any issues or concerns. It's also less expensive to run in a district because they don't have to reach the entire city. they really just have to campaign to their district. Another pro is that they will increase geographic and socioeconomic diversity on City Council and that minority candidates may have a better opportunity to be elected.

Can I just stop you right there? So just to provide a little context, as you probably have gathered, these are just pros or arguments that we're putting forth that we've heard in the community that people have put to us. But it's, you know, these things are not absolute. There are disagreements on some of these points. The other thing I would add is that with respect to geographic and social and especially geographic diversity, and we've pointed this out in the report, there have not been a lot of individuals, residents of South Glendale elected to council. So that's one factor that the, the individuals who are in favor of districts have put forth as a reason to have districts. Um, and then, um, so I just wanted to highlight a couple of those points as things that have been brought up as I've heard as I've attended a number of meetings over the years.

So just to be clear, some of these are opinions as opposed to objective facts, the pros that are, that are being listed?

Correct. I read them as just like generally thought of as these are the policy arguments borne against that are out there.

Not—

I don't think staff's taking any particular position there. I think I look at it more as a form of educating us as to why there's a discussion, why there's a debate about these sorts of things.

Can I ask a quick clarification? Do the districts already exist or going to districts would create that?

Okay.

And what's the process for creating the districts?

Uh, never mind.

Would you like me to briefly address that or—

How the districts are formed?

Sure.

Sure.

So, um, we, we had started the process, I think we mentioned initially, but, um, there's a significant, uh, you know, once the, the Their districts are proposed. There's a significant amount of outreach that goes into, in terms of a certain number of public hearings, at least 4 public hearings before the City Council, as well as a certain number of community meetings. We've actually held more than that prior to this reaching this point. And then after that, between the 2nd and 3rd public hearings, maps are drafted. After we get an initial round of public comment, maps are drafted. For the public to review, and then the public makes comments throughout that process. And then at some point, um, it's what typically happens— it's not necessarily required, but what typically happened and happened— has happened in our case, at least initially, uh, is that maybe the council narrowed the number of maps because there was actually 35 maps drawn. So our consultant prepared a number of maps, and then there are members of the public who— there's a process where you can go online and you can actually draw your own map. The software exists to really just— if you want to go and draw your own map, you can do that. So then those maps are all presented to the council to kind of narrow it down, and then ultimately the council would select a map to go forward. But they can't do that unless they— the council also decides to put forward a charter amendment to change to districts.

And sorry to be ignorant of the history, but this has happened before? You're speaking in the past tense. They tried to do this?

In 2 circumstances. In 2015, a general charter amendment was put forward to the voters. Do you want to go to districts? And if so, we will prepare maps and then we will bring them back to the voters. That initial charter amendment failed. Subsequently, starting in 2023, the council asked to explore the process by which to go to districts and then started that process, this public outreach process, got to a certain point in time and said, you know what? There was, you know, there was some disagreement about it. That's been part of the reason for the Charter Review Committee is at a policy level, regardless of what the districts look like, should we go to district? Is that a good thing for the City of Glendale?

Thank you.

Is it, uh, is it within scope for this committee to, while we're looking at pros and cons, to also ask that a future item would include cost, a cost to go to the districts or a cost or not? Or is that something that's just before council to—

We wouldn't— it's a good question about what our jurisdiction is on that, because financial matters are generally wholly council-driven. But whether or not— I mean, that's a legitimate concern people would have about whether or not it's going to burden the city with a lot of costs to go to districts.

I think Denise brings up a good point. I'm just wondering if we're entertaining 2 slides versus— of 2 slides here of, you know, what the community thinks. So general consensus.

I don't think there is a general consensus. I think that's why—

I mean, I use the word opinions, but I mean, we're— at least we should have some facts to go along with this analysis. To Denise's point, what would this cost?

Having spoken to many residents, I can see this issue both— on both sides. And so I can see the pros and I can see the cons, but what would move me would be to understand the cost. And so that is where that question comes from, if it's within scope.

Also, I had a question, Mr. Garcia. Is there a way we can be provided with a historical context of, like, what is the impetus behind starting this? I mean, I would like to know from the get-go, you said we started this in 2015. Was there a law that dictated this? Because—

I had a similar question. What is the status of any threats of a CVRA suit?

Maybe let me give a little more background, and we're certainly happy to put something in writing to give you more detail.

Thank you.

In 2002, the state legislature adopted the California Voting Rights Act, which basically provides if a local jurisdiction has racially polarized voting and that racially polarized voting is causing the dilution of minority votes in a community, then you have to go to— you have to transition to council districts. And there's been a lot of litigation over the years about this. It is very friendly. The statute is written in a way that makes it very hard for jurisdictions to change. to basically win a lawsuit. No jurisdiction has won a lawsuit under CEQA. They've either settled or lost. The city did, and I can't get into the specifics other than say, the city did receive a threat of litigation many years ago, 2013, which resulted in us putting that ballot measure on the charter, that charter amendment on the ballot in 2015. The school district also, and the College Board also received a similar threat of litigation. When we put that on the ballot, and like I said, it was very simple, do we wanna go to— do we wanna amend the charter to go to districts? And it failed. We were never subsequently sued. There's been other jurisdictions with similar demographics to Glendale, at least as it pertains to Hispanic population that were sued and have been going through litigation for almost 10 years now. So that is the extent of the litigation or the threat of litigation against the city of Glendale. In 2023, the council— and it's, it is not a unanimous council on this issue, but majority of the council— for policy reasons, and they were very clear about when they ran for council that they thought in their view, it was more advantageous to have council districts. And so they started the process for us to start this process. And initially it was to start the districting process along with the charter amendment process together. And then after a significant amount of outreach, rather— and they were gonna— they were considering putting it on the ballot for 2024. They decided not to do that and instead to convene this charter review committee. to study the issue of whether to go to districts.

Thank you.

Just to clarify our goal, our goal is to whether we're going to recommend a district method to the city or not. Is that what we're doing here?

Or—

because whatever we recommend, it's not going to be the new rule. We're just recommending to the City Council that we, we as a committee think so, this, this is a good way to go, right? Is that our role?

