Charter Chat II

More about charters

The City of Murrieta, with a slightly smaller population (~103K vs. ~109K in 2010) wrote this about charters:

…a knowledgeable, involved electorate should both propel and constrain the direction of its own city. Local control has always been a paramount matter of residents, businesses and the Murrieta City Council. Yet state legislators and previous gubernatorial administrations continue to impose far greater mandates, while at the same time hindering the ability of local governments to operate successfully.

With little ability to protest, local governments have watched as the state government continues to balance its budget deficits on the backs of fiscally responsible local jurisdictions…The voice of cities in Sacramento has become mute due to a combination of special interest groups, influential political campaign contributions and tone-deaf lawmakers passing unfunded mandates. This process has left cities with little ability to petition the state government…

And further noted that:

A city charter is a unique document that acts like a constitution for a city adopting it. Overall, this puts more control into the hands of the residents.

The charter city provision of the state Constitution, commonly referred to as the “home-rule” provision, is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to know what it needs and how to satisfy those needs. The home-rule provision allows charter cities to conduct their own business and control their own affairs. Therefore, a charter maximizes local control.

 

Most of the opposition to city charters is funded by organized labor, which includes groups called “associations” rather than “unions.” (This reminds us of the line in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet “A rose by any other name . . .” Both suggest that the thing itself is not defined by the word chosen for it.) We’ll use the terms “union, association and organized labor” interchangeably unless otherwise noted.

Unions are businesses 

Remember that unions are business entities; they thrive by adding members and increasing benefits. So, they’re frightened by a provision that allows city projects to be awarded by competitive bidding (best offer from a reputable bidder.) If the city isn't forced to use a union-labor contractor the number of union jobs is lower. That is, the union business is operating at a lower profit level, and some responsible union officials may lose their jobs.

Similarly, the unions have unbelievable clout in California because of their ability to infuse massive amounts of money to influence laws that benefit their members. This money comes from “donations” that are assessed, and then extracted by payroll deduction to pay for political activities. 

Everybody's gonna donate -- or else

In theory, it’s possible for a non-union member (who has to pay union dues anyway) to refuse the political activity deduction. In practice, what labor wants (from employees), labor gets. Subsequently, the money helps the union business grow. It funds intense campaigns to pass laws to draw dues from non-members, laws to require union labor on jobs, laws . . .

The charter offered to Costa Mesa in the last election was a good example. Between half and three-quarters of a million dollars was infused into little Costa Mesa to defeat the charter.

If the money had come from union members just in Costa Mesa there’d have been some really small paychecks during the year. But it actually came from throughout California. It was money withheld from everyone’s check as a “donation” if they were required to pay union dues.

That Charter specified that dues but not “political donations” could be deducted from paychecks. So, the union officials would have had to convince members, specifically, to donate in support of a cause rather than just not complain about the payroll deduction. Obviously, unions vehemently opposed this potential loss to its profit and ultimately to its power.

Details are up to the City

But detailed provisions for charters aren't specified in law. Stockton and San Bernardino included provisions to require union contractors and to set union wages and benefit increases in a manner that soon bankrupted the cities.

So what provisions should go into a Charter?

Another Charter says

Anaheim’s charter includes 15 articles, or chapters pertaining to specific subjects. These are:

ARTICLE I. NAME OF CITY

ARTICLE II. BOUNDARIES

ARTICLE III. RIGHTS, LIABILITIES AND SUCCESSION

ARTICLE IV. POWERS OF CITY

ARTICLE V. CITY COUNCIL

ARTICLE VI. CITY MANAGER

ARTICLE VII. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

ARTICLE VIII. Left Blank Intentionally

ARTICLE IX. APPOINTIVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

ARTICLE X. PERSONNEL SYSTEM

ARTICLE XI. RETIREMENT

ARTICLE XII. FISCAL ADMINISTRATION

ARTICLE XIII. ELECTIONS

ARTICLE XIV. FRANCHISES

ARTICLE XV. MISCELLANEOUS

Within each article are sections pertaining to matters that affect the subject of the article. Every specific section or rule should discuss one specific matter. Then it’s possible to find and to refer to that matter by a unique number.

Save what's inside for later

We’ll discuss this charter’s provisions in future posts, along with how each provision might affect Costa Mesa if it appeared in our charter. 

It’s not difficult, but it’s sometimes boring to read a charter since there is  a lot of boiler-plate to meet legal needs. It’s interesting to explore, though, and to speculate how each article would affect our City. 

We’ll omit the boring boilerplate as much as possible.