SR-10-27-2015-8A 106-000-01
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Regular Meeting: October 27, 2015
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk , Records & Elections Services Department
Subject: Modification of Boards and Commissions Policies, Council Rules of Order,
and Amendments to the City’s Election Code
Recommended Action
Staff reco mmends that the City Council:
1) Adopt a resolution modifying the policies for City Boards, Commissions, and
Regional Advisory Boards to effectuate ethic s training requirements and modify
time limits for speaking at meetings; establish term limits for task fo rces; and
extend the rule of membership on one board/commission to other Council -
appointed members; and
2) Adopt a resolution modifying the Rules of Order and Procedure for the
Conduct of City Council meetings to revise the rules on donation of speaking
time and add a rule for disclosure for quasi -judicial matters ; and
3) Introduce an ordinance amending sections 11.04.010, 11.04.040, 11.04.090,
11.04.100 , and 11.04.165(c), and deleting sections 11.04.170 and exhibits from
Chapter 11.04 Elections of the Santa Moni ca Municipal Code to, among other
things, increase transparency .
Executive Summary
As recommended by the Institute for Local Government’s (ILG) Good Governance
Checklist, staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution modifying the policies
for City Boards, Commissions, and Regional Advisory Boards that require the City Clerk
to: provide the Council with member’s attendance records to AB 1234 Ethics Training
and make compliance a condition of continuing appointment for appointed officials.
Staff als o recommends setting service terms for task forces and limiting members of a
Council -appointed advisory group to serve in one group at a time to allow other citizens
to participate in local government.
After a review of Council meeting procedures, staff r ecommends Council adopt a
resolution modifying the Council’s Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of
Meetings to: revise Public Testimony rules to deny late requests to donate speaking
time and requests to donate time for Public Input (Agenda Item 14); and require
disclosure of off -record contacts regarding quasi -judicial items .
Staff’s final recommendation is to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 11.04
Elections of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to: 1) amend filing deadlines for
2 of 11
proponents of referend a in response to a 12 -Item Request to Place an Item on the
Council Agenda to ensure faster reporting time for referend a and account for deadlines
falling on City Hall’s closed -Fridays; 2) require mandatory electronic filing of campaign
disclosu re statements to streamline the filing , electronic publishing , and increase
election transparency; and 3) delete sections 11.04.170 (Acceptance of Petition) and
Exhibits to Chapter 11.04 to reduce liability exposure to the City and parallel State law
regar ding petition formats.
Discussion
Policies for City Boards, Commissions and Regional Advisory Boards
On October 7, 2005, the Governor signed Assembly Bill Number 1234 (AB 1234)
requiring that if a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to,
or reimburses the expenses of a member of its ‘legislative body’, that local agency’s
officials must receive training in ethics. While only members of the City Council and
Planning Commission, the City’s representative on the County Metropo litan Water
District Board and County West Vector Control District Board receive monetary
compensation per meeting, all board and commission members are eligible for
reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their public duties per
Resolutio n Number 6751 (CCS). The City Clerk and City Attorney provide biennial
Ethics Training Workshops to ensure that the City complies with AB 1234. Despite
providing City -training and free online training from the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC), an average of 25 members of the City’s 175 board and
commission members apparently fail to comply with AB 1234 training . T he Government
Code does not have penalties for failing to complete the required training.
Staff recommends that the Council charge the City Clerk to provide a list of members in
compliance with ethics training during the Annual Appointments process, and make
ethics training a required condition of members’ requests for re -appointment to ensure
full compliance. Should the Council disa gree with the recommendation, staff would
continue with current practice and provide a list of complying officials as requested by
the public.
Alternative techniques to encourage compliance are to: 1) create a financial penalty
where officials who have not complied with AB 1234 training would not receive
3 of 11
compensation or have expenses reimbursed until the completion of training; or 2) make
compliance a condition of agency service where non -compliant officials would be
rescinded of their appointment.