That, that is, uh, board member or committee member, you know, that is one of the recommendations that the council has asked this committee to make, which is should the city consider a charter amendment that would transition us to districts? What should the size of the council be? And should there be directly elected mayor?

Thank you. I'll repeat myself. So, the first question is, then, should there be districts? And the cost goes to that, but also these policy arguments on either side. And then, the next question is going to be, how many districts? And if the charter's not amended, none of these— this is all moot. So, and then I'll add to that, who draws the districts? Because it doesn't necessarily have to be the council. I know some cities have like a— they set up an independent commission or committee for that purpose every 10 years.

Correct.

Some cities do it every 10— you have to do it every 10 years as a matter of law, but some cities have their own districting committee. So the question is, yeah. Like the City of Los Angeles, I think, just transitioned to a commission.

I have a question. Is it normally the district— districts, are they split based on the population or geographically?

They have to be based on population.

Okay.

They have to be taken— Roughly.

Yeah.

And then they have to be roughly equal.

Mr.

Chair, is there anything at the state appellate court level that we need to consider relative to this matter?

I haven't followed the Santa Monica case. Where is it?

Yes. So there was a case out of— involving the City of Santa Monica. The Superior Court had found that Santa Monica's at-large system violated the California Voting Rights Act and implemented a district plan pretty much over the objection of the city. Then the city appealed that before— actually, the Court of Appeal overturned The Superior Court, and then that case was appealed to the City of Santa Monica to the sorry to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal. They didn't basically reinstitute the plan, but they they remanded it back to this Court of Appeal, who then remanded it back to the Superior Court to say you have to basically do the findings again. So you know it's a little bit in litigation hell from what I can tell, and so all we have is that Supreme Court case sort of laying down what the principles are for determining whether or not a community has racially polarized voting and whether that racially polarized voting leads to minority vote dilution. And there's some information we presented to council in open session that we can certainly provide to the committee as well.

Elizabeth?

Is there any way, Mr. Garcia, that we can be provided by the requirement of the law of the required law for redistricting or the details of it?

We can provide some— we will provide the summaries of the information and present to council.

Thank you.

Alan? I just wanted to mention the City of Santa Clarita. They were sued, and first they were going to fight the lawsuit, and then they decided that they— it wasn't tenable to do it. A lot of the jurisdictions that have been sued under the Voting Rights Act had populations or demographics where it was possible to draw a district that was majority minority, if you understand the term. And according to our the city's consulting demographer Doug Johnson. One difference with Glendale is there's no way currently to create a district that is majority minority. But given the litigation on the Voting Rights Act, even though you can't designate or you can't create a district that's majority minority, you still could be subject to saying there's vote dilution and polarized voting. So that's one of the ambiguities going on right now.

If I could, Mr. Chair, um, the CVRA issues, um, you know, that's the, the sort of the legal risk and some of that background. Perhaps it's better that we defer that and bring you back as discussion so that, uh, Mr. Iserle and Ms. Quash can give you an overview of sort of the policy implications, because I mean, that's No, I— Really what the council asked for.

I hesitated to even bring— say the word—

Yeah.

The letters CVRA. But what I'm hearing is that there's concern there, but we really need, I think, in the first instance, focus on the policy question. Should there be districts? If ultimately it's going to be driven by a threat of litigation, that's not going to be in our purview.

That's—

we're not here to provide a legal opinion to the city. So that would be my preference, is that we focus on the policy question of, you know, what could be achieved with districts and what could be lost by going to districts.

Agreed.

At least in the first instance. This is going to be, I think, a running topic for the rest of our time together. So I think that, like, let's just Begin with, like, the policy question.

Yeah, as someone less familiar with it, I'd like to keep hearing the background kind of at a more broad level.

Maybe finish the presentation.

Oh, there's more?

Yeah, there's a whole bunch.

Sorry. Some cons that we've heard regarding districts is that they may fight over city resources. There may be less attention paid to citywide issues, fewer opportunities for voters to elect council members as they'll only vote for one seat every 4 years rather than the one every— or the voting for council members every 2 years that we have now. Council members may view districts as fiefdoms despite all decisions still requiring council majority, and district lines must be redrawn every 10 years per the federal census.

Next slide.

Some options that were considered were 5 council districts, 6 council districts and 1 directly elected mayor, and 7 council districts and 1 directly elected mayor. At the— council last discussed a 6-district plan along with the directly elected mayor, and we'd like to caution you that if you decide to choose a different option, that we would have to go back to council sooner rather than later to restart our studies, because as Mr. Garcia said earlier, we've already started drawing maps and began the 6 council district discussions.

Thank you.

So if we want to choose something else, we would have to go back sooner.

May I ask a question on that? That a 6-district plan with an elected mayor wasn't my recollection of what the council and our demographer and the mapping was designed to do for the proposed charter ballot in November 2024. I don't remember the council proposing that a 6-district plan with an elected mayor was going on the ballot. I thought it was 5 without an elected mayor. 5 districts. And we were mapping— Stephen, weren't we mapping 5 districts, not 6? Am I correct?

Yeah.

So I don't know where this is coming from, if you can explain.

Sure, I'm happy to explain. So there were— Mr. Durham, there were discussions initially early on in the thing about with both all these options presented to council. And then at some point before we drew the— we started the process of drawing maps through the process required by the Fair Maps Act and the CVRA, the council focused on the 6+1 model so that we could— you need to know how many seats districts you're going to have before you start that process. So that was the number of districts that went through the process. I think early on maybe there were some 5-district maps that were presented. Yeah, but the council was focusing on 6+1.

I will go back and look at the maps again.

Yeah, I think there are some 5-member maps.

The 5-member was more related to how the schools had divided up the city.

Okay, because I know we were mapping both 5 and 6. You know, I mean, people could submit maps on 5 or 6 districts.

You could submit anything, yeah.

Yes.

So if I'm incorrect, I apologize.

If we do go with the districts and an expanded council, there will be some conflicts with other charter provisions. So this is for later on, but we would just like to point out that expanding the size of council will require amendments to the charter regarding quorum and requisite votes for taking specific actions. So currently there is language in the charter that says 3 affirmative votes for specific actions required. With an expanded council, that language language will need to be changed. There's also language regarding a 4/5 supermajority vote on— for specified actions that will probably need to be revisited. Might not have to be changed, but we would want to revisit that if we expand the council.

