Members of a San Bernardino committee are considering changes to the city’s charter that would give more power to the mayor, according to a legal analysis of proposed amendments.
In a June 9 memo to the Charter Review Committee released to the public last week, attorney Albert Maldonado from the firm Best Best and Krieger reported that six proposals aim to significantly change the city’s style of government and suggested the City Council step in to frame what committee members eventually vote on as official recommendations.
“These proposals appear to potentially be inconsistent with the Committee’s purview and it is recommended, should you wish to do so, that Council authorization should be obtained prior to being considered,” Maldonado wrote. “If you would like additional authority to consider proposed changes to the Charter that would include elements of a strong mayor system, in whole or in part, you may seek additional authority from the City Council.”
One proposed amendment calls for designating the mayor as the chief executive policy officer and requiring the city manager to submit quarterly reports on policy implementation.
“This proposal seems to propose the Mayor as the chief, and only, policy officer (and) … would be inconsistent with the Council-Manager form of government because the legislative body of the City Council would lose or be weakened in its legislative policy-making authority,” Maldonado wrote. “This proposal would also potentially have impacts on administrative/executive power being removed from the City Manager which would need to be a part of a proposal if this is to be considered.”
An amendment to require policy reports from the city manager “is something the Charter could include and would be consistent with the Council-Manager form of government; the City Council could require such updates without Charter change,” Maldonado counseled.
Another proposed amendment seeks sole authority for the mayor to nominate a city manager candidate for eventual approval by the mayor and council.
“This proposal would be inconsistent with the Council-Manager form of government,” according to Maldonado. “The City Council is the legislative body and needs to have nominating authority for the City Manager. The unilateral power to nominate is akin to having unilateral authority to hire. A single individual like the Mayor having unilateral nominating authority could deprive the legislative body from hiring a City Manager of their choice.”
Maldonado also raised questions about termination, which would mean the mayor’s nomination for a new hire must follow termination of the existing manager that still requires a majority vote of the mayor and council members.
An amendment for a mayoral “line-Item veto” would allow the mayor to reject specific items in the city’s annual budget.
“This proposal is in the gray area of the Council-Manager form of government,” according to Maldonado. “A single individual like the Mayor having unilateral line-item veto power could overcome the will of the majority of the legislative body, the city council.
“The three remaining proposals would not technically be inconsistent with the Council-Manager form of government, however I raise other practical concerns about them,” he wrote.
A proposed amendment for funding dedicated staff explicitly for the Mayor’s Office.
“While this is legally permissible in the City Charter, please note that one of the reasons that the City had to file bankruptcy in 2012 was because of ongoing costs that were mandated by the City Charter,” Maldonado wrote. “Where budgets are set not by City Charter but instead by annual action by the legislative body, the City can be flexible to make sound fiscal decisions based on current and forecasted economic conditions and available resources. This would likely need to be further defined to be considered for a Charter amendment.”
Another proposed change is allowing the mayor to place items directly on council meeting agendas, but Maldonado observed that this power already exists.
He cited a 2021 council resolution: “The City Manager shall determine the items and order of such items on the City Council Meeting agendas, subject to direction from the Mayor and City Council. The City Manager shall include any agenda item requested by the presiding officer of the City Council for discussion and further direction from a majority of the City Council.”
The attorney suggested adding this proposal to the charter may provide clarity.
On a suggested amendment to set term limits for the mayor and City Council members, Maldonoada said, “The Charter may include term limits for both the Mayor and members of the City Council. The Committee asked for guidance regarding whether or not such term limits could be retroactive.”
Citing the California Government Code, Maldonado noted “that charter cities may impose term limits on members of the city council and/or the mayor but that ‘any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only.’”
After reviewing charter amendments in other cities, the review period prior to submitting substantive changes tends to be a longer time period, typically 12-24 months, and should be considered in vetting the proposals, Maldonado wrote to the committee.
City Manager Eric Levitt intends to be present to discuss amendments with the Charter Review Committee and provide any context to these comments, Maldonado wrote.
The committee voted 6-2 June 10 to place charter amendment recommendations to the mayor and city council on the 2028 election ballot instead of this November’s ballot.
City Council members appoint commissioners, who include Casey Dailey, 1st Ward; Scott Olson, 2nd Ward; Angela Torres, 3rd Ward; Andy Garcia, 5th Ward; Rikke V. Johnson, 6th Ward; James Albert, 7th Ward; Leticia O. Briggs, mayor’s appointee; and Chairperson Timothy P. Prince, mayor’s appointee. The 4th Ward seat is vacant.