The second group of revisions w ould establish two -year terms for task force members;
and expand the policy of allowing membership on one board or commission to Council -
appointed task forces and committees . By establishing two -year terms for task force
member s, current/new members can commit to a defined term instead of an unknown
period, and staff can work around upcoming vacancies instead of rearranging meetings
due to unexpected resignations. Members wishing to extend their service would be
allowed to ser ve an indefinite number of two -year terms lasting until a task force's
objective is complete. The current policy prohibiting double membership only applies to
City boards and commissions, boards of non -profits and regional advisory boards. By
limiting Co uncil -appointed members to serve in no more than one advisory group at a
time, membership to the City's 24 groups can be opened up to other citizens who may
bring fresh perspectives and ideas, and the rule would be applied to more Council -
appointed members . Should a member's expertise be needed by more than one
board/commission, Council may make an exception , with a super majority vote. The
exception for the Building & Fire -Life Safety Commission w ould remain, because of the
Commission's infrequent meetin g schedule.
Staff recommends that the Council set two -year terms and no terms limits for task force
members; prohibit double membership for all Council -appointed members, except for
members of the Building & Fire -Life Safety Commissions; and allow any mem bers
currently serving o n more than one group to complete their terms. Should the Council
disagree with staff recommendation, no service terms would be set for established task
forces; future task forces may set terms as they are created; and members of t ask
forces and committees may continue to serve on more than one advisory group.
Other minor changes to the resolution consist of: updating the resolution with names of
newly formed boards, commissions, task force and committees; deleting references to
boards that no longer exist; incorporating established term limits for certain groups;
4 of 11
revising the City Clerk’s procedures on reviewing minutes and providing regular
attendance records, and clarifying the procedure for a board or commission to request
to remove members for non -attendance to meetings. The update for the City Clerk to
provide attendance reports from twice to once a year reflects current practice when
reports are provided to Council during the Annual Appointments process. The update to
chan ge the review of agendas and minutes from bi -annual to biennial also reflects
current practice as all agendas submitted to the City Clerk’s Office for posting are
reviewed prior to posting and minutes are reviewed biennially with the goal to achieve
unifor mity in content and format with the Council’s minutes.
Rules of Order and Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Meetings
At the January 14, 2014 Council meeting, Council amended the Rules of Order and
Procedure for the Conduct of Meetings to allow the public to donate an additional two
minutes of their speaking time to a designated speaker. After implementing the new
rule for over a year, staff encountered instances when requests to donate time were
submitted late and/or requests to donate time were s ubmitted for Public Input, and the
current rules did not provide sufficient direction on how to proceed. At a recent Council
meeting, a request to donate time was submitted late and the Council approved to hear
the speakers, but the designated speaker was given all four minutes whereas late and
single speakers are generally given one minute as a penalty. There also have been
several occasions when a member of the public donates time to another speaker for
general Public Input and takes advantage of the ti me donation rule by raising subject
matters that have previously been addressed by Council or that are not within the
Council’s jurisdiction.
Staff considers the maximum time limit of two minutes to be sufficient for the public to
address the Council on matters not listed on the agenda as the Council can always
exercise their power to give the speaker additional time to finish comments or answer
follow -up questions, or agendize the item for further discussion and public comment at a
future meeting. Addi tionally, members of the public are always welcome to contact the
Council on matters pertaining to the City outside of a meeting by mail, email, telephone
or in person. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council revise the rules denying all
5 of 11
late request s to donate time and all requests to donate time for general Public Input.
Should the Council disagree with the recommendations, staff would continue current
practice and accept late requests to donate time for one minute only and requests to
donate time for Public Input.
The second revision that staff recommends is to add a rule that the Council disclose off -
record contacts relating to quasi -judicial matters before voting on the matter. This
change would help ensure fairness and a complete record.
Othe r updates to the resolution are: changing the delivery date of the meeting packet
from the Wednesday before a Council meeting to Tuesday, revising the physical
agenda posting location of agendas from the Clerk’s Office to the City Hall Lobby,
revising the list of Categories and Order of Business by deleting Inspiration and revising
Special Ceremonial Agenda Items (Agenda item 2) to include brief updates from the
City Manager , and adding new boards and task forces to those that may report under
Reports of Bo ards & Commissions (Agenda Item 10).
Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 11.04 Elections
Disclosure Requirements During Signature Gathering Period for Referenda
At the July 10, 2001 Council meeting, staff proposed two methods ensuring the integrity
of t he initiative process and one method was to adopt new regulation relating to
financial disclosure. At the July 24, 2001 Council meeting, Council added section
11.04.165 creating additional disclosure filing requirements for committees supporting
and oppos ing ballot measures as the Political Reform Act only requires semi -annual or
quarterly reporting. It was also during this time when the Council first considered
electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements.