Next slide, please, Greg. So I'm going to speak to the committee for a few minutes about the directly elected mayor. But before I do that, I want to give the committee some context in light of your discussion at the last meeting versus a— between a so-called strong mayor and weak mayor model. And so that takes us back to the 2 common forms of municipal government. They're the council-manager form of government and the mayor-council form of government.

government.

Next slide, please. So under the mayor-council form of government, the mayor is the city's executive branch while the council functions as the city's legislative branch. The mayor retains significant administrative authority, usually prepares the budgets, and appoints and may remove department heads. This is the strong mayor model. There are only 5 cities in the state of California that have the mayor-council form of government: LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, and Oakland. Next slide, please. This organizational structure comes from the IMCA and the Institute for Local Government, but it's a good visual depiction of how executive leadership is typically structured in a mayor-council form of government where the voters separately elect their mayor from their council and department heads are reportable to the mayor.

Next slide, please.

So in the council-manager form of government, which is what Glendale— under which Glendale operates, and we'll go into that in just a couple of minutes, the council is the city's governing body and establishes law and policy for the city. The council appoints the city manager to serve as the city's chief executive officer, and the The city manager executes the law and policy that the council establishes, typically prepares the budgets, and appoints and may remove department heads. As I mentioned previously, only 5 cities operate under the mayor-council form of government, so all other cities in California operate under the council-manager form of government, and it's utilized by either— by charter cities and general law cities alike.

Next slide, please.

Again, from the IMCA, this is what the organizational structure in the council-manager form of government looks like. The council is responsible to the electorate, the manager is responsible to the council, and then all department heads are responsible to the manager. Next slide, please. So as I mentioned, Glendale operates under a council-manager form of government, and that's found in several provisions of the charter, and I'm going to call out a few of the, a few of the notable provisions. First, the council shall appoint a city manager who shall be its chief administrative officer. In Glendale, the CAO is synonymous with the chief executive. Article 10, the city manager shall be the executive head of the Department of Management Services and of the various departments of the city, meaning that all department heads are reportable to the city manager. Next slide, please. Article 11, the city manager prepares the budget and submits it to the council. And Article 4, the city manager shall appoint and remove department heads subject to civil service and except as otherwise provided by the charter. Next slide, please. Okay, so turning to the topic of a directly elected mayor with the background that Glendale operates under a mayor I'm sorry, a council-manager form of government. There are only 4 models for a directly elected mayor in a council-manager form of government in California, and they have common features. They are elected at large, they serve as the presiding officer of their respective council, of their respective councils, and they have an equal voice in all matters before their councils. What distinguishes among the directly elected mayoral models is whether the mayor has an equal vote on matters before the council, and whether the matter— the mayor has veto power of actions before the council. Next slide, please.

So, this is—

Model 1 is the most common model. This model is utilized by all cities with a directly elected mayor in California except for 4. I mean, under this model, the mayor has an equal voice and vote on all matters before the council, but does not have veto power. I'm not gonna read the examples of the charter language. They're in your slide deck. But we— for geographic proximity, the City of Pasadena operates with this directly elected mayoral model. Next slide, please. Model 2, for the sake of convenience, I'll call this the Long Beach model. The mayor of the City of Long Beach does not vote on matters that come before the council. However, the mayor does have veto power, which is subject to a council override by a supermajority vote. It's 2/3. The City of Long Beach has a 9-member council, so 6 votes, 6 affirmative votes would be required to override a mayoral veto. Next slide, please. Model 3, this is the Bakersfield model. where the mayor votes on matters before the council only in the event of a tie, but does not have veto power. Next slide, please. And this is the Riverside— Model 4 is the Riverside or San Bernardino model, where the mayor votes on matters before the council only in the event of a tie, and in addition to the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The mayor also has veto power subject to a council override. Both the Riverside and San Bernardino councils have 7 members. A supermajority is 5/7 to override the veto. Next slide, please. And I spoke about San Bernardino, so we can move forward to the next slide.

Okay.

Duties of a directly elected mayor. And if I'm Speeding through this. I want to leave as much time for your deliberation as possible, but happy to answer any questions that you have about this information when we reach the end, and we're only a couple of slides away from the end of the slide deck. Common duties of a directly elected mayor in a council-manager form of government. The mayor serves as the official head of the city for political, representative, and ceremonial purposes, and by the governor for military purposes. Interprets city policy and communicates changes in policy to the public, execute legal instruments unless the council provides otherwise or unless the charter or ordinance provides otherwise. They represent the city before and to other public agencies, again, except as provided otherwise by council action, and exercise other powers that the charter may assign them, that the council may delegate to them, or that the law may impose upon them. Next slide. Occasional duties in a council-manager form of government, and by occasional we mean we found these duties in some charters where the— of cities where the mayor is directly elected, but they are not among the more common duties found in charter provisions. Recommending law and policy to the council directly for its consideration, recommending budgetary and programmatic items to the city manager, requiring that city staff provide information to the council, appoint members of council committees, boards, and commissions with the consent of the council. So that's perhaps notable because councils in other cities like ours appoint members by— each council member has an opportunity to appoint members to boards and commissions. Under this model, the mayor makes all of the appointments with the council's consent, takes command of the city government, notably the public safety agencies— that would be police and fire— during a public danger or emergency with the council's consent, and report periodically to the council on affairs and conditions of the city. That's the end of the slide deck, but as my colleague Sylvia noted with respect to implications of council districts, there are also implications of a directly elected mayor. Terms and term limits are among those implications, how long the directly elected mayor's term will be, how many terms in office may they serve. And that is information that we're happy to bring back to you in a subsequent meeting.

Thank you.

wanted to first give you this information for your consideration as a threshold. And I'll turn it back to the city attorney if he has any additional comments. And to the chair.

Thank you.

I'd like to get any questions.

Different form.

Can anyone explain the pros and cons of keeping current system, which is like rotating between— among the city council members, and having a direct— directly elected mayor? What are the pros and cons of keeping current situation and moving to a new form? Why are we considering like directly elected mayor?

Can I ask a related question after you're through?

