Doing The Molasses Back Stroke Again

 HEARING THE "SKATERS WALTZ" IN THE BACKGROUND
Around and around they went last night, circumscribing pirouettes, big crossing arcs and tightly-focused spins like Olympic figure skaters until they eventually reached something resembling decisions.  Yes, it was another fascinating meeting of the Costa Mesa Charter Committee - their final one of the year.

ONE MORE TIME...
Facilitated by Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and Dr. Mike Decker, the committee charged by the City Council several months ago to come up with a Charter for the city that might have a better chance before the voters next November than Jim Righeimer's disastrous document did a year ago.

BETTER SLOW THAN SLOPPY, BUT...
To say the progress has been slow vastly understates the pace at which this group has been operating.  Don't get me wrong - better slow and steady than fast and sloppy, but sometimes those of us who attend these meetings want to scream out in frustration as the same conversations happen over and over and over and over again.  You get the idea, right?

DUMPING PROPERTY TAXES?
First item on the agenda, HERE, was member Hank Panian's proposal - in the interest of property tax equity - to phase out the collection of Property Taxes, HERE.  Panian - by far the senior member of the committee - was also a member of the very first attempt at converting Costa Mesa to a Charter City back in the 1970s.  He is a revered educator in our city and a highly respected volunteer in the community.  When he speaks, folks listen.  He was supposed to make his pitch at the last meeting, but it was pushed out until last night because the committee stretched things out at that one, too.

NO RESOLUTION - NEED MORE INFORMATION
I read Panian's report and thought this idea would go down in flames with very little discussion.  I was wrong.  The committee listened courteously and asked excellent questions of Panian and Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent.  Eventually, after nearly forty-five minutes, it was agreed that the committee needed more specific information from the staff before proceeding.  That's kind of how the whole night went, as it turned out.

BUDGET RESERVES
Next up was the discussion of City Budget Reserves, HERE.  Dunivent opened by telling the committee that he was making a presentation to city staff on some new budget policies which would mean:
1) A specific requirement for 1% of the General Fund Revenues to be used to replenish Reserves and
2) Between 5 and 7.5% of General Fund Revenues must be used for Capital Projects.

WRONG, AGAIN!
When I heard that I thought the committee, with very little discussion, would probably wait until that proposal was fleshed out by the staff before tackling any overture for Charter language on the issue.  I was wrong - again.

OH, MY HEAD HURTS!
Nope, once again they waltz around with this issue to the point that my head was spinning, circling back on previous statements and positions for nearly an hour.  Eventually they decided to - wait for it - carry it over to the next meeting.  By this time I was joining attorney Yolanda Summerhill in seeking divine intervention, but it didn't come.

COUNCIL COMPENSATION - AGAIN
Next up was the issue of Council Compensation, HERE - which had been thoroughly flogged at the last meeting.  Again, I thought that, since this issue had been pretty well wrung-out previously, it might result in a rapid resolution last night.  Wrong, again!  In baseball I'd be "out" by now.

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS AND MORE QUESTIONS!
Round and round the discussion went.  Is a council member an employee?  If so, must he be treated as such under labor laws?  We thought we agreed last time to pay them a flat stipend and let it take care of any medical/pension choices they might make!  Should a council member even have a pension?  On and on and on....  It was decided that there needed to be input from Human Resources on the personnel elements of this question.  Most committee members opined that council members shouldn't have pensions, but the issue is long from resolved.  I had to smile when committee member Tea Party Tom Pollitt - maybe the strongest advocate of Jim Righeimer's Charter on the committee - said in frustration, "Why don't we just use General Law?"  That's a refrain many observers have muttered to ourselves as this painful process has unfolded over the many months the committee has met.

UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY
Because of the lateness of the hour Bauermeister proposed shoving the Unfunded Pension Liability issue, HERE, off to the next meeting since the Pension Oversight Committee expects to have important recommendations at that time.  That also should have been simple, but member Gene Hutchins - for whom the Unfunded Pension Liability has become his own personal crusade - stretched out what could have been a one-word answer (yes), into another fifteen minute discussion of the issue, including using a bottle of water as a prop.