On January 7, 2015, the City Clerk’s Off ice received the attached 12 -Item form
(Attachment 4) requesting to place an item on the City Council agenda to amend
section 11.04.165(c) by revising the last two filing deadline s for committees raising or
spending funds to support or oppose a referendum and adding a fourth filing deadline.
6 of 11
As with petitions for initiatives, referenda and recalls, the signature gathering period is
30 days and the current filing deadlines for referend a are:
Number of Filing Periods Days of Filing Period Filing Deadlines
1 1 -5 10 th day of period
2 6 -20 25 th day of period
3 21 -30 60 th day after end of period
The author of the 12 -item form proposed to change the second deadline from the 25 th
day of the signature gathering period to the 24 th day, as the 25 th day falls on a Saturday
due to ordinances being adopted on Tuesdays which extends the deadline to Mondays.
The 24 th day would fall on Fridays but if Council is concerned with the deadline falling
on an alternate Friday when the City Clerk’s Office is closed, then it w as suggested to
change the deadline to the 23 rd day. The author also proposed to shorten the third filing
period from 60 days after the end of the gathering period to 7 days so that disclosure
statements are available to the Council and voters at an earli er time and that the
deadline will fall on Thursdays when the City Clerk’s Office is open. The last proposal
was to add a new filing requirement to record financial activity after the 30 day gathering
period.
A summary of the proposed changes are listed in the chart below:
Number of Filing Periods Days of Filing Period Filing Deadlines
1 1 -5 10 th day of period
2 6 -20 25 th 24 th or 23 rd
day of period
3 21 -30 60 th 7 th day after end of
period
4 Day after end of period
+14 days
No later than 1 week before
the public hearing
7 of 11
Staff finds the proposals reasonable and recommends that the Council amend section
11.04.165(c) to change the second filing deadline to the 24 th day, the third deadline to
seven days after the end of the 30 day gathering period, and c reate a fourth filing
deadline covering 14 days after the 30 day period and setting the deadline to 19 days
after the end of the gathering period, or five days later, and regardless of when petitions
are submitted. Although the second filing deadline may fall on a closed -Friday, filers
may meet this deadline by filing early or filing electronically if the Council mandates e -
filing of campaign statements.
Electronic Filing of Campaign Disclosure Statements
At the June 19, 2007 Council meeting, Council auth orized staff to purchase NetFile, an
electronic filing system for campaign disclosure statements, to improve the City’s
electoral process. On January 1, 2013, Government Code Section 84615 went into
effect allowing local government agencies to require ele cted officers, candidates,
committees and other persons required to file campaign statements and other
documents to file online or electronically with a local filing officer. Since 2013, over 20
California cities, including Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacram ento, Santa Barbara, and
Pasadena have passed paperless filing ordinances.
Prior to using NetFile , City Clerk staff posted scanned portable document formats
(PDFs ) of typed or handwritten campaign disclosure statements online making them
free and availabl e to the public. As the number of candidates and issues vary per
election, the number of campaign committees varies as well. However, the majority of
campaign committees use the electronic filing system and file electronically while the
rest file printed or handwritten hard copies with the Clerk’s Office. One reason that a
number of committees do not file electronically is that committees are still required to file
hard copies with candidates and treasurer’s wet signatures under the current law,
despite filing online. The only way to make hard copy statements available on the
website is for Clerk staff to continue to post PDFs.
Other reasons why committees do not file electronically are: a preference for paper
forms over other software or NetFile ; lit tle to no financial activity; and, although difficult
8 of 11
to prove, to reduce transparency. Although the City’s filing system assists with filing
and posting statements online, permitting a combination of filing methods allows
candidates and committees to pro vide different levels of transparency. For example,
the average voter could spend a longer time searching for particular contributors or
expenditures through handwritten or typed statements that went through the optical
character recognition (OCR) process than they would with an electronically filed
statement. Also, handwritten or typed statements would not easily retain and track
information from previous statements such as multiple donations from a contributor who
may reach the City’s contribution limit . In addition, current law does not prohibit
committees from filing electronically for one period and then filing a paper copy for the
next period which may cause information to be harder to track.