Yeah, I was gonna say, let's deal with Rachel's question first. I don't know the full answer. The way I saw it personally was if you're gonna go to districts where you have people representing only portions of the city. The idea of having a directly elected mayor, you're having somebody who's reporting to everybody in the city as a counterbalance to that kind of ward politics. That's how I view it personally. So, if you're going to districts, you're gonna have people representing much smaller pieces of the city, and there's nobody who's representing the entirety. And a directly elected mayor would be that person as a form of counterbalance.

So does that mean if people don't like to go to district, the directly elected mayor is gonna be thrown out the window too, or do they have to be together or no?

A separately elected mayor would be elected by everybody.

I think her question was, if you don't go to districts, does it make any sense to have a directly elected mayor? And I think—

There are cities that do it.

There are, but probably fewer. And I think to your point, and I would just note that Chairman Flowers is correct, that for the discussion that was held at council about whether to go to districts, those council members that were in favor of including the directly elected mayor component of it was exactly for those reasons, to have one individual who's elected citywide that can speak for the city as a whole. And then as far as the— The pros of staying with the current system, they would just be what the cons were for going to districts, which is not having, you know, as explained by Sylvia, not having potential for inter-district fights among council members, not— so you have to avoid the parochialism that some claim that districts will bring.

Those—

some of those reasons are the reasons that those who are against going to districts have put forth in public.

Thank you.

Alan, you had a question?

Just to add what you said, Stephen. You could— if we go to districts, you can be located in a district where you don't necessarily agree with your elected councilperson.

And they may not—

Sometimes I don't agree with any of them.

And you may not feel represented. So I think, you know, directly elected mayor in a district system is somebody everyone in the city could express their concerns to if you don't feel you're represented by your councilperson.

That's a good point.

My question is, some people have expressed, in my experience, well, if we have a weak directly elected mayor, is there any possibility or historic evidence that what started out as a weak mayor became more powerful, and, and the city council was delegating more authority that wasn't really intended by the charter. I don't know if that's possible or not. It's just something I hear.

All right, should we just go around? Any, any other questions before we go to the public comment? And then, starting down here.

I'm still taking in the information. Yeah, fair enough. Yeah, just to even comment. I mean, I had, I had done the reading, but I think it's kind of boiling, so.

Yeah.

No comment.

No comment yet.

Okay.

Questions?

Okay, for later.

Let's go to Carl.

As I'm looking at these things, and I think if we do have a directly elected mayor, right now we have 6 districts, and we come up with the chance that if the mayor doesn't have a vote, we could have a tie with no supermajority. So the mayor would always have to have a vote in that city council. But not— I'm not in favor of veto power. That makes the mayor too strong. Because at present, our mayor is— because it rotates through all of them, it's pretty much an honorific rather than a strong type of mayor, which I enjoy. I enjoy them switching around, seeing the different processes that the different people use. And In my own opinion, I would like 7 council members and no directly elected mayor. Or if— I hate to say it the way I'm saying it. I like having 7, not 6 people on the council dais so that there can always be a majority unless somebody abstains.

Whereas—

So Model 1, which is Pasadena uses, uh, the mayor shall be nominated and elected by all the voters of the city and serves everyone, I think is a good idea if we're going to have a directly elected mayor. I don't want them to have veto power, uh, and I do think at least 6 people and the mayor, or even more, on the city council is a good idea.

Okay, again, I, um, want to just work, work our way through questions first, and then we can—

So my question is, Mr. Flower, is we need to actually determine the, the question of redistricting before we go to the mayor. Is that correct?

Um, I don't think we, we necessarily have to. I, I, I think historically the questions are completely linked. Like, there are people who want to go to districts, and there's people who will only want to go to districts if there's a separately elected mayor, and then there's probably a contingent of people who don't want to go to districts, period. So, you know, it's— I see those questions being kind of tightly linked.

Okay. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure.

That's my view.

All right.

Thanks. We can separate the discussion if that's the way people want to go.

Yeah, I'd second that. I think you can't take any one aspect of this very complicated issue and focus on that. And then it's not a serial sort of decision-making. It has to be everything in one package.

Thanks.

Denise?

I have a lot of thoughts, but I have no comments at this time.

No questions.

Okay.

All right. I know we had one person Online, he's been waiting patiently.

We have one caller.

Yeah.

Good evening, uh, you are live with the Charter Review Committee. Please state your name for the record. You have 3 minutes to speak. Are you there? Tayedita, are you there? It appears you're in— sure, yeah. Okay, please call back if you miss it. Thank you.

Anybody, any members of the public in the room wish to speak on this item?

Thank you very much, members of the committee. I believe that the role of government, of city government, is to improve or retain the quality of life of its residents. It's as simple as that. Can it be measured? And is your quality of life improving? So we have samples. We have the city of Pasadena. We have the city of Los Angeles. In the city of Los Angeles, each district is larger than the whole population of the city of Glendale. $260,000 on average for the the district. And now you go to the different districts within the City of Los Angeles and ask yourself the question, are they better off in those districts that are doing poorly? In my opinion, they're not. It has made no difference with regard to their quality of life, irrespective of what the ethnicity is of that particular region. Glendale, if we were to go to districts, would be incredibly small, which means that it adds another problem, and that is the percentage of votes. In the better district like Ross Moyn, we have about 30%, roughly, of registered voters who vote. In this area and down in the Mariposa District, 4 to 5%. So that means that even if you allocate 20,000 people per district or some other figure, 40,000, you're gonna find yourself somebody elected with 800 votes in one district and with 4,000 votes in another district and making decisions.

Thank you.

And what we want is quality of the individuals who are running for office and making decisions for us. So these are just 2 of the main topics that I want you to think about. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there a caller back?

No callers.

All right, I'm going to close public comment now.

Anybody want to take off the mask?

Any thoughts on either where you're leaning at the moment, where you think— how we should proceed in the discussion?

I'll make a comment. Under pros, one of the pros, and it could be a pro, is that every district has an elected council member to represent the district's best interest. But I can flip that and see a con, because currently with the 5 council members elected at large, I've got— and I have gone to 5 council members with concerns or issues, and I do hear back from 2 or 3 usually. I never hear back from all 5. But, you know, at large with all council members responsible to the voters can actually be an advantage. Thank you.

One question I have for the committee is to— do we feel like we have enough information I guess in terms of an action item to start, I'll say it differently. I, I don't have enough information about this topic to really weigh in in a very influential or effective way. And so I wonder if we could catalog a list of what we think we need to get us— I don't know how, just a thought. That's, that's, that's So, for example, I heard 2 of our committee members talk about districting and mapping. Is there previous information of work that's been done that could be shared with this committee.

Just think before you hit print.

Right.

Very thick.

It has all the old staff reports, all the maps that have been put out there.

Thank you for the redirection. I just, as a point of clarification, I received access to that at about 4:40 PM today. So in the 20 minutes and 10 minutes it took to drive here, I didn't pull it off yet.

No, but I haven't read through all of it either.

Your microphone.

Yeah, I haven't read through all of it either, but I started to look through it. There's a lot there, but I do recommend that we all I'll make the attempt to at least get a hold of a copy of the document, electronic or otherwise, and take a look at what's been done. We're not here to reinvent the wheel, but maybe provide a fresh perspective.

And just 2 more follow-up, if I may, or would you like me to pause for others? Okay. We're on a roll. So, in— first question, in that packet, or in what's been provided to us, is that the information that Mr. Meek and Mr. Derm spoke about in terms of the mapping that's been done? Is that in there? Okay, great. And then do we have access to— can it be highlighted in our, our drive which meetings council spoke about this at so that we could go back and review the video? Is that there as well?

My recollection, and maybe the Secretary can confirm me, I think the files are saved by meeting date.

Is that not correct?

Yes, I believe they are. I can make sure that those are marked if they aren't.

That's more what I'm asking you. But okay, thank you. That's my questions. And cost. Did we answer that? Or am I— do I keep putting us in a rabbit hole you don't want to go?

I'm kind of curious what you— where you're going with the cost question, because is— are you asking how much does it cost to switch to districts, or how much does it— does it increase the city costs overall year to year once you go to districts? Like, is there an ongoing cost to the city just because now we have districts and they're going to be staffed a little bit more closely for each district? And I mean, is it both?

Well, sometimes.

It's both.

Okay.

To answer you directly, it's both.

Okay.

Yeah, Chair, same for me because I picked up on what Denise brought up also. So there's a, in my mind, a one-time cost for switching and then there is an ongoing cost or potentially a savings. I don't see how it could be a savings, but I would imagine it's an incremental cost over the current cost of operating And the resources that it would require if it changes anything, basically. So, since I have the mic, I'll just— for me, I'm trying to understand the— it's a very complicated issue. I'm trying to understand the threshold issue of why change. So, you know, what is the impetus? What is the problem that's solved? How does it make government more responsive to the constituents specifically in this city of this size, of this makeup. So it's pretty complicated. I think it'll take a couple meetings.

I'm just going to go around now.

Just to comment on that, it's a lot of information and complex information, so it's normal to not understand and try to read through it. And the more we read I think we'll have a few meetings or next time more questions and more answers, and it will help all of us to come to more precise information that we'll gather. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate the information that was presented, and I'll noodle on it and come back with questions, thoughts.

Thank you for everything that was provided. I think one question that is in my mind is qualification of the mayor. If the mayor is elected, then are there going to be a series of set qualifications that the city manager needs to have alongside for the mayor to be elected, which is a serious question in my opinion. Understanding of finances and other aspects that would be essential.

Sorry, I'm jotting down notes as as this goes. Just a couple of— I think a couple of things that I'd like some more information on. Apparently, it sounds like there's Supreme— some Supreme Court guidance, and while that might not be where we ultimately go, but I think I'd like to understand what the Supreme Court— California Supreme Court has said the standards are for the Voting Rights Act. I think that would be some good background information, just some good background information to have. I'm going to go kind of with Paul. It's like, I'm also looking at what problem are we trying to solve. I'm looking at government in general— I'm not saying here in the city— in general, that seems to be more and more divisive. And at the same time, looking and going, in order to be effective, government really needs to be able to work together, and people need to be able to pull together. And so, listening to Alan, it's like I can see where it's like going, yes, you know, there are some advantages to districts, but I can also see it's like if you're a councilmember doesn't agree with you or doesn't consider your issue important, you can walk to another one and go, hey, would you hear me on this issue? Where if you're not in that district, it's like, why am I going to hear you on the issue? I can just say sort of anecdotally, kind of looking at that small suburb of Los Angeles to our south, you know, sometimes you look at how things work there and how things work, how policy integrates with operations.

operations.

And if you've got 15 districts, you may have 15 different ways of doing things. And I don't know for a city of 200,000 people if that makes a lot of sense to break it down into 20,000 things. I'm not settled on any of this. And I said, so what are we trying to solve? Are we looking for more diversity on the council? Are we— you know, does expanding council at large maybe get us there, allowing, you know, a couple more people a shot at positions. I kind of see where the mayor can be coupled and decoupled. You could have an at-large. I think there are a couple of cities, when I was going through the paperwork, that have at-large elections and an at-large mayor, where then you have one person elected by the city who is the figurehead. So I'm kind of mulling all these things over, and I'm really kind of listening to everybody else and where the opinions come. But I think a little more background on where we are at. I am not pre-sold on necessarily 6 districts. I guess I want to understand, if we don't do 6, if we are kind of taking a fresh look at this, what is that timeframe of having to go back? Because that might determine how we set our meetings up to try and go forward if that becomes an option that we put on the table. I think I will stop there for the I was mulling over the costs.

I mean, the cost of running might be— for someone running for council, it could be less. Right now I've heard it costs about $150,000 for at-large. If you do it for 30,000 people instead of 200,000 people, that would be less. There's the cost of running for mayor.

I think that's a good point.

of putting it in the ballot box, the election, to, you know, asking people if they want to go. And the salaries of the council members would be an ongoing thing. I was wondering if Doug Johnson could come in and do a presentation for people who haven't experienced it, or could we get one of the—

I'm not sure.

council meetings where he explained it to council, and we could see that as a little video just of that section of the council meeting. Yeah, that's why I brought it up the other way. Okay. All right. So I can see advantages both ways. I mean, as Alan has mentioned, I've gone to numerous council members and talked to them about things. And I also have looked at, you know, people have said, you know, I want somebody from South Glendale to run for city council and get elected to represent the downtown or south of 134, whatever you want to call it. So I can see that as a you know, if we divide into districts, you get that thing. So I'm willing to keep— try and keep an open mind and go either way at this point in time. But I do think it would help if people who have not gone to these outreach meetings could at least video— watch a video of what the presentation was.