MEASURING PROGRESS CAREFULLY
So, three hours later and four agenda items put on pause until the next meeting.  That doesn't mean there wasn't some valuable discussion last night - there certainly was.  What it means to me, though, is that Bauermeister's expectation that the committee will actually have a viable document to present to the City Council by his target date of February 26, 2014 is extremely optimistic.  The committee is scheduled to meet four times between now and that date, including that meeting.  We'll have a much better handle on it following their next meeting on January 8, 2014.

AMIABLE ADVERSARIES
An observation: The committee, despite the circular path they take on almost every issue, has remained civil and generally followed the rules of decorum they established in the very beginning.  I've been impressed with the quality of some of the arguments, on both sides of issues.  Maybe "argument" is a little too strong.  "Debate" may be a better word.  There is a core group on the committee that is obviously well-prepared for this task and have the logical, analytical thought processes and oratorical skills to craft and deliver a coherent message.  Yes, there are clearly very divergent views among the members, but it's not unusual to have folks who appear to be polar opposites agree with each other on important issues.  I'm encouraged by that fact.

WAIT AND SEE...
Until they get down to the end - when the language of the final document is hammered out - I'm still not sure whether they will produce a document the voters will accept.  After all is said and done, the goal is to produce a document that will improve the governance of our city by trading state-mandated safeguards and controls we enjoy as a General Law city for more local control that the public will buy into.  With the recent legislation that took the Prevailing Wage issue off the table, the single-biggest reason for even considering a Charter form of government is now gone.  And, there is absolutely no assurance the council will agree with their proposal, either.  We'll see..

Charter Committee Meets Again Tonight

THE LOW CRAWL CONTINUES
The Costa Mesa Charter Committee meets again this evening at 6:00 p.m. in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) next door to the Police Headquarters to continue their long, slow crawl toward the creation of what I consider to be an unnecessary charter.  You can read the agenda HERE.


A LITTLE HISTORY
You may find it interesting to review the minutes of two recent meetings, HERE, to get a feel for the progress this group has been making under the faciliation of Pastor Mike Decker and Estancia High School Principal Kirk Bauremeister.

COUNCIL PENSIONS
On the agenda there is an item, #8B, noted as "Governance/Financial/Personnel" in which a discussion of pensions for council members is anticipated.  You can read the staff report HERE.

MORE ON "PREVAILING WAGES"
And, although this committee finally nailed down their verbiage for a "Prevailing Wage" clause in their proposed charter, included in the staff report, HERE, is correspondence from the State Director of Industrial Relations relating to that issue in Sacramento and San Marcos.

THE TEACHER SPEAKS
And, on the agenda as well, resident and member Hank Panian - highly-respected long time resident, educator and member of the first Charter Committee four decades ago - will make a presentation to the committee on "Property Tax Inequity".

BE THERE OR....
If you care about the work this committee is doing, join the other half-dozen or so of your neighbors and me as we watch this process unfold.  If you care to address the committee you'll be given 2 minutes to do so.

Charter Committee Glacier Continues Its Slow Progress

 ONCE AGAIN INTO THE BREECH....
Attending yet another meeting of the Costa Mesa Charter Committee, the group appointed by the City Council to prepare a charter whether we need one or not, was another very frustrating experience.  I'd missed the last two, so I had to re-acquaint myself with the ponderously slow pace that this group takes as it slogs its way toward the creation of a document for the City Council to consider some time next year.

SLOW PROGRESS
This was the ninth meeting since the committee began its task late in June and every one has been like watching sap run.  Progress comes slowly for this group.  Tonight only nine of the thirteen members were present, so some decisions that might have been made were tabled until a later date.  To give you an idea of the "progress" they've made, here's the text of the elements of the Charter on which they've tentatively agreed upon so far:

PREVAILING WAGES LANGUAGE STILL THERE
As you can see, this includes language rejecting the payment of so-called "Prevailing Wages", the text of which was finally agreed upon at the last meeting.  During the meeting last night there was a short discussion about the need for this language in light of recently-passed Senate Bill 7, which changes the rules regarding Prevailing Wages and imposes severe penalties for Charter cities that fail to comply.  The committee decided to just leave the language in until they see if there will be a legal challenge to SB 7.