Advantages to electronic filing for the candidate, treas urer, and proponents/opponents
for measures, are that: access is free online so that candidates do not have to incur
costs for accounting software and services; information from most accounting software
is compatible with the system; information from previ ous statements are retained,
saving time on filing new statements; the software helps reduce data entry errors; and
statements are automatically posted online. For the voters advantages include : copies
of statements can be downloaded free of charge; infor mation can be exported to
spreadsheet software or the City’s new Open Data Program for analysis; and
statements are immediately available during evenings and weekend and do not require
waiting for Clerk staff to upload statements by the next business day. Advantages to
mandatory e -filing are that: deadlines can be met if they fall on closed Fridays; only one
statements needs to be filed preventing two different versions from being mistakenly
filed by paper and electronically; and paper, time and postage wo uld be saved by filing
electronically as opposed to hard copies.
The NetFile system meets the requirements of GC Section 84615 by accepting filings in
a standardize record format developed by the Secretary of State; ensures the integrity of
data transmitt ed, including safeguards to alter data; redacts confidential information
such as addresses; sends filers electronic confirmations that statements were received,
with the date and time, and a copy of the statement; permits electronic signatures on
9 of 11
statement s; provides data to the public in an easily understood format; and allows the
Clerk to maintain information for at least 10 years. GC 84615 also exempts smaller
campaigns that do not raise or spend $1,000 or more from filing electronically and may
continu e to paper statements. To prevent any hardship, the Clerk's Office offers a public
computer for NetFile, will provide training, and implement e -filing on January 1, 2016, to
allow time for information to be disseminated and filers to have sufficient train ings. This
would make the January – June 2016 semi -annual statements the first statements to be
filed electronically.
Transparency and helping voters make informed decisions were the original goals of
purchasing the electronic filing system. Limiting th e filing method to one method and
using the full functionality of the software would bring all candidates, committees and
proponents/opponents of measures up to a level playing field and move the City closer
to transparency goals. Therefore, staff recomme nds that Council amend the election
code regarding disclosure requirements for referendums as proposed by the originator
of the 12 -Item Form, and mandate electronic filing of campaign disclosure statements.
Should Council disagree with mandatory e -filing, staff recommends approving
recommendations from the 12 -Item Form and set the second filing deadline to the 23 rd
day of the period so that all deadlines fall on a business day. Alternatives to this
recommendation are to maintain the current filing schedul e and practice of accepting
non -electronic and electronic campaign statements.
Acceptance of Petitions and Samples
At the April 10, 1990 meeting Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance requiring
the City to provide sample formats for initiative pet itions that would help clarify legal
requirements that must be met in preparing a petition for an initiative, referendum or
amendment to the City Charter. At the February 4, 1992 meeting Council adopted an
ordinance adding exhibits of initiative petitions to the election code and charging the
City Clerk to review petitions prior to circulation and upon the request of circulators .
Current law requires the City Clerk to review the petitions within seven days, and if the
Clerk fails to reject the petitions d uring this time, then the format is presumed to be in
compliance. T he intent of the law was apparently to streamline the petition process .
10 of 11
Experience indicates that the City Clerk review does not streamline the process.
Moreover this section appears to create potential liability to the City as the City Clerk
may be viewed as not impartial to the process. The C it y of Berkeley provide d sample
petitions in its Municipal Code, but do es not require staff to review as to form . The C ity
of Beverly Hills revie ws petitions but do es not advise proponents on how to correct
petitions. Most California benchmark cities surveyed follow the State’s Election Code,
which is silent on the topic, and advise proponents to secure an elections attorney (see
Attachment E ). T herefore staff recommends that the Council delete sections 11.04.170
Acceptance of Petition and Exhibits to Chapter 11.04 of the City’s Elections Code to
reflect State Code.
Additional Amendments
Other proposed changes to the election code consist of: 1) amending section 11.04.010
Nomination of Candidates for the City Clerk to collect the filing fee at the time of filing
nomination papers rather than the time of issuing; and 2) amending section 11.04.090
Family Contributions to include contributions from s ame -sex spouses as separate and
not aggregated contributions. Staff recommends amending these sections to reflect the
State Election Code and account for same -sex marriages.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or bud get action necessary as a result of the
recommended actions . Funds for NetFile software maintenance in the amount of
$10,000 are included in the FY 2015 -16 Adopted Budget in the Records and Election
Services Department at account 01212.555010. Future yea r funding is contingent on
Council budget approval.
