Loading...
08-01-1996 Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 1996 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA August I, 1996 The City Council of the City of Orange, California convened on August I, 1996 at 5:30 P.M. in a Special Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 5:30 P.M. SESSION 1. OPENING 1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Councilman Slater. 1.2 ROLL CALL PRESENT - Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT - Barrera 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council agenda ofa special meeting of August I, 1996 at Orange Civic Center, and Main Library,all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 24 hours before commencement of said special meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the Office of the City Clerk.MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater ABSENT - Barrera The Consent Calendar was approved as recommended.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. REPORTS FROM MAYOR COONTZ - None 4. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS - None 5. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - None PAGEl 1 - -- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August l, 1996 7. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS Tape 52 8. 1 Discussion of Argument in Favor of Term Limit Measure for the November 5, 1996 ballot. Mayor Coontz announced the Special Meeting was called to discuss legal questions regarding the ballot argument on the term limit measure. Discussion regarding the ballot argument was not agendized but was discussed orally under Councilmembers Reports at the July 9, 1996 Council meeting. There was no clear understanding or conclusions at the meeting as to how the ballot argument would be presented to the public. There has been unanimous support on the Council for term limits and the voters need to know it. The City Attorney would let the Council know what the solutions or options are to assist them in formally addressing the questions. Mayor Coontz indicated both she and Councilman Spurgeon signed the ballot argument and it had been sent to the Registrar of Voters.The Interim City Attorney commented the Mayor called the Special Meeting to clear up the misunderstanding as to how the argument would be presented and submitted to the Registrar. He understood the Registrar would allow submittal of the argument with whatever signatures the Council authorizes by Monday morning. The Code provides the legislative body or any members of the legislative body may file a written argument and that up to five signatures may appear with any argument, so there would be the option of having all Councilmembers sign it.Councilman Slater asked the City Attorney if there is any conflict between his impartial analysis and the ballot argument?The Interim City Attorney responded he was not previewed of all the history of how the Ordinance was prepared. However, he did have a concern about the fact that the question is a bit more limited than the Ordinance was. His impartial analysis was based on the question in the Resolution, which is not entirely inconsistent, but seems to go a little beyond, indicating he did have a concern about it.Mayor Coontz indicated the City Attorney's office did not have an opportunity to look at the ballot argument before it was sent at the last hour to the Registrar of Voters.Councilman Murphy commented the intent and the understanding of the Council was that since Councilman Spurgeon authored the initial term limits pro-argument with a 4-0 vote ( Councilman Steiner was absent) in 1992, and Mayor Coontz, Mayor pro tem Barrera and Councilman Spurgeon are still on the Council today, it would be mirrored this time. The reason it was raised at the July 9th meeting was to be sure there were no concerns. Since there was a concurrence,although it was not under an agendized item, Councilman Spurgeon was authorized by Council to author an argument similar to the one in 1992. The voting public overwhelmingly in 1992 indicated their belief in term limits as well as the Council.PAGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 1, 1996 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) Mayor Coontz stated that after looking at the July 9th minutes and the City Attorney listening to the tape from the meeting, she did not believe the City Manager understood the issue, indicating she did not. The words used were "to author", indicating there is more than one definition for the word "author". It is necessary to have the Special Meeting because it was implied that all members of the Council would be able to view the argument and that all would receive it in good time, indicating the first time she saw the argument was at 4:00 p.m. on July 30, the deadline for submittal. In addition, any discussion that took place at the July 9th Council meeting is not legally binding because it was not an agendized item, indicating she assumed those that had presented it to Council would agendize it. The special meeting needs to legally bind whatever is done, stating the measure is a $6,000 expenditure on behalf of the citizens of Orange, the taxpayers. Any members of the Council that support the argument should have the opportunity to sign it. She inquired whether Councilman Spurgeon could show authorship on the argument and Council's names also be listed, which would indicate their unanimous support of term limits. The Interim City Attorney responded the Election's Code does not call out whether the word author" could be used, it simply states that the members may file an argument in support, and does not state how the Registrar would list them in the ballot; neither does the Code call out the order of the names on the ballot, as Council would have to decide upon that issue. The City Clerk commented that by using the word "author" after Councilman Spurgeon's name would be altering the argument. The names and the arrangement of the names on the ballot are not a concern of the County Registrar. The purpose of the meeting is for Council to make a decision on whose name is to appear on the direct argument. Councilman Slater asked Mayor Coontz if there is anything she is unhappy with in terms of the argument; indicating the first sentence of the argument states, 'The Orange City Council has placed on the ballot.. ..". Mayor Coontz responded she is not concerned with that part of the ballot argument. The Interim City Attorney indicated there was a problem with the ballot argument, but it would not be worth the exercise to take out the one sentence that talks about 14 years. Further, the argument does not fit in with the draft Ordinance because no one had checked it. The Interim City Attorney commented the only remedy, if there is an inaccuracy or problem with the ballot argument, would be for any citizen or the elections official, the City Clerk, to bring a writ of mandate to strike the misleading information from the ballot argument. Councilman Murphy commented there was not a concern in 1992 when this exact issue occurred, indicating he was confident reasonable monies then were expended on behalf of the taxpayers. Mayor Coontz said she did not see the ballot argument in 1992, and this argument may have been handled the same way it was handled then, whereby only three Councilmembers saw it. She indicated Councilman Slater had been called two weeks ago and had discussed the proposed ballot argument. PAGE 3 1--- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August I, 1996 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) Councilman Slater stated the ballot argument was discussed with him and he saw a proposed copy of the argument, indicating he did not suggest any changes to it. Mayor Coontz