COUNCIL COMPENSATION
The issue of City Council Compensation was discussed at length, but no real decision was made.  That conversation will continue at the next meeting in November.  Opinions varied widely as the group kicked it around, ranging from some who thought they should be paid nothing to those who thought they should be paid more.  Some thought they should have no pension while others disagreed.  Funny, nobody mentioned that a previous council approved a pay cut, which remains in effect today.  Each council member currently makes $904.40 per month, plus amounts for Medical and Pensions added to that number.  Nobody expressed what they thought the council SHOULD make, though.

UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITIES
Near the end of the meeting the group began discussing Unfunded Pension Liabilities, laying the groundwork for a thorough discussion at the next meeting.  Presently they have insufficient information to proceed.  Members want specifics about the actual scope of the unfunded liability issue.  Following that discussion the plan now is to wait for the Pension Oversight Committee to hear a presentation by a representative of CalPERS within the next couple weeks, then have the Finance Director and, perhaps, the Chair of that committee, make presentations to the Charter Committee.  It's likely those presentations will take place in their December meeting.  Because of holiday scheduling they will only meet twice more before the end of the year.

STICKING WITH THE PROCESS
Don't get me wrong when I complain about the pace of these meetings.  From the beginning the committee chose the methodology and are sticking with it.  I think most of the members arrive prepared to do the work, although a few clearly have not done their homework before the meeting.  That leads to some bizarre discussions in which the conversations seem to go round and round in a never-ending circle.  And, one or two of the members seem to be in an almost perpetual state of confusion.  They chose to put the tough issues up front, so it's likely that progress will come more quickly as they move into theoretically less controversial issues over the next few months.  We'll see.

WHAT'S THE DEADLINE?
Among the questions asked late in the meeting was one that dealt with the schedule they are on.  Members wanted to know when they had to have their work product ready for the City Council to consider in order to get it on the November, 2014 ballot.  Although no definitive answer was given, Attorney Kim Barlow did say that it must be ready for submission no later than 95 days before the election, which would mean the end of July next year.  Prior to that, though, there are two public hearings that are required, which backs it up further.  Based on the way the last Charter scheme was handled, it's likely that this group will have to get their job done by February or March to make the ballot next year.  The pace that is being followed makes that time frame very tenuous.

TWO MEETINGS TO GO THIS YEAR
The committee meets next on November 13th and then on December 11th.  We'll be keeping our fingers crossed that progress will be made by then.

Costa Mesa Charter Committee Meeting Tomorrow

MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 P.M.
The Costa Mesa Charter Committee meets again tomorrow, October 23, 2013 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) near the Costa Mesa Police headquarters.  You can read the agenda for that meeting HERE.

ON THE AGENDA
Scheduled for discussion, under "Governance" are "Firewall between CEO and Council Members", HERE, local control in decision making, and "Compensation of Council Members and top management", HERE.

COMMENTS
If you're interested, you can also review the comments submitted by committee members to the other members via the City Clerk, HERE.  These comments are anonymous - curious practice - but it does give you a sense of the views of some members.

PREVAILING WAGE ISSUE NOW IRRELEVANT
Snowbound, I missed the past two meetings of this committee, which made some "progress" when it finally cobbled together language regarding the Prevailing Wage issue.  However, since that decision Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 7, which severely penalizes cities - including Charter cities - if they fail to pay prevailing wages on certain projects.  It will be interesting to see if this issue is discussed tomorrow - it's not on the agenda.  Since two members of the public who regularly attend the meetings, Charles Mooney and Mike Harmanos, published letters to the editor in the Daily Pilot today, HERE, addressing this issue, I suspect it is likely that one or both of them may choose to address it with the committee during their two-minute Public Comments opportunity.

