Keep the current reporting structure of Piedmont’s City Charter.

Measure CC is a power grab and proponents of CC completely misstate the way City Hall is run as justification.

Measure CC is completely ineffective at telling voters what it will do.

First, as written, Measure CC is completely ineffective at telling voters what it will do. It should have read: “Shall the measure to amend the City Charter to reassign authority to terminate City department heads from City Council to the City Administrator be adopted”. Same word count. Such text would be much more informative to the voters and the fact that Measure CC is drafted so poorly should tell you something.

Measure CC reassigns important oversight authority from Council to the City Administrator with no justification on the record.

Second, from the Mayor in a recent news account: “[The Charter] contains language that suggests that the City Council is responsible for managing and directing the work of City officers. The Piedmont City Attorney strongly recommended that this ambiguity be clarified…” Read that carefully – “suggests” and “ambiguity” – if true then simply clarify the Charter language and keep the current reporting structure in place. Instead Measure CC reassigns important oversight authority from Council to the City Administrator with no justification on the record.

Grab or giveaway, Measure CC is bad for Piedmont and reduces the authority of our elected officials. Coupled with Measure BB (fewer meetings, less voter choice), these measures weaken good governance in Piedmont and should be rejected by the voters.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member 

Why I believe that Measure CC should be rejected by Piedmont voters.

Measure CC has no credible factual support in the public record. It is void of any demonstrable need. It is poorly designed. It is totally without conceivable merit. It turns good governance on its head. If adopted Measure CC would only underscore the present Council’s abdication of its responsibility to the public and waste of public resources in proposing to the voters such a vacuous and worthless proposition.

I was a California public agency lawyer for the 34 years before I retired in 2006. One of my primary responsibilities as a lawyer was providing legal advice and legal services regarding the Oakland City Charter provisions applicable to the independent Oakland Port Department. I was certified by the State Bar to provide legal instruction to members of the State Bar regarding the Oakland City Charter, and Bar members who received my instruction received credit toward their mandatory continuing legal education requirements.

The Oakland City Charter provided that the Board of Port Commissioners was responsible to both hire and fire Port officers and employees. Neither the authority and responsibility of the Port’s Executive Director for the day-to-day performance of all non-Port Attorney staff Port officers and employees, nor the authority and responsibility of the Port Attorney for the day-to-day performance of all Port Attorney staff, ran into any conflict with the Board’s exclusive power to hire and fire all Port officers and employees.

Practically, the Board acted on recommendations of the Executive Director or Port Attorney regarding proposed hiring and firing, but importantly the necessity that the Executive Director and Port Attorney justify to the Board in advance of proposed and recommended hiring and firing avoided serious disruptions, damage and liabilities that a runaway Executive Director or Port Attorney could cause.

The hiring and firing authority for top City officers should be unitary so that the authority to hire and authority to fire rest in the same hands, and that authority rightly belongs to the legislative body, not one of its appointed officers. No better day-to-day measure that combined hiring and firing authority will timely inform a City Council of the health and status of the public agency than its receiving advance notice of proposed and recommended hiring and firing of the public personnel responsible for carrying out the very public functions for which the Council or board is primarily responsible.

In Measure CC, the present Council for no good public reason effectively proposes to grant a veto power to the City Administrator over the Council’s hiring decisions. The Measure CC proposal by the present Council and each of its Councilmembers is a disgraceful failure to carry out their public obligations. The lack of any credible rationale for the proposed Measure CC suggests, at best, unanimous Councilmember thoughtlessness and laziness.

Thomas D. Clark, Piedmont Resident

The City Charter currently states the elected 5 member City Council has the hiring, retention, and dismissal control over the top employee positions – Fire Chief, Police Chief, Finance Director, Recreation Director, etc.

Measure CC  takes authority and control from the elected Council regarding Department Heads and gives authority and control to the unelected City Administrator.

Measure CC forbids the City Council by Charter from continuing to determine if their Fire Chief, Police Chief, Finance Director, Recreation Director, etc. should remain in their positions.  The City Administrator will be the only person in Piedmont able to retain or dismiss the key-employees the City Council recruited and hired.