stated there are procedures, policies and laws, regarding information at the Council level and to the public. The minutes and the understanding at the Council meeting of July 9th was the ballot argument would be shared with all members ofthe Council. The issue has become very difficult and costly on top of the $6,000. The Council has consistently been in favor of term limits, regardless of what happened in 1992, and the public needs to know the entire Council supports term limits, indicating she should be able to put her name on the argument. Councilman Murphy responded a unilateral decision cannot be made as to who puts their name on the ballot argument, indicating it is a decision of the body and an individual member of the Council does not have the right to that ability without bringing it back. The original measure was submitted to the City Clerk and altered by a second signature being added to it. He indicated he is in support of the term limits and would like to stick with the original author of the term limits measure and give Councilman Spurgeon the opportunity to sign the argument. The minutes from the July 9th meeting stated that "Councilman Murphy suggested Councilman Spurgeon prepare and author a ballot argument in favor of term limits for Council review, prior to July 30, which is the deadline for ballot arguments". Mayor Coontz stated there was no indication the argument would not be a communal effort of the City Council, as the word "author" was used loosely. Councilman Slater commented on criticism that was given to the Council on the HH and II Measures because the Council did not sign it, indicating he would like to hear what the public has to say. The Interim City Attorney stated the issue before the Council is to authorize who will sign the written argument and that is the determination to be made by the Council. Mayor Coontz added that the Council did not vote on the issue of a ballot argument, as it was not properly agendized at the July 9th meeting, and that was also the purpose of the meeting. The Interim City Attorney responded it is too late, according to the County, to do anything about the author of the ballot argument issue, however, it could be ratified. Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer Street, commented she was against Measures HH & II because the Council wrote it and residents ofthe community signed it, indicating the residents of Orange in support ofHH & II should have written their own argument; Measures HH & II were also done at the last minute; and she addressed the issue of the names on the ballot argument. PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August I, 1996 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) Adele Graves, (address omitted at request of speaker) expressed her disappointment with the meeting; commented the majority of the citizens of Orange do want term limits; it does not matter who the author is or who signs the argument; and it is important that the term limits measure appears on the November 5th ballot. Nick Lall, 6231 Mabury Avenue, commented that his understanding at the July 9th meeting was Councilman Spurgeon was authorized by Council to author the term limit ballot argument; expressed concern with the legislative body being used for election year politics; and indicated in Measures HH & II the Council was authorized to write the argument. The Interim City Attorney reported Resolution No. 8646, which was adopted by Council on June 11, 1996, authorizes all five Councilmembers to file an argument in favor ofthe City measure. Corinne Schreck, 446 N. James, commented she was shocked at the way Measures HH & II were handled and spoke in support of Councilman Spurgeon being the sole author of the ballot argument. Mayor Coontz indicated more communication with the staff, legal counsel and the City Manager's office would have solved the problem. The importance of activities of the City Council is that all elected officials on the Council have the opportunity to be aware of what is going on, and that policies, resolutions and ordinances should be followed regarding open communication, and not communication solely behind the scene. Councilman Slater commented the decision is difficult, however Councilman Spurgeon has spearheaded the term limit measure since it was discussed or placed on the ballot in 1992 and deserves credit for seeing it through. It was the intent that Councilman Spurgeon author the argument and sign it, indicating he was comfortable with it. The issue was not handled correctly and should have been agendized for the July 23"' meeting and finalized. Councilman Murphy stated he shared the Mayor's concern regarding communication and encouraged all Councilmembers to communicate. His suggestion at the July 9th meeting was to clarifY the process, as it had not been brought up at that point, indicating there would only be one more meeting prior to the July 30th deadline. MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Slater Murphy Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon, Slater Barrera Moved that the ballot argument be placed on the ballot as submitted by Councilman Spurgeon,and Councilman Spurgeon be the sole signer of the argument.Mayor Coontz stated the reason she is voting yes is because it is the will ofthe Council and she is in favor ofthe ballot argument, but not in favor of the way it was handled, indicating in the future things should be handled legally and not behind the scenes.PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August I, 1996 8. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) Mayor Coontz suggested the City Attorney's office, in conjunction with the City Clerk's office, keep track of deadlines for issues that come before the Council to allow time to review the issues, and any issues that go on the ballot be reviewed by the City Attorney's office. The Interim City Attorney indicated he could add or point out something in reviewing a ballot argument that Council has taken a position on, without destroying his ability to write an impartial analysis. 9. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Barbara DeNiro (address omitted at request of speaker), inquired about the status of the traffic signal at the Post Office; suggested the alley on the north side behind Sav-ons and the Toyota dealership be posted no parking for emergency vehicle access; and expressed concern with the Wal-Mart issue referenced in the local newspaper.The City Manager indicated he had cosigned a document authorizing the expenditure of funds for the signal at the Post Office; and the access problem to the alley would be referred the Fire Department. The posting of alleyways would have to be looked at within legal constraints of the Fire Code.Carole Walters, 534 N. Shaffer, commented all Councilmembers should have an equal opportunity to voice their opinions; and asked what happened to the Study Session that was to be scheduled for an Orange County Fire Department Study for $ 15,000?The City Manager responded he believed there was discussion to delay the decision and there was no further need to address it.Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, suggested when situations arise where there is the potential danger of a legal challenge to actions taken, especially in matters of initiatives, that the Council agree on an established procedure to be followed. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES ABSENT Murphy Slater Murphy, Mayor Coontz, Spurgeon Slater Barrera The City Council adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to Tuesday, August 6,1996 at 4:30 p.m. in the Weimer Room, 300 E. Chapman, Wal-Mart.Llu~-<?~ A'::kr ~CASSANDRAJ. HCART, CMC CITY CLERK Ie JOANNE C. COONTZ MAYOR PAGE 6 I -