So I tend to agree with Paul, that we need to really look at the why we're doing this. And I know that there are advantages to redistricting or pros and cons, but I think in order for us to see it, to look at the why, the original why, we need to see why it all started. So that's why we have to go back to the background. And I don't know if you agree with me, Mr. Flower, or not, but—

I do.

I think to looking at what the original intent of the law was to accomplish, and did it accomplish, or has it accomplished for people that have redistricted. So it's important for us to look at the background of why it started, and are we going to be able to address that if we look at the specifics or by redistricting. So it's important for us to look at the background and some more information on that.

Thanks.

I think it's hard to draw a conclusion of whether districting has worked in other cities because I think it's mixed results. It can be positive. It can be very negative. If you've ever watched a city council meeting, the city of Westminster at this point, they have 2 district council members who are extremely disruptive. In fact, the city council is suing those 2 council members. council members currently because of the disruptions they bring to the city council meetings and the city government. But I'm just saying, it's hard to say because you can get very different results depending on which city you're in. So you have to think about it very carefully. And I think Mr. Milano brought up a very good point. It's something I've thought about.

The—

you know, if you divide the city in districts, the voting participation— and I'm thinking South Glendale— is very low compared to other areas of the city. And we need to think about council members being able to get elected with very few votes and very little participation by the residents of that district. Thank you.

Do we have— so I do have more questions. I know I spoke. Um, so do we know— I recognize that our role is to provide recommendations to council, but part of providing those recommendations would also be the lived experience. Is it— I'm just thinking outside the box— is it possible as part of our outreach from this committee to see how we could get public members here who are really for it and really against it, um, to hear from them? I mean, how do we do that? So I, I certainly have friends who live in different areas that I can say things to, to come and speak. Um, and I think I'll stop there, and I'm— but I'm going to reserve the right to keep asking questions.

So I have some questions about the district model. One of the things that I heard a lot from last election is that nobody from the South has ever been elected. So I'm wondering, currently we have 5 council members. Does anybody know anyone from like below 135 current members? Also, has anybody from the South been elected to council member? Those are the factual questions.

Does anybody—

does anybody know the answers to? So yeah, if you know, please.

Certainly. Uh, I think as I noted that it's rarely from South Glendale, but there have been, uh, council members from South Glendale who have been elected. Mr. Tottale was just reminding me, Mr. Gus Gomez, uh, and that's been a while. It's been 20 years since he's been on council. Um, I can't remember anybody else. Um, so just in the recent history, so like it's, it's less occurs less frequently than from other areas of the city. And that's just, you know, that's our factual background.

But isn't it true that we've had more, at least a few Hispanic council members?

That's correct.

In history. I don't know how many, but it's more than just Gus.

Correct.

And a number have lived in South Glendale, just not at the time that they were elected.

That's true as well.

Yeah, because Ari Najarian talks about living in South Glendale as a renter earlier.

There's a number of them. It sounds like it's really socioeconomic, you know.

It's, it's sometimes yes, sometimes no.

I do have a question about North Glendale. Um, pardon, pardon my ignorance on this, but if we were to go to districting, if that's something we considered, um, Is that little section that's annexed something that could be brought into Glendale, or am I totally— there's a section up in La Crescenta that's Los Angeles.

It's—

well, there's a section that's unincorporated county.

Unincorporated county, and it will stay unincorporated regardless.

Yeah, that's a little outside the scope of the—

Well, there's one easy decision.

I have another question. Earlier, the public comment mentioned about, like, different turnout rates. So if we do go to district, let's say the turnout rate on District 1 is, like, very low, so you need, like, 500 votes to be elected. District 2, a lot of people go to voting poll, so you need 2,000 votes to get elected. If that happens, next election, somebody who didn't get elected from District 2 can move to District 1, because you need less votes. So is there anything that we can do to stop kind of this district shopping if we do go to district model?

Not really.

That's one of the features of districts.

I get your point.

I have one— I have a question. Do we have any cities historically, like anywhere that they had the district drawn and then they ended up removing them?

Dissolved it?

Dissolved it?

Is anybody— can you go back?

You can if you want to, you know, take on the chance of litigation. I'm trying to think. I seem to recall— we'll do some research on it. I think somebody, one agency, did go back, but it was probably in the pre-CVRA era.

Okay.

But we're happy to look and see if we can find anything.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I got one more. I don't know if you're moving on yet, but I'm just curious, because we're a charter city, do we have any additional rights or additional latitude than a general law city?

Not really.

Okay.

Under the CVRA.

Yeah, I'm curious under the CVRA, or as we're discussing how we— I mean, changing to districts elected mayor is going to change the way we sort of govern the city. So I'm just curious whether a charter city has any additional protections, rights, or latitude than a general law city in this Certainly then, with respect to the role of, for example, directly elected mayor or the district system, there's a little bit—

there are additional duties as a charter city, additional authority that the city would have to— in establishing that process. And as it pertains to the CVRA, no, the Supreme Court held that that law is applicable to charter cities.

Okay.

I have a question.

We got more?

Regarding the question that I just asked about the district shopping, does anybody— probably maybe the city attorney— do you— is there a law that says, let's say we do election every 4 years, and if we say you need to live in this district at least 3 years before you run it, would that be like challenged legally? Is there any case, or would that stop district shopping?

I think we'd be preempted by the election code, but we can look that up. In terms of having to reside in the district for so long, we can do some research on that.

That's one way to kind of prevent district shopping if you require certain years of residency within the district, I think. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, I have one more question. So, sorry. If, let's say, something happens in a district and for some reason the population— basically district is depopulated, what happens then?

You recalibrate every 10 years.

Every 10 years. But what if that happens in 2 years? Then the 8 years—

No change would be required until that 10-year period.

Okay, so it's the mandatory timeline.

Let's hope it doesn't happen.

Yes, for sure.

I have a question for the city attorney.

