SR-11-26-2013-11ACity Council Meeting: November 26, 2013
Agenda Item: OA
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Modification to City Policy on Term Limits for City Boards and
Commissions
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying the
City's policy on term limits for City Boards and Commissions.
Executive Summary
Council directed staff to prepare a resolution that would modify term limits applicable to
service on City boards and commissions in order to ensure that bodies possess and
maintain the requisite expertise for their particular work.
Background
At its meeting of September 10 2013, Council considered making an appointment to
the Landmarks Commission and noted that the City's current policies governing
appointments to boards and commissions might preclude reappointment of a current
commissioner who wants to continue his service but may be termed out under
Resolution 10690. That resolution, which establishes policies for City boards,
commissions and regional advisory boards, generally limits board and commission
members to two terms. However, it also makes provision for third terms. Specifically, a
third term may be authorized by a two- thirds vote. However, the resolution also states:
"the total number of members that may serve a third consecutive term on a board or
commission at the same [time] is limited to no more than one -third of the membership of
that board or commission, but the Council may, by two - thirds vote, make an exception
in order to fill positions on boards and commissions that have specific, qualifications,
such as professional standing or expertise."
1
The meaning and application of this provision is somewhat unclear. The quoted
restriction could apply to a particular filling a specific seat or filling any vacancy on the
body. Staff interprets the limitation as applying to filling specific seats designated by law
as requiring expertise. This interpretation appears to be consistent with the purposes of
the term limits. As explained in Council's findings, they were adopted in order to
maximize opportunities for resident participation in City government, while also ensuring
" the flexibility necessary to ensure that boards and commissions have the expertise
and qualification necessary to fulfill their duties ".
Given the possible ambiguity in the current exception to the term limit and in order to
ensure the best balance between the goals of maximizing opportunity for participation
and ensuring adequate expertise, Council directed staff to prepare a proposed
modification to current policy that could be considered prior to resuming its
consideration of the appointment to the Landmarks Commission.
Discussion
The attached proposed resolution would revise Section I.F. of the current resolution to
specify that, by a two- thirds vote, the Council may make an appointment that will result
in more than one -third of the members serving their third consecutive terms for any
board or commission that requires specific qualifications, professional standing or
expertise for any seat. This resolution to the Council's concerns is recommended
because it preserves the balance between Council's goals of maximizing opportunities
for public participation and also ensuring that bodies possess adequate expertise.
The requirements for appointment to most City boards and commissions do not include
special expertise, qualifications or professional standing. However, there are a few
exceptions. For example, Municipal Code Section 9.32.020 requires that at least two
board members must be professional architects and also establishes other
requirements for members. And, Section 9.36.040 requires that the Landmarks
2
Commission include at least one registered architect and "to the highest extent
practicable ".
The inclusion of the requirements for special expertise on particular boards and
commissions reflects the Council's judgment that such expertise would facilitate the
body's work. Presumably, additional expertise, would likewise be valuable to the body.
However, broadening any exception to term limits will lessen the number of
opportunities available for community members, who do not serve on boards and
commissions to become involved. Therefore, staff recommends the proposed
modification because it would give the Council greater flexibility to make reappointments
to those bodies that need special expertise but would maintain the current term
limitations as to other boards and commissions.
Alternatives
There are many alternatives that Council could consider in striking the best balance
between maximizing opportunities for public participation and ensuring adequate
expertise on legislative bodies. For example, Council could delete Subsection F of the
resolution, thereby eliminating the language that limits third -term membership to one -
third of all bodies. Or, Council could maintain Subsection F (and the one -third limitation)
but give itself greater flexibility by making the override language apply to all City boards
and commissions. Or, Council could eliminate term limits altogether. But, staff
recommends against the alternative because it may be inconsistent with the Council's
strong commitment to facilitating public participation in City government.
3
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
�
Mar h Jo s outrie Rod Gould
City torn y City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution (Strike Out Version)
M
Reference:
Attachment is located at
Term Limits for Ci
Commissions - Ci
Monica
Boards &
of Santa