San Diego City Rules Committee Meeting - July 27, 2017
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Diego City Rules Committee Meeting - July 27, 2017
The San Diego City Council Rules Committee met on July 27, 2017, at 9:00 AM. Committee members Bree, Kate, and Vice Chair Kercy were present; Councilmember Ward was absent. The meeting covered a consent calendar, public comments, and several discussion items including a proposed charter amendment on hiring, reorganization of city boards and commissions, and responses to a grand jury report on San Diego Unified School District elections. Votes were taken on each item.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The committee record of actions from June 7, 2017, was approved by unanimous consent. No items were pulled for discussion.
- Item 1: During public comment, Martha Welch spoke in opposition to the removal of the civil engineers department, arguing that civil engineers are essential for road construction and maintenance. Francine Maxwell suggested creating a housing department and a human services department, citing dissatisfaction with Civic San Diego. After public comment, the committee re-voted on item 1, which passed unanimously.
- Item 2: Senior Deputy City Attorney Priscilla Degard noted two clarifying edits to a policy: changing "in most cases" to "depending upon the matter" and correcting "little confidential information" to "no confidential information that is material." The item was then voted on and passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Non-Agenda Public Comment: Martha Welch spoke about a 50-year rule on buildings, expressing concern that it could lead to displacement of low-income seniors from older buildings like Lutheran Tower and West Mirror. Francine Maxwell raised concerns about the lack of transparency and progress on Proposition G (Citizen's Review Board and Community Advisory Board), asserting that the mayor's office has not implemented needed changes and that the public cannot even learn how many have applied for an outside attorney.
- Item 3 (Charter Amendment): Rodney Fowler, president of Local 127, opposed the amendment, stating the current system ensures independent oversight and warning against politicizing hiring. Joe Cloverdale, a civil service commissioner, argued the proposal would undermine a fair, non-political hiring process established over eight decades and cautioned against following other cities. Chris Vanels of Teamsters 911 opposed, blaming poor employee morale and retention on city management, not the personnel department.
- Item 6 (Grand Jury Report): Numerous speakers—including Francine Maxwell, Tamra Hurley, Kaim Jackson (San Diego Unified School District representative, in support of the IBA response), Robert McNamara, William Ponder, Smith, Lorraine Burley, Jeffrey Bennett, Daniel Shemhovsky, Dwayne Harvey, Tasha Williamson, Philip LeBird, Karen, Lily Higman, Mits Lee, and Michelle Anderson—expressed positions mostly in favor of the grand jury's recommendations for term limits and subdistrict-only elections. Many criticized the school board for lack of transparency, responsiveness, and representation. The district representative argued the current system does not harm diversity and that the board is committed to its work.
Discussion Items
- Item 3: Charter Amendment on Hiring Process (Vice Chair Kercy)
- Vice Chair Kercy introduced a proposal to separate the hiring function from the Civil Service Commission and place it under mayoral control, arguing the current charter language (since 1931) slows hiring. Lee Friedman and Elizabeth Spillane presented, noting that other large California cities (San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose) have separated these functions. They requested a motion to draft language for the June 2018 ballot.
- Personnel Director Hadi Deghani and Deputy Director Doug Edwards updated the committee on recent improvements, including reduced days to issue certifications (from 17 to 11 days) and increased recruitments (from 203 to 333). They also noted that hiring departments control 64% of the onboarding process.
- Committee Chair Cole expressed concerns about lack of fiscal and operational information and the potential for political influence, making a motion to continue the item to a future rules committee with a request for a more defined report. Councilmember Bree seconded. Vice Chair Kercy expressed willingness to continue discussions. The motion passed unanimously.
- Item 4: International Affairs Board Reorganization
- Joel Day, Executive Director of the International Affairs Board, presented proposed changes to expand the board from 11 to 17 members, including nine council district representatives and eight from civic organizations (e.g., SANDAG, Port Commission, Airport Authority). The board would also become advisory to the council, not just the mayor. Deputy City Attorney Sharon Spivak raised a concern about quorum language differing from other boards, but noted willingness to work on language. Councilmember Kate made a motion to forward to the full council after legal review, seconded by Councilmember Bree. The motion passed unanimously.