TIME TO ABANDON THIS EFFORT
In my opinion, going forward with any consideration of a charter at this time is a colossal waste of time.  The cornerstone of the plan for this change in municipal governance as espoused by its primary sponsor, Mayor Jim Righeimer, was to save the community tons of cash by eliminating the Prevailing Wage requirement.  Whether that would have been the case has become a moot point now.  In my view, there is no longer any reason to abandon the protections provided to us as a General Law city - not that there ever was in the first place.  Although I hope rational folks within the City government will realize the folly of moving forward with this process and call it off, I doubt that will happen.  No, these volunteers and the folks facilitating their actions will just plow forward to present a document to the council that will have virtually no chance of passage if it reaches the November, 2015 ballot.

SOMETIMES CONTENTIOUS PROCESS
So, if you enjoy watching sausage being made by a committee that is usually cordial and compatible, although their opinions differ greatly on key issues, join us at the EOC.  It's my understanding that the last meeting included some fireworks that caused one member to storm out in anger.  See you there...

Governor Brown Signs Prevailing Wage Bill*

THROWN BACK INTO THE BATTLES
This morning I planned to ease back into discussions of Costa Mesa issues that happened while I was on my little vacation, but the rising sun brought news that flung me back into the saddle a little more abruptly than I anticipated.

GOVERNOR SIGNS PREVAILING WAGE BILL
According to news this morning, yesterday Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 7 into law and most likely sent hundreds of local politicians into a collective frenzy.  Certainly some of our local elected leaders will begin frothing on this issue as soon as they finish their granola this morning.

BI-PARTISAN BILL
SB7 - a bi-partisan bill co-authored by by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D- Sacramento) and Senator Anthony Cannella (R- Ceres), limits charter cities authority on the use of prevailing wage by imposing financial penalties on them.

A FEW OF MANY LINKS
As you can imagine, this has been a polarizing bill, with the 51 Charter Cities specifically targeted fighting hard against its passage and labor organizations lobbying in support of its passage.  I expect the news media will be full of comments today by parties on both sides.  In the meantime, here are a few links for you to consider for background;

Senate Bill 7 - HERE
Capitol Week announcing the signing today, HERE.
California League of Cities view, HERE.
Public CEO on SB7, HERE
Construction Law Firm Bowles & Verna on the bill, HERE
Association of California Cities, Orange County on the bill, HERE
*This is from Public CEO this morning, HERE.

WAITING FOR THE RHETORIC
A couple things are certain.  In short order this morning we will likely hear from Mayor Jim Righeimer on this issue, either as a solitary observer or as a member of a panel of elected officials decrying its passage.  And, the Costa Mesa Charter Committee will now have to revisit the hard-fought language they finally agreed upon at their last meeting that would have precluded Costa Mesa from being bound by the prevailing wage rules.

A NEW BALL GAME
This is no small development, since Righeimer made the prevailing wage issue the cornerstone of his failed Charter attempt last year and, through his surrogates on the current committee, this effort, as well.  All along his mantra has been that Costa Mesa should be a Charter City to save "millions" on projects.  The passage of SB 7 kicks that argument squarely in the teeth.  Without the prevailing wage issue on which to build a new Charter scheme it's likely the voters will - AGAIN - find little to attract them to changing the foundational form of government in this city.

THE FAT LADY IS ONLY HUMMING RIGHT NOW
This battle is probably not over yet.  Through many of the opinions found via a Google search it's clear that some factions seem poised to challenge the constitutionality of SB 7.  We'll see.

Slooooow Progress At Charter Committee Meeting

PAINFUL!
Well, the grumpy old fella from Mesa North was correct.  Watching the Costa Mesa Charter Committee attempt to cobble together a document is akin to watching grass grow.  You can read the agenda HERE.

CONSIDER "WHY?"
A dozen people observed the proceedings.  Three spoke during the brief Public Comments segment.  Resident Robin Leffler expressed concern that the foundational question - Should Costa Mesa consider becoming a Charter City, and why? - has not been addressed.  She expressed the opinion that, having watched the last couple meetings drag slowly along, perhaps if that question is answered first it might make their process easier to manage.

WIDER FOCUS
Resident James Bridges echoed much of what Leffler said and suggested a little wider focus instead of working on small, specific areas of the charter.