Prepared By: Sarah Gorman, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
11 of 11
Attachments :
A. Proposed resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica establishing
policies for city boards, commis sions and regional advisory boards and repealing
Resolution Number 10690 (CCS)
B. Proposed resolution of the City Council on the City of Santa Monica amending
the rules of order and procedure for the conduct of the City Council meetings and
repealing Resoluti on Number 10794 (CCS)
C. Proposed amendments on Chapter 11.04 Elections
D. 12 -Item Form received on January 7, 2015
E. California Government Code Section 84615
F. Survey Regarding 11.04.170 Acceptance of Petitions
G. January 14, 2014 Staff Report (Weblink)
H. July 10, 2001 Staff Report (Weblink)
I. July 24, 2001 Staff Report (Weblink)
J. June 19, 2007 Staff Report (Weblink)
K. April 10, 1990 Minutes (Weblink)
L. February 4, 1992 Staff Report (Weblink)
12 - Item Form
Request to place an item on the City Council Agenda
Please read the information on the back before filling out this form.
*Note: The subject matter must be within the jurisdiction of the City Council.
Date: January 7, 2015
Name: Mike Feinstein
Address:
Phone: Email:
Topic or issue you would like to raise before the City Council:
Recommended Action: Strengthen Referendum Disclosure Provisions in the Santa
Monica Municipal Code
Executive Summary: To promote the public’s right to know both who is financing and
who is being paid to conduct referenda signature gathering campaigns - in 2001 the City
Council established a new section in the Santa Monica municipal code (11.04.165) to
require financial disclosure for all referendum campaigns during the actual signature
gathering period , rather solely upon calendar-based deadlines as provided by state law,
which don’t necessarily correspond to local timelines.
In 2014, a successful referendum signature campaign was conducted in Santa Monica on
the Bergamot Transit Village/Hines project. A review of filings from that period suggest
that the deadlines in 11.04.165 do not sufficiently ensure the public’s right to know.
Specifically there are gaps both during the filing period, when the City Council meets to
certify the valid signatures, and afterwards when the City Council meets to determine
whether to place the ordinance on the ballot or rescind its approval.
With this written communication, the City Council is requested to direct staff to return
with amendments to 11.04.165 to ensure that public receives referendum disclosure
information in a more timely manner than at present, and that the three specific
amendments recommended below are considered.
Background: On July 24, 2001 the City Council approved adoption of emergency
Ordinance No. 2016 (CCS) entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA
M ONICA ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE FILING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING
BALLOT MEASURES".
The ordinance established Santa Monica Municipal Code section 11.04.165:
(a) In order to ensure that any person inter ested in the finances of any committee
that is raising or spending funds to support or oppose an initiative, recall or
referendum, such committees shall file their financial disclosure documents on
dates that are within the time period in which signatures are gathered.
For referenda, the Municipal Code 11.04.16(c) establishes “a thirty -day signature
gathering period, campaign disclosure statements shall be filed on the tenth day of the
period covering days one through five, on the twenty -fifth day of the period covering
days six through twenty, and by the sixtieth day after the end of the period covering days
twenty -one through thirty.”
For the Bergamot Transit Village/Hines re ferendum, this corresponded to February 12 -
16, to be filed on February 21; February 17 -March 3, filed on March 8, and March 4 -12,
filed by May 12 th .
Based upon experience with that referendum, the following changes are recommended :
Specific Requested Co uncil Actions (3):
(1) Amend 11.04.16(c) so that the “twenty -fifth day of the period covering days six
through twenty” is changed to the twenty -fourth day, or another day to en sure a
filing no later than the twenty -fourth day.
In Santa Monica, the referendum clock generally starts ticking on Wednesdays, because
ordinances are adopted on Tuesdays. Therefore the 25 th day in this timeline will always
fall on a Saturday, meaning th e 25 th day is effectively the 27 th day, because it falls on a
weekend. In 2014 this meant March 8 th fell on a Saturday, with the report March 8 th
report not due until Monday, March 10 th .
Amending the 25 th day to the 24 th day in the municipal code would in crease the public's
right to know by making information effectively available three days earlier (27 th to 24 th ).