That's him.

Yep.

Does it— is it important that this committee understand— I'm asking more maybe a presentation, I don't know, on the election code as we consider what's before us, or is it too much of a deep dive?

Well, the whole election code would probably be too much of a deep dive, but let us— let me confer with my staff and and determine if there are applicable sections of the election code or our charter which would be useful for the committee to have.

Great, thank you.

Sure, there are things—

Do you want more discussion over election?

We do. And then, but just by reference, our charter for the most part just incorporates election code. So we are subject to it unless we amend our charter to give ourselves more authority.

Thank you.

So this doesn't surprise me that we're just kind of wading into this, and I think the water is pretty deep. So I appreciate all the comments and questions especially that everybody had. And so if— I'm gonna try to summarize just a few key things that I think that were coming up again and again that I heard that we may want to revisit with some further information from the staff possibly. The issue of CVRA, just the background about the legal requirements. We don't need to get any specifics of the previous threats against the city. The issue of costs, where those costs kind of come from, and I mean, I don't think we necessarily need a breakdown of how big they are, but I mean, a sense of the magnitude of the cost, if there's been any work on that that you can share. Um, I, I very much like the idea of sharing, um, the information about the prior meetings where the demographer gave a presentation, because that I think can cover a lot of factual ground without having to eat up a lot of staff time. Um, and if you make that available, you know, far enough in advance of a meeting, if we could, you know, really make an effort to watch that, I think that could answer a lot of questions so we can engage in better discussion when we're here. That kind of goes along with the information, the old maps, they're available on the OneDrive if you haven't logged in or figured it out. I think that would be useful to go back to. But speaking of going back to things, kept coming back again and again, what is the problem we're trying to solve? And we've kind of talked about it. I mean, I think we, we all kind of have to ask ourselves what—

What is the problem?

the problem is, if there's a problem. I wasn't aware until getting involved in this process that, you know, we haven't had somebody from— who lived below the 134 for 20 years on the City Council. I live well above the 134, but that bothers me a lot. And so I think that is a problem to solve. That's just me personally. And if districts are a way to get there, I think that that's great.

Thank you.

That's not a strongly held opinion. That's why I'm just— what I'm putting out there is that's, that's kind of— that's for me, that's a problem to solve. I also heard that, um, both from the public and from Rachel, and I think Denise brought this up too, the idea that you could end up creating a district and then have a very small number of people basically controlling a whole council seat. And I've seen that happen. My counterargument to that potentially is that If you have people who are not used to being represented, they don't vote because they don't feel like anybody's going to listen to begin with. And so, if you make an outreach and say, okay, we're giving you a district, get engaged, elect somebody from your neighborhood to represent you, that can drive further turnout. You can get a positive feedback loop. Right now, I think we're seeing the results of a negative feedback loop. So, those are problems I think that are worth at least considering if we can solve them and if this is a way to do it. So that's, that's where my brain is right now. Um, the other thing, um, we didn't really get into tonight, this discussion, I didn't hear people really weighing into the strong mayor, weak mayor. Um, there were a couple opinions expressed. Um, I don't know where I kind of really land except for I don't think we need a very strong mayor. I don't think we're in the realm of LA and San Francisco and Fresno. Um, but, you know, I— that nothing's decided, so we can keep having that conversation. But, you know, at some point in the future, I think after we kind of really get a better handle on do we want to recommend going to the districts, or even consider if there were— if we were to go to districts, do we think that there also needs to be a separate elected mayor, we're going to deal with that strong mayor, weak mayor dynamic.

So, Mr.

Chair, maybe, maybe I can, um, just clarify one point that Consideration of the mayor-council form of government was not within the charge that the council gave to this committee. So the charge that the council gave to this committee is consideration of a directly elected mayor within a council-manager form of government.

Okay.

That's very helpful. So it was just there to draw a contrast.

Right, exactly. What the difference between a directly elected— the role that a directly elected mayor serves in a mayor-council form of government versus in a council-manager form of government.

That's great.

At the council-level discussion and here too, there— sometimes there was that, you know, a level of discussion or concern about what's the role of the mayor versus the city manager when you have a council-manager form of government. And that was— we wanted to explain that dichotomy.

Right. I don't think we're going to solve this tonight, obviously. Is the sense that we keep this on the agenda and try to keep taking bites out of it? How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time, right? I don't know if the staff has any recommendations up front on how to proceed on these issues, given that this is the big one. This is hard to get our hands around.

Well, from our perspective, obviously we've got a lot of good feedback, especially in terms of the areas that you want us to focus on. We would go back, we would sit back and figure out what can we bring to you next week and what maybe take another— next month, excuse me— and what would take maybe a subsequent meeting. But we will try to provide all this information to you so we, we can kick off the next meeting and you guys can get right back into it.

If I could, at a minimum, what I was thinking, we were whispering here with Mike, is perhaps to your point, Mr. Flower, I had taken the same notes. Perhaps at the next meeting we can provide provide a brief update on CVRA provisions without taking that really deep dive because we will be here for 3 more meetings just talking CVRA. But in the meantime, we can certainly send an email to all the committee members with links specifically identifying which meeting videos dealt with CVRA, the demographer's discussions, and then there's some additional ones that specifically refer to, um, to the, uh, the districting. And the districting is a little bit challenging because, you know, it's a little hard for us to answer some of the questions. Some of it is policy-driven, some of it is regulatory because of the CVRA, some of it is political. Um, so I think watching those meetings on your own would not only give you the background but also give you a little bit of a taste and where some of this is coming from. If that's, if that's the desire of this council, of this committee, we can absolutely send that.

Thank you.

Either later tomorrow or early next week.

And then, when we review those materials, how far in advance do— in terms of setting the agenda, how far in advance do we have to give Mr. Flower— like, if we have suggestions that come up of things that we would like to see on the agenda, do we have to do it more than 10 days or more?

The earlier the better, so we're not trying to scramble to add things to the agenda. So, you know, with the next meeting would be early February, so soon, right? And then we'll just keep adding things to the list and see where the committee wants to go with certain informational items.