MEASURE  CC asks, “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to clarify the duties and reporting structure for officers and employees of the City be adopted?”

Voters will decide whether to keep the City Charter as written or change it by voting Yes or No on Measure CC. The choice is as follows:

• Keep the City Charter, as is, with City Council controlling  = Vote NO

• Change the City Charter placing City Administrator in control = Vote YES

Proponents of Measure CC overstate the ambiguity of the City Charter.

First, the Charter defines two job categories: officers (department heads) and employees (everyone else). The current Charter is clear that Council hires/fires and provides direction to officers. The Charter does not say that Council will “manage” departments.

For the City Administrator, the Charter states:

“The City Administrator shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible to the City Council for the administration of all City affairs placed in his/her charge by or under this Charter.

The administrator shall have the following powers and duties:
(1) Shall appoint, discipline, and, when deemed necessary for the good of the City, suspend or remove City employees except as otherwise provided by law, this Charter or personnel rules adopted pursuant to this Charter.
(2) Shall supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City, except as otherwise provided by this Charter or by law and except further that the internal administration of each department shall remain with each department head.”

Two points. Google “chief administrative officer” – by definition it says this position does not have the authority to dismiss department heads. All other authority is clearly defined in the Charter – the City Administrator supervises all departments and can fire employees while department heads administer their departments.

So drafters of the Charter crafted a very specific management structure for the city, yet proponents claim this is not how City Hall is run. If so, is the question really that of an ambiguous Charter or City Council and City Administrator who aren’t following the Charter?

Department heads have been disciplined by Council and Council implemented a performance appraisal program to evaluate department heads. Specific examples of problems with the management structure would help voters understand why they need change it.

And judging by the satisfaction most Piedmonters state with city services, they don’t want a change.

Vote NO on CC.

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont City Council Member

The League of Women Voters of Piedmont is hosting an election forum in advance of the November 6, 2018 General Election.

The Forum will feature candidates for City Council and School Board, as well as speakers for and against changing the Piedmont City Charter – ballot measures BB & CC. 

Piedmont Election Forum

Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018 

7:00 pm – 9:00 pm

Piedmont City Council Chambers

There are four candidates for City Council and four candidates for School Board who will present their positions and take questions from the audience.

Names are listed below in the order found on the ballot. 

Candidates for City Council are:

Tim Rood    Incumbent

Betsy Smegal Andersen    Appointed Council member

Teddy Gray King    Incumbent

Sunny Bostrom-Flemming

“

Candidates for Board of Education are: 

Julie Caskey 

Megan Pillsbury

Hari Titian

Amal Smith    Incumbent

“

Measures BB and CC

Presentations will be made for and against Measures BB and CC, the proposed City Charter changes, followed by questions from the audience.

Home viewers can tune in live to the Forum on Piedmont Cable Channel #27 or by going to the City of Piedmont website under videos.  The Forum will be available after October 11 on the City website under videos:  League of Women Voters, October 11 Forum. 

Bret Black is scheduled to be appointed by the Piedmont City Council as Piedmont Fire Chief at a starting salary of $193,164.  The appointment and employment conditions resolution will be considered at the Monday, September 17, 2018, Piedmont City Council meeting, 7:30 p.m., City Hall.  The meeting will be broadcast live via Cable Channel 27 and the City website under videos. See full employment agreement linked below.

The Council selected Black after interviewing two of the 27 applicants for the position of Fire Chief.  Upon Council appointment, Bret Black will serve as Fire Chief, effective October 1, 2018.

The Fire Chief vacancy occurred when Fire Chief Warren “Bud” McLaren announced his intention to retire, effective July 6, 2018. McLaren had served the City of Piedmont for thirty years.

The City Council retained the services of Peckham & McKenney, a Sacramento based executive search firm. Peckham & McKenney advertised the employment opportunity extensively, using personal outreach, traditional print and electronic marketing, as well as social media. As a result of the recruitment efforts, 27 applicants submitted resumes for consideration. After reviewing each of the resumes and conducting on-line research on applicants who appeared most qualified, the recruiter selected twelve candidates to undergo screening interviews.