Sometimes signatures are also handed in by choice even earlier than the allotted 30 days,
making timely disclosure for days six through twent y even more relevant. For example,
the Hines referendum signatures were handed in two days before the deadline, and in
1993 the Civic Center Specific Plan referendum signatures were handed in eight days
early.
A caveat with the 24 th day is that it may fall on an alternate Friday when City Hall is
closed. In such cases, the deadline could be automatically set for the day before.
Alternatively / additionally, this reporting period could cover day less, to fit an earlier
reporting deadline.
(2) Amend 11.04.16(c) so that “sixtieth day” in the “sixtieth day after the end of the
period covering days twenty -one through thirty” is changed to “seventh day”
Under the current Municip al Code, r eporting for days twenty -one through thirty is set at
sixty days after the conclusion of the allotted thirty days of the signature period. As a
result, significant campaign donations and expenditures can go unreported during the
entire signature drive, as well as most or all of the subsequent community discussion,
including any Council decision about rescission or placing it on the ballot.
This amendment would require that reportable campaign activity between days twenty -
one through thirty would be reported much earlier than currently required – requiring a
report no later than one week after the close of the signature gathering period.
This earlier reporting would ensure that the public receives this information (a) while the
submission of sign atures is recent, newsworthy and has the community's attention; and
(b) before City Council certifies the number of valid petition signatures (which is
required at the next regular meeting of the Council, after the city clerk and the county
determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition, for which they have up to thirty
days per CA Elections Code 9114 .)
An additional advantage is this d ate would consistently fall on a Thursday, and thus have
no reporting conflicts with Fridays when City Hall is not open. In terms of the potential
burden of such earlier filing deadline, even though it is only a week after the close of the
campaign, it onl y covers activity during a ten day period.
In 2014, the report for March 4 -12 was supposed to be filed no later than May 12 th, ,
twenty days after the signatures were certified as valid, and only one day before the May
13 th City Council hearing on resci ssion. This timing unnecessarily kept the public
uninformed, while important policy discussions occurred in the community in response to
the referendum qualifying. And that assumed this reporting deadline was met.
But in 2014, the report for days twenty -o ne through thirty was filed a week late on 5/19,
entirely after the Council made its decision whether to rescind or place on the ballot. This
meant the public was not informed of a $16,007.85 payment to a signature -gathering
company during the last ten day s of the referendum period until 69 days after the end of
the signature gathering period, and six days after the Council made its decision on
rescission .
(3) Amend 11.04.16(c) so that additional reporting is required for days thirty -one
through day 'x' (a specific day to be determined), to capture post -signature
gathering reporting activity, to be reported no later than one week before the date
of the public hearing at which the City Council decides whether to place the
ordinance on the ballot or rescind its approval.
It is not uncommon for there to be additional fundraising after the end of a signature
drive. This amendment would expand the public's right to know by ensuring th at financial
reporting for contributions and expenditures after the end of the signature gathering
period is placed in the public record by the time the Council takes up the question of
rescission or placing on the ballot its decision challenged by referen dum.
SU
R
V
E
Y
RE
:
11
.
0
4
.
1
7
0
AC
C
E
P
T
A
N
C
E
OF
PE
T
I
T
I
O
N
S
CI
T
Y
NA
M
E
& TY
P
E
AC
C
E
P
T
RE
Q
U
E
S
T
FO
R
DE
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
?
DO
YO
U
IN
F
O
R
M
TH
E
M
OF
NO
N
‐
CO
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
OR
IS
TH
E
R
E
AN
AU
T
O
M
A
T
I
C
SY
S
T
E
M
?
WH
A
T
RO
L
E
DO
E
S
TH
E
CL
E
R
K
PL
A
Y
IF
NO
N
‐CONFORMANCE
HA
P
P
E
N
S
?
Be
v
e
r
l
y
Hi
l
l
s
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
La
w
)
Ye
s
,
an
d
co
n
s
u
l
t
s
wi
t
h
th
e
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
to
en
s
u
r
e
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
Ye
s
,
th
e
re
q
u
e
s
t
o
r
is
no
t
i
f
i
e
d
if
th
e
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
is
go
o
d
or
if
it
fa
i
l
s
,
an
d
th
e
Cl
e
r
k
do
e
s
n
'
t
te
l
l
th
e
m
wh
a
t
pa
r
t
is
un
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
.