Thank you. It takes a village sometimes to remind me. I was just saying, if you have things you want to see on the agenda, specific factual questions you would like to have addressed, I would strongly recommend you send them directly to staff and let them address it. But if you're talking about future agenda items, unless it's something really urgent, bring it to the next meeting. We can talk about putting— talk about it together, putting it on the agenda. I just don't want to walk into inadvertently into a Brown Act problem.

I understand. Yeah. And you won't with me. But so just maybe just where that question came from is, does the chair set the agenda or does staff set the agenda. And previous boards I've been on, the chair set that. That's why I asked that.

Sure.

I mean, I don't know we have any set rule right now, but we're trying— our goal would be to work with the chair in putting—

I'll send it to staff, to the chair's point. But yeah, that's where that came from.

I had a question about implementation if the council ever did vote to go to districting. Would that vote be in the 2026— I mean, the ballot measure be 2026 election?

That's what council has asked us to do, to do this process and bring it back so they can consider putting it on the ballot for 2026.

And then if it did pass in that election, how is it— it's staggered implementation of the districts over the next couple of elections?

So if it was adopted in 2026. I mean, at least how we envisioned it previously. So if it was adopted in 2026, you would have— and if it was, uh, you'd have a certain number of seats and the directly elected mayor up in 2028, and the remainder of the seats up in 2030.

Thank you.

You can't shorten their terms. No, the existing—

right, true.

Um, all right, um, I'm not going to belabor, uh, this item anymore. Next item on the agenda, 5F, resolution to establish a 2025 meeting calendar. Did I miss the resolution?

You did, so I apologize. It was agendized, but no resolution was provided. Let me turn it over to you.

We apologize to the committee. We overlooked including a draft resolution, but there has been a draft resolution prepared with the recommendation or a potential consideration of having meetings on the Thursday after the first Monday of every month. And our office is prepared to draft a resolution that would effectuate that calendar.

Okay.

That way, if you have a short week—

Yeah, if the week starts on Thursday.

Thursday, you're not—

Like the first Monday in January was the 3rd.

Right.

Or you can just do the first Thursday.

Does that sound okay to people?

And then—

You'll bring back a resolution?

Yes.

Remind me, what was the policy on if we can't attend, can we telephonically attend?

You can only attend remotely, like, if it's ahead of time and you give us notice, we can put together a remote notice, but you'd have to— that space that you're in would have to be open to the public. We'd have to post that notice. 72 hours ahead of time. And so that's sometimes challenging. There are exceptions. If you're, for example, if you're sick, you have a contagious illness, then you can participate remotely. We have a process we'd have to go through and whatnot. I can certainly provide a little bit more information to you all in writing. But if it's something you planned, you can't, you know, ahead of time you're not gonna be able to attend because you're gonna be out of town, then you could attend remotely. But again, we'd have to post the agenda. Um, the agenda would have to list the address where you're going to be participating. participating remotely, and that location would have to be posted, and that location would have to be open to the public.

So this dovetails with the agenda— with the calendar. Once that's published, then that'll determine if that's an issue.

Right.

Do you have to be in the United States, I guess?

You don't.

Okay.

When is that resolution available?

We can send it out, a draft, tomorrow.

Yes.

And then, and then we'll have you vote on it.

Go ahead and already mark first Thursday.

Yeah.

You have got first Thursdays marked, but it would be helpful to have that so I get the right dates, especially the next few months.

After the first Monday.

So just for the, for the chair, I'm sorry, Committee Member Miller, is the chair putting to, to the committee's consideration the first Thursday or the Thursday after the first Monday.

First Thursday after the first Monday. I just kind of trailed off.

No problem.

So, and I wanted to just ask a question about that. So like, for example, February, to the staff who prepared this, I just want to make sure I understand what's being proposed. It would be February 6th. March, it would be March 6th. But in April, it would be April 10th? Is that how this is working? Okay, I understand. Yeah, thanks.

Good illustration. All right, so, um, we'll just carry that item over to the next agenda. Okay, um, item G, minutes. We've already approved them. Um, um, do we have any reports, information, or is that from us to you? Is that Is that what the intention is there?

Usually it's from— it's from staff to you if there's any additional information. We don't need you to act on this.

Um, all right, uh, item 7, uh, future agendas. Um, we've already talked about bringing back the, the districting and mayoral question, um, bringing back the, um, vice chair, uh, question, and if anybody has any other requests.

I just was wondering down the line I feel that we're probably going to have to meet more than once a month as we progress. Do we just address that as it comes up?

We can call special meetings. And if it comes up, my preference would be to at least keep it on Thursdays.

Oh, yeah.

If that's possible. I— it's not going to work for everybody every time, but that's why they nominated 12 of us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chairman Flower, I've never I've never actually read the city charter in this detail, and particularly when we were getting rid of the obsolete positions, I came across the civil service designations and how there are some staff that are civil service and some are not. Some are at will, as far as I can tell. I don't really fully understand it. I do want to understand it. Is that something that we can discuss, or at least can I get a— can I get an org chart that says, here's all the people in the city, this is who falls into this category and that category? Because it just seemed to me that if we're trying to make things better, that— I didn't even think about this, but it came up in the context of reading the employee section that we got rid of.

I can briefly answer that. So one of the committee's charges is to review the civil— the language in the charter regarding civil So you— there will be probably, I'm thinking, 2 sessions at a minimum where you'll be talking about that, and you'll get that information.

Okay.

We'll certainly make sure the Chief Human Resources Officer provides you the positions that are exempt, which is not many, and non-exempt.

Somebody wants to get ahead of the syllabus.

Well, I mean, I was struck— I was struck by the simplicity of when it's, you know, said the city shell could consist of like 12 positions, and then anybody else after that. I was like, well, that's everywhere else.

Yeah.

Um, any other requests for future agenda items?

And what about the frequency of council meetings that Mr. Milano brought up? I thought that was a—

I don't think that that's part of our charge. Um, if we want to do it, uh, sua sponte, I would suggest we agendize that. But is that something the group wants to talk about? you know, setting the number of council meetings by charter. I mean, okay, if we have time, if we're looking for things to do at the end of this.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

For now, just a few things and whatever else you want to bring us.

Thank you.

Um, motion to adjourn, anybody?

I so move.

Motion by Linda, second by Carl. Uh, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

OK. Post?

Aye.

All right.

See you next month.