Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/6/2009 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 6, 2009 PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, Yvonne J. Knaack, and H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Gloria Santiago-Espino, Deputy City Manager, and Samuel McAllen, Code Compliance Director At the April 22, 2008 City Council Workshop meeting, the Council requested a philosophical discussion on code compliance services, including a review of resources and a discussion on the pro-active techniques utilized to administer these services. The Code Compliance Department contributes to the City Council's strategic goals by sustaining established community standards that preserve and promote the health, safety, and living environment of the community and of neighborhoods. Codes are local laws adopted by the City Council to promote public health, safety, and to protect the quality of life in neighborhoods. The Code Compliance Department is responsible for the enforcement of the codes and zoning ordinances. The Code Compliance Department enforces the code, both pro-actively and by responding to calls for services. Calls for Service are generated through telephone calls, on-line web requests, requests for services (RFS's) and referrals from other city departments. The Department has a variety of programs, which include the Neighborhood Focus Program, Glendale Residential Inspection Program, Volunteer Sign Removal Program, and the Commercial Enforcement Program. The Code Compliance Department will be proposing that the Council consider an amendment to a provision of the City Code book contained in Chapter 13, Article II regarding civil code enforcement. The proposed changes would provide a more 1 effective enforcement tool for inspectors. Staff anticipates presenting this item to the Council during the Spring of 2009. The City Council received a Code Compliance Department update report on November 18, 2008, which provided outlined information on a philosophical discussion of the Code Compliance Department and current services offered. The Code Compliance Department is responsible for enforcing codes and zoning ordinances that help to protect the quality of life in neighborhoods. The Code Compliance Department update is for information only. Ms. Santiago-Espino provided an overview of this item. She informed them that the City of Glendale created the Code Enforcement Division in 1980 as an investigative arm of the City Attorney's Office for non-criminal matters. The delivery of code compliance services functioned as a city division until 2006 when it became a city department. The designation of a city department was more appropriate due to the complexity and extensive nature of the enforcement of codes. She introduced Code Compliance Director, Mr. Samuel McAllen. Mr. McAllen explained that in FY 2008, the Code Compliance Department handled 16,295 cases. There were 6,424 calls for service with 67% generated through citizen telephone calls. He stated that the department's web page has received 19,036 visits. He noted that when the department receives a request for service, their goal is to conduct the initial inspection within two business days. In FY 2008, this goal was achieved 92% of the time. He explained that the codes were organized into four general categories. He reviewed some of the most common code violations. Mr. McAllen reviewed the programs and services offered to ensure the maximum use of resources and to address community needs. He stated that on October 1, 2008, a reorganization inspection grid was enacted. Code Inspectors were assigned based on a ten geographic grid system. Previously, inspectors were assigned to a five grid system. The new grids are smaller, which allow the Code Inspector to focus on a more proactive inspection and to become very familiar with the area. He noted that the Code Compliance Department constantly communicates with the community through printed media, television, and the city's web page. He added that they actively seek feedback from the public and the comments to date show a 90% approval rate. Mr. McAllen commented on several areas of improvement and developments such as Customer Service Survey, Increased Use of Volunteers, Neighborhood Partnership Office Programs, and Civil Citation Code Amendment. Vice Mayor Martinez asked for any questions or comments. Councilmember Goulet asked if the city was in the position to help homeowner associations on maintenance issues when the offending party does not comply. Mr. McAllen stated that they enforce code violations even in HOA areas and hold them accountable. He noted that their goal was not to be punitive but rather to seek compliance. He added that they also look for many resources the city has to serve the community, such as small grants for small organized neighborhoods. 2 Councilmember Goulet asked how the new volunteers were being trained. Mr. McAllen explained that the volunteers go through the city's volunteer screening and then training by the code inspectors. Councilmember Goulet inquired if the volunteer's specific job was to go out and inspect and then inform staff. Mr. McAllen stated that he was correct. He noted that an inspector would do the follow-up visit. Councilmember Frate asked Mr. McAllen to explained weekend coverage further and how to contact those individuals. Mr. McAllen explained that they currently have three staff members working on the weekend. He provided details on the work completed on the weekends. He stated that all grids and arterial streets are inspected. He asked the public to call 623-930-3610 for assistance. Councilmember Frate commented that he was pleased code enforcement was working on the weekends and related first hand how he had called in an infraction and staff had responded promptly. Councilmember Clark asked if code inspectors look at rights-of-way, specifically, for extraordinary litter along the arterial streets. Mr. McAllen explained that they do refer findings to the proper departments; however, if it is something they can address immediately, they will address it on the spot. Councilmember Clark commented on how the Code Enforcement Division was created in 1980 and how it was an investigative arm of the City Attorney's Office for non-criminal matters. She asked if it still continues to be an enforcement tool as well as investigative. Ms. Santiago-Espino responded yes. She stated that their primary mission is to enforce the municipal codes. Councilmember Clark remarked that the department's mission as declared was to maintain established community standards that preserve and promote the health, safety and living environment of the community and neighborhoods. She noted that it did not indicate how it was to be accomplished. She asked if they would consider revising their mission statement to include that it was through enforcement, voluntary compliance or citation, that they accomplished these tasks. Ms. Santiago-Espino responded that they will consider looking at the mission statement and added that they have been adjusting their mission since the Council had given direction for their department to be more proactive in addressing community needs. Councilmember Clark commented on a reoccurring complaint that she has heard throughout the years. She explained that she was told that at times code inspectors come into an area and cite one home and not others with similar infractions. Mr. McAllen stated that staff was expected to look for similar violations on that street or neighborhood. Councilmember Clark was hopeful she would not be receiving any more complaints on that issue. Councilmember Clark commented on the (GRIP) Glendale Residential Inspection Program. She explained that it was her understanding that this program can be complaint driven; however, complaints must be made by residents in the specific apartment complex. She asked if an average citizen that lived nearby could also submit a complaint. Mr. McAllen responded that they could report exterior violations. Councilmember Clark asked how often they received complaints from residents of apartment complexes. Mr. McAllen said he was unable to answer the question at this time but offered to provide it to Council at a later time. Councilmember Clark commented that she believed that the program had a fatal flaw, which was to wait for an apartment resident to complain, when the fear of intimidation or eviction was present. She asked Mr. McAllen to look at offering some protection for a resident who might wish to complain about an apartment complex. Councilmember Clark inquired as to the criteria being used to create accountability to determine if an inspector is performing in an acceptable manner. Mr. McAllen explained 3 that along with changing the grid system, they have also changed the performance standards associated with the inspectors in those areas. He noted that they had a minimum number of inspections to perform each month as well as proactive percentages they needed to achieve. Councilmember Clark inquired if code enforcement's main focus was to enforce property maintenance in HOAs or non-HOAs. Mr. McAllen responded that the enforcement was city-wide. Councilmember Clark asked about the city's role if an HOA member were to call in violations. Mr. McAllen stated that they will enforce throughout the city where they have the authority regardless of the area. Councilmember Knaack commented on the GRIP program and how the name had been changed from "Inspection" to "Improvement." She noted that in answer to Councilmember Clark's question, sometimes this program was CAT or police driven. She complimented the great job they did on the political sign issue. She stated that it made a good statement to the citizens and other cities that Glendale was cleaner regarding sign litter. She acknowledged how the weekend coverage has been very responsive. She asked Mr. McAllen to clarify the new state law on sign walkers. Mr. McAllen explained that state legislation this week allowed sign walkers in all municipalities. He stated that each municipality can regulate the time, place and manner in which the sign walker will be allowed. He added that they were currently exploring options to address this issue. Councilmember Knaack inquired as to how many survey responses they had received. Mr. McAllen stated that they had a little over 60 individuals interested and 30 that had actually responded. Councilmember Knaack stated that she was very pleased they were conducting these surveys and getting the community involved. Vice Mayor Martinez commented on deteriorating roofs and poor property maintenance. He commented that he had seen many roofs in these conditions and stated that it was possible that the owners were unable to repair them. He asked if there were any programs that addressed that issue. Ms. Santiago-Espino responded that the Neighborhood Revitalization Division has a roof replacement program. Vice Mayor Martinez asked if there was a waiting list. Ms. Santiago-Espino stated that she would check to see if there was a waiting list; however, she knew it was a popular program. Vice Mayor Martinez commented on the dust ordinance. He asked if there had been any citations issued for leaf blowing. Ms. Santiago-Espino explained that she was not an expert on this issue; however, she knows that there are days when leaf blowers can be used. Councilmember Lieberman welcomed Mr. McAllen. He stated that he was looking forward to a more efficient Code Enforcement Department. Mayor Scruggs joined the meeting. 2. COUNCIL GUIDELINES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Dick Bowers, R.A. Bowers & Associates Pursuant to City Council direction, Richard Bowers facilitated a dialogue on Council Guidelines. The recommendation was to provide direction regarding Council Guidelines. 4 Mr. Bowers provided a brief summary of the item. He reviewed the three versions Council wanted to discuss starting with a version from 1990. He suggested they go through them one by one, then bring back as a final draft as per Council's direction. The first item is Staff Assistance for Council members. Mr. Bowers suggested taking out staff names and putting in the titles instead. Everyone agreed. There were no further comments on this item. Mr. Bowers asked for any comments on Council's items of Special Interest on a workshop agenda. Mayor Scruggs provided direction to remove this section as it was no longer being used, and replace it with the new process. Vice Mayor Martinez commented on a special meeting they held at the library to discuss this issue. He explained the he had been usable to locate any minutes on that meeting, however, was please with the new process. Mayor Scruggs asked everyone if they were comfortable with the new process. It was the consensus of City Council to support the new process. Mr. Bowers asked for comments on Councilmember Budget Expenses. Council asked for the language to remain, however, the amounts needed to be updated. Mayor Scruggs suggested he review the different renditions and apply one that stays consistent with a carry over. Mr. Bowers continued with Sharing Expenses. Mayor Scruggs asked to remove the portion that states that one Councilmember can negotiate with another. She noted that it might constitute an open meeting law violation. Mr. Bowers stated that the next item was the District Improvement Funds. There were no comments. Mr. Bowers moved on to Travel Expenses. He commented that there was a great deal of process on this item that could be shortened and still meet a policy direction. Councilmember Clark suggested it refer back to IRS regulations and indicate any uncovered expenses. Mayor Scruggs agreed since governments do not operate like this anymore and it was all according to the IRS guidelines. She suggested a new narrative on the internal process of receipts and any new rules. Mr. Bowers agreed to craft language that was consistent with the IRS and add any unique circumstances as per Council's direction. Mayor Scruggs stated that they had tried to craft something like this earlier which proved to be difficult. She explained the difficulties in providing receipts for tipping as well as the new internal guidelines on a valid receipt. Mr. Bowers stated that they will work with staff to make sure the language is consistent with the new rules and processes. Mr. Bowers continued with Uncovered Expenses. Mayor Scruggs stated that she still had some questions on the travel expense item. She asked Mr. Beasley what staff does when they travel. Ms. Kavanaugh explained 5 that they had a choice based on the travel policy in place for city employees. She stated that they can choose to take per diem, an advance, or use a city credit card. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would like to have a policy that mirrors what the staff was doing. She explained that the reason she was bring this up was because on her last trip, she was told she did not have any choices. She noted that now she was being told they always had a choice of per diem or submitting receipts. Councilmember Lieberman stated when he travels; he takes the $75 per diem and also turns in receipts. He added that he did not turn in some receipts since they would be counted as income on tax returns. Mayor Scruggs concluded that they all agreed Council, including the Mayor, would have the same travel expense policy that was offered.to staff. Mr. Bowers continued with Council's Retreat. There were no comments. Mr. Bowers moved on to Vice Mayor Responsibilities. Councilmember Clark commented on May being an arbitrary month to consider a Vice Mayor position since it has not been done in many years. She suggested establishing a time period of 30 or 60 days after installation of newly elected officials. There should also be some procedure for the selection of Vice Mayor to occur annually. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that he believed the language should remain. Councilmember Goulet stated that it might be wise to select a different date due to the fact that the election cycle has changed. He commented on language for mandatory rotation changes on other committees and asked if it should also be applied to the Vice Mayor position. He noted that some have raised the issue of giving the rotation option an opportunity so as to receive different prospectives on the Council. He suggested providing the opportunity of a rotation option and including it in the language. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had arrived at a different perspective on keeping May or June as an option to offer incoming members four or five months to work with the Council. The new members would then cast their informed vote for a Vice Mayor having seen who works well together. She added that she did not support mandatory anything and would be happy to take out mandatory changes from the various committees and believes they can all make their choices on facts that are important. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he did not support the May time frame because terms end in December. He related how two years ago their last Vice Mayor did not run for re-election and they did not have a Vice Mayor in January. He suggested switching to January because of the possibility of the Vice Mayor being voted out or choosing to not run again. Councilmember Clark stated that Councilmember Lieberman had brought up a good point. She also supported Councilmember Goulet's suggestion of mandatory rotations and stated that many cities had that procedure in place, based on seniority which offers everyone an opportunity and an experience that otherwise they would not have. She explained that she did not like the current process because it offered little opportunity for current Councilmembers. She note that the last Vice Mayor served for 12 years. 6 Vice Mayor Martinez remarked that he had no intention of being Vice Mayor forever; however, he does not support mandatory rotation. He commented on his introduction of the Code of Ethics because of what he had witnessed between members. He explained that whoever was Vice Mayor did not do the Mayor's bidding. He noted that the Mayor had never asked him to vote a certain way. He stated that it was enormously important to have a certain level of trust between the Mayor and Vice Mayor. He said that he was being very honest in saying that based on the current Council he does not see that happening. He stated that he believes the current system was adequate because the process was always open for nominations and whoever receives four votes or more becomes Vice Mayor. He noted the Vice Mayor Eggleston had done a magnificent job in his term. Councilmember Lieberman reiterated his belief the position should be awarded on an annually rotating basis. He cited that previous Vice Mayors before Vice Mayor Eggleston had only served for one to two years. He stated that the compatibility issue with the Mayor was not valid in his estimation. He noted that the main issues were how the citizens of Glendale will be served and it was clear that he has served them well. He remarked that there had been five re-elections while he has been on the Council and would like to know if it has been a compatibility issue with the Council and Mayor that had prevented him from being nominated. He noted that in all three of the documents, the term seniority was paramount and he believes they should enact a mandatory rotation, so each Councilmember has an opportunity to represent their district as Vice Mayor. Councilmember Frate stated that they had discussed Vice Mayor Eggleston's term while he was still in office and had decided not to change. He noted that he does not see anything in writing that requires mandatory changes and believes the process is working fine. He agreed with Vice Mayor Martinez that there has to be a good working relationship with the Mayor for things to run smoothly without unnecessary conflict. Councilmember Knaack explained that she believes it should be reviewed annually; however, it should not be a mandatory rotation. She noted that she stands by last year's attributes to Vice Mayor Martinez for the Vice Mayor position. She added that it was important for her to make that decision herself each time and believed that the Vice Mayor position should not be given only because of seniority or rotation. She stated that the time frame still needed to be discussed. Councilmember Clark stated that she believes the idea of an annual review was only a pretense. She explained that there had been minimal discussions when Vice Mayor Eggleston was in office and no opportunity to voice an opinion or a different selection was never available. She noted that the process as it stands is flawed and there had to be a mandatory exercise provided. She supports some sort of mandatory process as well as mandatory rotation based on seniority. She commented on the compatibility issue and agreed with Councilmember Lieberman that you do not have to be close friends to come together on the big issues. She cited some of the responsibilities of the Vice Mayor and mentioned that most do not require a "warm and fuzzy" relationship. 7 She added that the office was primarily a ceremonial title. She explained that everyone deserved that kind of opportunity and with the current system it is not afforded. She stated that she would like to see all of them assume that responsibility at one time or another. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that when he mentioned having a compatible relationship with the Mayor he did not mean a "warm and fuzzy" relationship but rather being able to work well and professionally with the Mayor. He read from the Charter regarding the absence of the Mayor. Councilmember Goulet stated that the purpose of their role was leadership. He explained that many other cities have mandatory rotations and their cities had not burned down. He noted that they were always looking to other cities and finding ways to do things better. He remarked that he took exception to Vice Mayor Martinez comment that the some of the Councilmembers would not be well-suited or would not be able to conduct themselves in a professional manner while working with the Mayor. He stated that he believes any one of them could do that successfully and was astonished that this topic has become such a sensitive issue. He explained that this opportunity would offer recognition and allow them to assume different responsibilities. He added that they needed to at least be able to allow the opportunity to take place. Mayor Scruggs asked if he supported mandatory rotations. Councilmember Goulet responded that he supported reviewing it annually with the opportunity presented, however, did not want to make it mandatory. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Goulet's comments. He asked to revisit the compatibility issue because he was not clear what it meant. He provided his voting record and the number of meetings he had attended. He stated how this Council had accomplished extraordinary things as a group and cited their achievements. He said that he detested the term compatibility because it did not fit. Mayor Scruggs reviewed the consensus thus far. She stated that the Council had a strong consensus to review this item annually with a date to be determined. Furthermore, there will be no mandatory change required and no mandatory rotation by seniority or any other factor. Councilmember Clark agreed with the consensus, however, stated that the opportunity was there already for the annual change but was not exercised. She suggested including language that mandates this review or it will not happen. Mayor Scruggs commented on Councilmember Clark's remarks on the impossibility of legislating behavior as in the Code of Conduct; however, now she was advocating making something mandatory. She explained that she believed that the Code of Conduct was a very important aspect for a Vice Mayor to embrace which she had not done She noted that what they were all saying was that their intent was for this review to happen. She believes that they were registering their intent and picking a time of year that will be most suitable. Councilmember Clark stated that intent didn't imply action and did not assure a guarantee that any action will happen. She explained that this problem had persisted for many years and would prefer something that is more definitive that describes the opportunity on.an annual basis. 8 Councilmember Goulet suggested that when they decide on a date, they can also decide if it should become an agenized item. Everyone agreed. Councilmember Lieberman discussed how past Vice Mayor's reviews were performed. Mayor Scruggs commented that there had always been a general agreement from the Council to leave everything as is. Councilmember Lieberman suggested the 2nd workshop meeting in January as the best time for review. Councilmember Frate stated that he felt that January did not allow an incoming Councilmember enough time to make an informed decision. He noted that one needed to take into account who was the right person to meet the obligations of the position professionally even if they have many other personal responsibilities of their own. He explained that there was much more to the role than it only being a ceremonial title and could not believe that someone had portrayed it that way. The office of the Mayor had tremendous responsibilities as did the office of Vice Mayor in the absence of the Mayor. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Council would like this item to first come to a workshop, to be followed by an evening meeting or straight to an evening meeting for a vote. She also inquired if they would feel more comfortable picking May or June for a review and for picking a new Vice Mayor knowing that everyone had enough time and clear knowledge of who they were voting on. In the presence of the possibility of a vacant seat, that vacant seat would be filled at the very next workshop and or meeting. Councilmember Clark commented that when she had referred to the Mayor's office as ceremonial, it was in the context of the duties as stated in the Charter. However, currently they do have a very strong Mayor that has developed the Mayoral position into more than that and that was the context in which they operated today. She stated that in regards to people knowing the candidates, she was sure people were already aware of each of their qualifications and qualities. She said that it was a stretch to assume that someone new would not know anyone or anything and does not believe it should be a determining factor. She added that she was not opposed to either time