Th
e
Cl
e
r
k
re
f
e
r
s
pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
to
an
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Attorney for advice
an
d
/
o
r
th
e
St
a
t
e
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Co
d
e
.
Pa
s
a
d
e
n
a
(C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Ci
t
y
)
Ha
v
e
no
t
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
th
i
s
re
q
u
e
s
t
.
If
as
k
e
d
,
th
e
Cl
e
r
k
wo
u
l
d
ch
e
c
k
wi
t
h
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
an
d
Ci
t
y
At
t
o
r
n
e
y
'
s
Of
f
i
c
e
fo
r
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
N/
A
W
o
u
l
d
no
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
an
y
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
pr
o
c
e
s
s
th
a
t
was not initiated by
th
e
Ci
t
y
.
If
we
as
s
i
s
t
th
e
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
be
y
o
n
d
what the Code states,
it
co
u
l
d
be
se
e
n
as
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
an
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
and costing the
Ci
t
y
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
mo
n
e
y
in
ha
v
i
n
g
to
ru
n
an
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Normally we
pr
o
v
i
d
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
elections code, advise
th
e
m
to
re
s
e
a
r
c
h
th
e
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
,
an
d
if questions remain,
co
n
t
a
c
t
an
el
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
at
t
o
r
n
e
y
to
he
l
p
gu
i
d
e
th
e
process.
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
(C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Ci
t
y
)
Ye
s
,
it
is
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
in
ou
r
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
co
d
e
.
Pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
ha
v
e
th
e
op
t
i
o
n
to
su
b
m
i
t
th
e
i
r
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
fo
r
re
v
i
e
w
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
pr
i
o
r
to
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
If
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
ap
p
r
o
v
e
s
th
e
fo
r
m
a
t
,
th
e
n
th
e
Ci
t
y
ca
n
n
o
t
ch
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
ba
s
e
d
on
fo
r
m
a
t
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
la
t
e
r
in
th
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
We
do
no
t
re
v
i
e
w
fo
r
co
n
t
e
n
t
or
le
g
a
l
i
t
y
of
th
e
la
n
g
u
a
g
e
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
sh
a
l
l
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
an
y
re
q
u
e
s
t
re
v
i
e
w
within three
wo
r
k
i
n
g
da
y
s
af
t
e
r
th
e
re
v
i
e
w
is
re
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
No initiative or
re
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
th
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
be
de
e
m
e
d
insufficient as to
fo
r
m
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
if
th
e
al
l
e
g
e
d
de
f
e
c
t
wa
s
present at the time
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
'
s
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
fa
i
l
e
d
to advise the
pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
su
c
h
de
f
e
c
t
in
wr
i
t
i
n
g
.
Lo
n
g
Be
a
c
h
(C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Ci
t
y
)
No
,
bu
t
th
e
Cl
e
r
k
'
s
Of
f
i
c
e
do
e
s
ch
e
c
k
th
e
fo
n
t
si
z
e
to
en
s
u
r
e
it
me
e
t
s
ou
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
th
e
n
th
e
y
ca
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
e
.
On
l
y
on
th
e
sp
e
c
i
a
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
ha
s
be
e
n
ad
v
i
s
e
d
by
ou
r
Ci
t
y
Attorney not to give
th
e
m
an
y
ad
v
i
c
e
,
to
al
w
a
y
s
re
m
i
n
d
th
e
m
th
a
t
they need to retain
an
at
t
o
r
n
e
y
fo
r
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
(C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Ci
t
y
)
No
.
Th
e
y
re
f
e
r
pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
to
th
e
St
a
t
e
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Co
d
e
,
an
d
su
g
g
e
s
t
to
ch
e
c
k
wi
t
h
an
at
t
o
r
n
e
y
fo
r
cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
No
.
No
n
e
.
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
(C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Ci
t
y
)
Th
e
Re
c
a
l
l
/
I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
/
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
st
e
p
by
st
e
p
pr
o
c
e
s
s
is
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
Ch
a
r
t
e
r
,
an
d
do
e
s
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
Cl
e
r
k
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
No
.
No
n
e
.
07
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
5
Reference:
Resolution No. 10920
(CCS)
&
Resolution No. 10921
(CCS)