EXAMPLES OF TROUBLED CITIES
Former councilman Jay Humphrey mentioned that he had been criticized at the last meeting because he brought up the City of Bell as an example of a problem charter city, so he promised not to do so again.  Instead, he assured the committee he would talk about other charter cities that are in trouble, like Vallejo, Vernon, San Bernardino, Stockton, Victorville, Vernon and Temple City.

 SLOGGING ALONG
The committee finally launched into their agenda - a discussion of possible wording for a Preamble for the Charter.  One would have thought this might be a pretty quick process, but NOTHING happens quickly with this group.  That was followed by a discussion of a section describing "Powers" of the charter.  After a very long time they ended up with this language: (click to enlarge)

PUBLIC CONTRACTING

They then launched into a discussion of Public Contracting, and tried to select language for that segment.  They went around and around, and finally agreed to permit member Kerry McCarthy to massage some of the preferred language, submit it to the legal staff for review and present it at the next meeting.  They got further snagged in a definition of establishing standards, procedures, etc.  They left that one on the table because of a potential conflict in the earlier segment.

PREVAILING WAGES
They struggled with a discussion of Openness as impacting public contracts and finally worked their way to the hot-button issue of Prevailing Wages.  Director of Public Services Ernesto Munoz presented a very quick staff report and advised the committee, using a chart he prepared for the discussion, that of the $18 million in public contracts scheduled for this fiscal year, more than $14 million MIGHT have been impacted if the City didn't have to use prevailing wages.  He could not give them more information because of the need to have staff time authorized by the city council.  Several members of the committee expressed the need for more numbers, so they could accurately assess the need for a change.  This issue will be thoroughly vetted at the next meeting in two weeks.

REACTIONS DEMONSTRATE THEIR BIAS'

I must observe that this issue evoked very partisan reactions among the committee members.  Those who were not in favor of a charter in the first place may have been overwhelmed by the large number on the committee who are clearly, and vocally, supportive of using the charter to get rid of the prevailing wage provisions.  Preliminarily, it certainly looks as though the Prevailing Wage issue will be included in the Charter.  We'll soon find out.  The next meeting is at the same place - the Emergency Operations Center - at the same time - 6:00 - on September 25th.  I expect a raucous meeting that evening.

SB311 Signed - Pressure Off Charter Committee

GOOD NEWS LAST NIGHT!
Near the end of the Costa Mesa Charter Committee meeting last night in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), attorney Yolanda Summerhill told the committee and facilitators Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and Dr. Mike Decker that Senate Bill 311 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown, which means that, in general terms, most ballot measures involving charters may ONLY be placed on a General Election ballot.  She affirmed that, if this committee does, in fact, move forward with a recommendation for a charter to the City Council, they have a little more time on their hands now.  The earliest a charter proposal could be placed before the voters would be November, 2014, during the General Election.  Mayor Jim Righeimer wanted their work-product to be on the Primary ballot in June of next year.

MORE TIME TO CRAFT A CHARTER
This, of course, is good news for the residents of Costa Mesa, since the committee now has more time to craft a proper charter and no longer have to worry about being mired in minutia.  They now have several months more to do the work.  I'm not sure all the members will view this as a good idea.

A SMALL CROWD ATTENDED
A few residents and other visitors spoke to the committee, outlining their thoughts about the charter process.  The "Prevailing Wage" issue is one that will soon be discussed at length, so representatives from labor and employer groups expressed their views on that subject.

NO "OFFICERS" AT THIS TIME
This meeting of the committee seemed to run fairly smoothly - a fact acknowledged by several members as they addressed the agendized item about whether to name a Chairman and Vice Chairman.  The group seems to be satisfied with the facilitation model that's being followed now.  Tea Party Tom Pollitt opined that having a Chairman would be good because, once the committee completed its assignment, the media would have someone to ask questions of.  In case you're wondering, that wasn't the strangest thing he said last night.  So, the committee will continue with the facilitation of Bauermeister and Decker.  A good decision.