The City Council interviewed two pre-screened finalists and selected Bret Black.

“The employment resolution proposed for Council consideration contains all elements common to other Department Heads. The proposed annual salary is $193,164, which is the amount earned by Chief McLaren upon his retirement. Should the City Council approve the appointment and the resolution, Mr. Black’s first day with the City will be on Monday, October 1, 2018.”

“The City Council wishes to acknowledge the special public service rendered by the City’s management personnel. Management personnel consists of all department heads and the City Administrator. Under the operational coordination of the City Administrator, management personnel are responsible for producing the quality and effectiveness of City services, as required by the City Council.”

There will be a 3% annual salary increase for Black during the term of the resolution.

3.1 Salary – Monthly:  The monthly rate of pay for the Fire Chief is $16,097. The rates of pay shown reflect the following cost-of-living increases during the term of this Resolution:

• % Increase Monthly Effective 7/1/2019 3% $16,580
• Effective 7/1/2020 3% $17,078
• If, during the term of this Resolution, any other bargaining unit is offered a cost of living increase greater than the increases shown above for the same fiscal year, then the difference between the increase for the other bargaining unit and the increase provided under this Resolution will take effect for the Fire Chief.

The City Administrator will make recommendations on future compensation for consideration and action by the City Council.

THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ADHERES TO THE CITY CHARTER BY STATING COUNCIL AUTHORITY FOR BOTH HIRING AND FIRING OF THIS KEY EMPLOYEE.

“10.2 Termination: Pay Upon termination or resignation requested by the City Council, the City will provide the employee at least one (1) month’s pay and benefit coverage as set forth in Sec. 3 hereof, or more at its discretion. This section would not apply in the event of the employee’s voluntary resignation or removal from office involving conviction of a felony, gross negligence or dereliction of duty, dishonest or immoral conduct, intemperance which interferes with job performance or conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.”

READ the full staff report and proposed compensation agreement linked below:

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/govern/staffreports/2018-09-17/appoint-fire-chief.pdf

Bidding procedures, Council authority regarding Council-hired key employees, candidates for City Council, meeting requirements, etc.

On their November 2018 ballot, Piedmont voters will have two ballot measures, BB and CC, proposing changes to Piedmont’s City Charter.  To become law, changes to the City Charter require a majority of Piedmont voters voting on the measures to approve the measures.  The proposed changes are extensive, ranging from how Piedmont government operates to bidding requirements.

 Arguments for and against the City Charter changes have been filed by proponents and opponents. 

Click below to read the pro and con arguments to be printed in voter information pamphlets. 

~~~~~~~ 

Measure BB – Reduction in bidding requirements,  procedural changes, candidacy for City Council, meeting requirements, etc. 

CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE BB “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to modify procedures for filling of vacancies in elected offices for City Council and Board of Education for the Piedmont Unified School District, modify term limits for the City Council, and making other clarifying amendments regarding City recordkeeping, format of City ordinances, public posting, City contract approval, operation of City Council meetings, and other minor technical amendments, be adopted?”

• Direct Argument in Favor < In Favor of Measure BB
• Direct Argument Opposed < Opposed to Measure BB
• Rebuttal to Argument in Favor < Opposed to Measure BB
• Rebuttal to Argument Opposed < In Favor of Measure BB

~~~~~~

Measure CC – Eliminates Council authority over  Council-hired key employees  –

CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE  CC “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to clarify the duties and reporting structure for officers and employees of the City be adopted?”

• Direct Argument in Favor < In Favor of  Measure CC
• Direct Argument Opposed < Opposed to Measure CC
• Rebuttal to Argument in Favor < Opposed to Measure CC
• Rebuttal to Argument Opposed < In Favor of Measure CC

City Charter Measures BB and CC will be on Piedmont November 6, 2018 Ballots.

Updated 8/29/18