I do this feeling that I really would have liked to see a vote on the charter containing provisions concerning the three most important reason for becoming a charter city in the first place.
I think everyone acknowledges that the charter being voted on is broad in scope and have very few limitations, compared to the Constitutions of our Stage and our Federal Government.
Supporters want us to approve the charter using reasoning I can break down into five categories. What my continued problem with the charter is that four of the five categories or reasons for us becoming a charter city are not enumerated or clearly enough established for my own personal comfort.
The first of the five categories for becoming a charter city is the recognition, adherence to, and effects of becoming a charter city. I think this category is enumerated by the charter itself.
I do feel that there are four other reasons, categories, or very major issues that should have been included in the charter so that voters would have a more informed opportunity to see some of the major changes as to how we operate as a city. I think enumerating those four elements that are so important, gives our interested and intelligent electorate a chance to decide better whether we should become a charter city or not.
I have ponder over four issues, categories, elements, or whatever one might call them. Other residents may have fewer or a greater number of those types of things, but since the four I am writing about are the reasons I support passage, I am limiting this to just three.
I don't know what to call the elements that I strongly feel should have been included in the charter up for a vote.
I am using "Bill of Authorities" for these. Whether these elements would be considered Amendments, Sections of Articles, or even separate Articles, might not matter.
Here are the four elements that I feel should have been addressed in the charter language:
Design and Build
Prevailing Wage Guidelines
City Funding for Other Entities
Initiatives and Election Processes
Design and Build
Supporters of charter passage use the remodel of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Library as a very good example for what can happen when one firm designs a project and another firm builds the project.
After the dust from construction settled, dust from all the problems because of the design and construction processes blew up into a major dust storm.
Dirt poured over the blame games and the expenses, court costs, and other financial considerations added more woes to a project that wasn't the prettiest to get through.
I would have liked to see language contained within a new charter specifically outlining the way Design and Build would be used in our city.
A potential problem with Design and Build is that three members of any R.P.V. City Council could approve a contract with a Design and Build firm and a future scenario could play out that the firm awarded the contracts may have done some things to receive the contracts that residents didn't know about or could be illegal.
The charter contains language about pay and gifts of city funds, but there isn't any language about elements as to how Design and Build contracts would be free of even the potential of conflict of interest, lobbying, or 'back room deals'. I do think language should have been included in a part of the charter concerning the rights and limitations authorized in our city charter so as to confirm that Design and Build is never unduly influenced.
Prevailing Wage Guidelines
Anyone with slightly more than a marginal knowledge of the charter city measure knows that one of the first things that will be done if a charter is approved is that our current City Council will go forward with full exemptions of prevailing wage guidelines (PWG) for municipally funded municipal projects.
I feel it would have been more honest from supporters, including the five residents that will very probably vote for full exemptions, our City Council members, to have placed the full exemption elements as part of the measure so that could be voted on.
This all may be moot since the California Supreme Court hasn't published any ruling on whether a charter city can be exempted from PWG, but the charter contains language about legal issues between the city and the State.
Also, since the majority of charter cities in our State and also within L.A. County have either no exemptions or only partial exemptions, voters should have been given the opportunity to vote for or against Measure C based partially on what most of us expect to see in the very near future after passage.
Personally, I think having no exemptions from PWG is better for our residents.
City Funding for Other Entities
Charter cities have the opportunity to allow taxpayer dollars, intended for the exclusive use within our city, to be used to assist projects or entities outside general law city status, including School Districts.
I think the charter should have included specific language as to whether our city would use the opportunity and if so, what entity would receive funds, how those funds must be used, and how much of our city's tax dollars would be allowed to be spent on those other entities.
Now mind you, it may never happen. But since a charter allows the possibility that it could happen and our city has provided city funds for non-city entities as long as there is a proven public benefit, the charter could have included language voters could use to help them decide whether to support or oppose our city becoming a charter city.
Personally, I think having the opportunity to help our School District with some funds for schools that are within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes is a good thing. However, others may want to help schools in locations other than our city and there are folks who don't want city tax revenues going to public schools at all.
Specific language about a charter city's opportunity to do something I consider to be a big thing, should have been included.
Initiatives and Election Processes
One of the major reasons for becoming a charter city is that there would exist opportunities for changing laws concerning the initiative processes and city election guidelines.
If you look back about 1-1/2 years ago and are honest with yourself, you will remember the Measure P, The Marymount Plan issues that actually are still under consideration.
Marymount College, a non-denominational private college, wants to have on-campus student housing constructed, along with every other element I supported and the city approved with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.
Marymount College and its supporters who want dorms is considered a special interest group in our city. That is a fact.
Special interest groups, whether they be a business-related entity such as Marymount College or resident-related group such as a group wanting dog parks in our city, have the legal right to petition the government for redress or election.
Charter city status allow the opportunity to have a majority of the members of any sitting City Council approve changes to existing elections laws within the city.
City Councils with charter cities also have the authority and opportunity to change how future Council member are elected and terms of service.
Since a city charter is a city's 'Constitution' the charter up for a vote in our city should have contained specific language, based on the intelligence and honesty of the authors of the charter and sitting City Council members, as to changes authorized to the local initiative process and Council membership.
I know for a fact that while Measure P was brewing, there was talk by some that, by becoming a charter city, R.P.V. could see changes in initiative process ordinances or the establishment thereof, so special interest groups would find it harder to have their own agendas presented to residents for a vote.
The supporters of The Marymount Plan still have opportunities to see that plan become law. They would have to place three members on our City Council, at one time, to get The Marymount Plan becoming law.
Personally, I do feel that our residents need better protection from special interest groups trying to use the ballot box to validate their agendas.
The four topics I feel should have been addressed in the charter make up what could be the three most important new rights granted to City Council members. The right or authority to use our tax dollars in ways most cities can't or choose not to do is pretty darn important, I feel.
The four also can be considered to have opportunities for corruption that are not now a factor in our city.
The four might create fundamental changes in how the city operates. I haven't found any other fundamental issue as important to address as these four, but there could be more other residents are considering.
I do side with opponents of Measure C in their statements about the charter not containing enough information or language for voters to use. That is why I am writing this post.
I do consider though that our voters will continue to elect bright, honest, and passionate representatives on our City Council.
But as we saw with Measure P, there are elements within our city that have agendas differing than what the majority of our residents want.
Yes, we have had a pretty good run during the last 38 years. Yes, we do have monies in reserve.
But I feel protecting funds for our city and probably saving taxpayer funds going to a Design and Build opportunity currently outweigh going from a general law city to a charter city.
Thank you.
P.S. Neither the Yes on C or No on C campaigns may use any of this post in their literature, advertising, or public statements as supportive or opposing the vote on March 8, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment