Better nine years’ late than never – sentiments that no one of note ever has publicly expressed.
Tomorrow marks the ninth anniversary of an overwhelming electoral victory when Culver City voters ratified numerous governing and policy changes for City Hall, as recommended by the Charter Review Committee.
All most two-thirds of voters cheered for the changes listed on a lengthy ballot with two dominant neon headlines:
- Changing Culver City’s form of government from a chief administrative officer to a city manager.
- Converting the positions of city treasurer and city clerk into appointed rather than elected offices.
Largely buried near the bottom of the April 11, 2006, woodpile was a lightly noticed suggestion that Culver City adopt all-mail voting.
Like smartly polished clockwork, a scant 108 months later the City Council will be sitting down Monday evening at 7 in their return to Council Chambers to debate the merits of all-mail voting, once a novel concept, now far more widespread than it was in 2006.
While present-day City Councilman Andy Weissman shepherded the all-mail measure through the required hurdles as chair of the Charter Review Committee, he said authorship of the concept lies at the bottom of a dust bin.
No one knows the daddy or mommy of the scheme.
“It was the quintessential committee,” said Mr. Weissman of the 10-member group, with each Councilperson having nominated two.
Why wasn’t it implemented 107 or 108 months ago?
“At the time,” Mr. Weissman said, “it was considered by the Charter Review Committee, it was an idea without much experience.”
He listed a second and perhaps more forceful reason.
“We also were not distressed then by voter turnout,” Mr. Weissman said. “It was not yet uncharacteristically low. Now with 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent voter turnouts, there is a lore more discussion about ways to enhance voter participation.”
Here is the all-mail notion that Culver City voters endorsed:
SECTION 1505. ELECTIONS BY MAIL
The City Council may, by ordinance, authorize the conduct of elections wholly by mail, under which all votes shall be cast in the manner of absentee ballots.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/04/11/ca/la/meas/V/
Measure V: Charter Revision – Los Angeles County
This City-proposed measure would substantially revise and reorganize the Charter of the City of Culver City, which operates as a “constitution” for the City and gives it certain powers over municipal affairs under the California Constitution. After review and recommendation by the citizen Charter Review Committee, the City Council directed the City Clerk to place the proposed Charter on the ballot of the April 11, 2006, Municipal Election.
If a majority of those voting on this proposed measure approve it, the new Charter will become effective on July 1, 2006, or the date accepted and filed by the California Secretary of State, whichever is later. If not approved by a majority, the existing Charter will remain in effect. The substantive changes proposed are:
1. The form of the city’s administration would change from the existing Council-Chief Administrative Officer form to a Council-City Manager form of government. Currently, the Chief Administrative Officer exercises direction and control over the City’s administration, subject to City Council direction. Under the proposed Charter, the City Manager would be directly responsible for day-to-day management of the City, with limited Council interference.
Currently, the Council appoints all department heads. The proposed Charter gives the City Manager authority to hire and terminate all City employees, including department heads, except the City Attorney, Fire Chief and Police Chief whose positions would continue to be hired and terminated by the Council.
2. Currently, the Charter provides the City Clerk and City Treasurer are elected offices, with duties outlined in the Charter. Effective April 8, 2008, the proposed Charter would authorize the City Manager to appoint the City Clerk and City Treasurer, with duties established by ordinance.
3. A Preamble is added to the Charter, setting forth the goals and purpose of City government.
4. Under the proposed Charter, the department head positions of Community Development Director; Fire Chief; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director; Police Chief; and Transportation Director would be removed from the civil service system. The City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer and Public Works Director positions would remain outside the civil service system, as would the City Manager.
5. A section is added prohibiting the Council from interfering in some City operations, including performance of duties of City employees. The Council could continue to give advisory information to assist the City Manager and to contact employees for information, to make inquiries and to advise about citizen complaints.
6. Operational aspects and policies for City government would be set by ordinance, instead of by Charter. These policies include public works contracting, purchasing products and services, and creating and abolishing commissions, boards and committees.
7. The proposed Charter would give the Council discretion to adopt an ordinance authorizing municipal elections conducted wholly by mail, cast in the same manner as absentee ballots.
8. The proposed Charter would allow the City’s fiscal year to be established by ordinance of the Council, instead of by Charter.
9. The proposed Charter also simplifies archaic and ambiguous language, adds definitions and reorganizes various sections.