- Item 5: Consolidation of Boards into Human Relations Commission
- Francis Barraza and Joel Day presented a proposal to merge the Commission for Women, Senior Affairs Advisory Board, and Youth Commission into the Human Relations Commission (HRC), which would add subcommittees for protected classes. Francine Maxwell spoke in favor but urged retaining the youth commission for youth perspectives. The city attorney requested legal review as part of any motion. Councilmember Kate moved to forward with city attorney review; seconded by Councilmember Bree. The motion passed unanimously.
- Item 6: Grand Jury Report on SDUSD Elections
- Lisa Byrne from the IBA presented the proposed response to the grand jury report, which found issues with the election process and recommended term limits, subdistrict-only elections, and a runoff change. The IBA proposed agreeing wholly or partially to findings and not implementing some recommendations. During public comment, many speakers urged full adoption of the grand jury's recommendations. Councilmember Kate proposed an amendment to change finding four to "agree," but the motion maker retained the original motion. The committee vote was 2-2 (Chair Cole and Councilmember Bree in favor of the original motion; Vice Chair Kercy and Councilmember Kate opposed). The item will go to the full council without recommendation.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Items 1 and 2 approved unanimously after public comment and staff clarifications.
- Item 3: Continued to a future rules committee meeting; requested fiscal and operational analysis.
- Item 4: Forwarded to full council with direction for city attorney legal review.
- Item 5: Forwarded to full council with direction for city attorney legal review.
- Item 6: Sent to full council without recommendation due to a 2-2 tie vote.
- Next Meeting: The next Rules Committee meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2017.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon and uh welcome to the rules committee meeting of July twenty-seventh, twenty seventeen. This meeting is now in order. Let the record reflect that committee members Bree, Kate, and Vice Chair Kirsey are present, Councilmember Ward will not be with us today. The committee record of actions from June 7, 2017 will be approved by unanimous consent, and let's pull for discussion. Seeing none. Do we have members of the public wishing to speak on non-agenda public comment? We okay. Yeah. Martha Welch. I'm afraid Crypto. Yes, speakers. Yeah, I just like to speak. Okay. We have first Martha Welch. Good afternoon. Martha Welch. I'm talking about the rule of 50 years on 50 years of buildings. The next one would be the senior of a building. I bet when they build it in 69 in the 60s, I don't think they had the rules that the back there. But if you do that, they don't do that. What's gonna happen in the future of seniors can't give money have uh low um rent because if they can't come in, you have no buildings, you didn't build other buildings, so they they can't come in. That's not right. Even if the people live there get uh well um be kicked out maybe too, we don't know. But that's not a and also it's it the rules becoming the economic development or of the housing, but the rules come from them. And you b you are over them. So it's up to you to change these rules because if they have the fifty year fifty fifty uh fifty-five years uh rule, it's not right because they'll kick the people out market rate, and what's gonna happen to the low car uh the uh lower the seniors because they're the oldest buildings we have. Lutheran Tower, uh um cathedral, and West Mirror are built in the sixties. So I don't think the rule was there, and also I don't think either, but I think it's a new rule. But we can't have that rule, it's something you should talk about this, and it's on to you if you don't change this rule. Thank you. Next, Francie Maxwell. And you will have two minutes. Francie Maxwell, fourth council resident. I'm concerned with the lack of transparency and progress for um proposition G that was passed by the citizens of this city. I've gone to the CAB, they're working on bylaws uh at a snail's pace. I went to the CRB the other night, and people that are in the pipeline to get on the CRB to make the necessary changes so that we can begin to make the strides in relationship building and getting the CRB to be just to look a little bit differently. They're being held up in the pipeline. We were told at the CRB meeting that it's the mayor's office that has not implemented the changes and the strides that need to happen so that proposition G can be held up. And I'm concerned with the fact that we're paying all these people, executive directors and and these people are meeting and giving up their their hard-earned time to volunteer, and there's nothing happening. The CRB, even the members, the public, we asked how many people have applied for the outside attorney. And because of protocol policies, they couldn't even give us the number. Those are taxpayer dollars that this attorney is going to be paid. Public dollars, and we can't even get a number of how many people have applied to be the outside attorney for the CRB. So when you guys sit up on the diocese and you say that we're going to be about change, you say that we're going to try to move things forward. We're not. We're sitting still, and it's in the mayor's office. He gets to create and do what he wants. Yes, we have the strong mayor. We understand, but the council, we need someone to send a letter. We need to ask why is it that things are not moving forward, not at a snail's pace for Prop G.
openpublica.com