LEG BONE CONNECTED TO THE KNEE BONE...
Early in the meeting the committee made two decisions that created the beginning bones in the skeleton of what may be a charter for the city.  They agreed to call the city "Costa Mesa" and agreed that the current boundaries be codified.  If this sounds like something that probably should have been done within the first five minutes of the first meeting, you may be right.  But, then, you probably have not been following the proceedings very closely.  NOTHING happens quickly, especially when significant chunks of time were wasted at at least two meetings trying to resolve the whole "Invocation" issue posed by Tea Party Tom.

RESOLVING DEFINITIONS
Again, some issues that you'd have thought should have been resolved earlier in this process - definitions of some basic terms - were discussed.  Those were:
Charter
Transparency
Openness
Retention
Firewalling
Quality
Prevailing Wages

Yeah, I know.. as I said before, NOTHING happens quickly.

ERNESTO SAVES THE DAY - AGAIN
Once again, the professionalism and presence of Director of Public Services, Ernesto Munoz, was the high point of the meeting.  As requested by the committee at the previous meeting, he prepared a memo outlining the current Labor Compliance Procedures, including an extensive list - fourteen (14) items - that outlined steps the staff took during the processing of contracts for the City.  Several members expressed admiration that the staff followed such a comprehensive plan as part of their work assignments.  More than once we heard members exclaim, "I didn't know about that!".  Of course, why would they, or any member of the public?  The memo just captured how the staff goes about doing its job without fanfare, but with a very high level of professionalism.

TIGHTENED FOCUS NEEDED
The committee continues to move slowly through the process they originally prescribed, occasionally getting sidetracked by peripheral dialogue by their members.  That practice needs to be tightened-up or this process will still be dragging along next summer.  One of the problems seems to be the inability of some members to stay focused on the issue at hand.  One member, for example, just had to bring up the unfunded pension liability, which was superfluous to the discussion at the time.


ANOTHER LEGAL REVIEW
Much discussion was held on whether certain phrases should actually be part of the charter, or just part of the preamble.  Tea Party Tom, for example, seemed firm that he wanted a phrase he created to be a major part of the charter.  It was so broad that it basically said the City Council could do anything it wanted.  Wiser folks prevailed and the phrase was sent to the legal folks for an opinion.

ADMISSION
There were a few amusing moments last night.  For example, during the discussions member Harold Weitzberg frequently expressed the opinion that the committee should be wary of changing something that's not broken.  At one point Ron Amburgey said, "I hate to admit it, but I agree with Harold." There was a whole lot of smiling after that one.

A LITTLE TIME TO CHAT
The committee seems to have settled in with a pretty darn collegial approach to discussing important issues.  There was generally respect for each others views and cordial discussion.  However, Brett Eckles suggested that time on the agenda be carved out for each member to just "talk" - to say what may be a specific concern for them.  There was agreement from the group, with others chiming in, indicating they felt just a little stifled by the format.

MIS-APPLICATION OF COIN
One of the frustrating moments for me was the stubborn insistence of member Gene Hutchins that the COIN policy be utilized for ALL contracts.  You may recall that COIN was hatched by Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger to, theoretically, provide more transparency to the labor contract negotiations.  It is specifically NOT designed for public service contracts, but Hutchins just wouldn't let it go.  He kept saying that COIN was working just fine when, in fact, we don't have any idea if it will work at all.  He sounded like he was just parroting things Mensinger says all the time with no facts to back him up.  In the end, the issue was passed to the legal time for an opinion.  There's a whole lot of that going on.

ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT FOR ERNESTO
By the time the meeting finally wrapped up, nearly three and half hours later, Munoz had an assignment to provide information at the next meeting about how costs might have differed on recent contracts IF prevailing wages had NOT been used.  This is another big assignment for him, but he seemed willing to provide the committee the information.  And, Summerhill took away with her several items to research before the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING
Speaking which, the committee will next meet in the EOC on September 11, 2013 beginning at 6:00 p.m.

************

COMMENT REGISTRATION REMINDER

Remember, you MUST register BEFORE you attempt to post a comment on this blog.  Click HERE for the details.