frame, however, would like to see it done consistently and annually. Mayor Scruggs referenced Councilmember Clark's assertion that she was a strong Mayor that had developed the Mayoral position. She clarified the statement by stating that the City of Phoenix also has a strong Mayor that involves himself regularly in administrative functions which was against their City Charter. She also mentioned the Mayor from the City of Mesa who was recently very active in negotiation with the unions. She stated that the Charter was written in the 60's when the word ceremonial fit the way cities operated at that time. She added that the role of Mayor and their responsibilities had grown tremendously. Councilmember Lieberman commented that he to date had not heard any negative comments directed to the Mayor. He stated that he has seen the Mayor grow well in her role and she has represented them well and nobly in the county and state. He 9 added that they were all very proud of what she has done, Mayor Scruggs thanked Councilmember Lieberman for his kind words. Councilmember Goulet stated that he supported an afternoon meeting to be followed by an evening meeting. He would also like it concluded by the end of the fiscal year. He reiterated his concerns with choosing who was most popular and who can get along better as a requisite for Vice Mayor. He noted that he believes it was one of the worst reasons in his view for choosing a Vice Mayor. He cited the many accomplishments made by the Council and explained that each member should have the opportunity made available to them. He added that this was a professional job and does not believe that someone would misrepresent this community, city or do things for the wrong reasons. Vice Mayor Martinez agreed to have a workshop first and then vote at an evening meeting. Mayor Scruggs asked for a decision on a date. Everyone agreed to have it at mid-year, near budget time. Mayor Scruggs stated that this would be reviewed at the first workshop in June and the first evening meeting in June for a vote. She asked if they all agreed to add language that if a vacancy should occur in the office of Vice Mayor, a discussion will be held at the first workshop following the vacancy for selection of a new Vice Mayor and a vote at the first evening meeting following that vacancy. It was the consensus of City Council to follow the process outlined by the Mayor. Councilmember Knaack asked if they should strike the statement that reads that the Vice Mayor will not serve as Chairperson of any standing committees. She supported removing that section. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he did not agree to delete that sentence and believes that the Vice Mayor should not serve as Chairperson of any standing committee. He explained that he already had a position and should let other Councilmembers have that opportunity. Mayor Scruggs commented that Phoenix as well as other cities has the Mayor make the appointments to Chairs to all committees. She believes that they should appoint their own members to the committees and questions why they would want a mandatory rule that would dictate someone else make those appointments. She supports removing the sentence. Vice Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Goulet agreed. Councilmember Goulet stated that he appreciated Councilmember Lieberman's comment; however, changing it will make it self limiting. Mr. Bowers stated that he will be taking the language from the Charter, and inserting that in the first workshop in June, followed by the first even meeting, if needed of each year, the Council shall designate one of its members to the position. Mr. Bowers continued with the next item, Council Committees. Vice Mayor Martinez suggested continuing with the committees that were already in place. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Bowers to develop language that talks about committees without naming them. She added that this might help when new committees are developed and others are dissolved. Mayor Scruggs discussed Councilmembers that were on committees and asked if any I0 would like to move or remain where they are. Councilmember Goulet stated that he would like to establish a process in regards to the committees and how to step down or join in an orderly fashion. He suggested basing it on a yearly review which ended with each fiscal year. Councilmember Clark stated that she would like to see a process for the establishment or disbandment of committees. Vice Mayor Martinez commented that Mayor Scruggs had already suggested open language on committees. Mayor Scruggs stated that she believed that there was already an opportunity available at the first workshop of every quarter to bring up new committees. She noted that staff was available to research the committee's pros and cons and get back to them. She explained that she had created the Code Compliance Review Committee because of issues that needed to be addressed with code compliance and ordinances. She noted that she had asked Councilmember's Goulet, Clark and Frate to head the committee. She added that each of them has an opportunity to bring this up to the Council and if the Council agrees, they have a committee, or not depending on the need. She remarked that as to the disbandment of committees, it should come from the committees themselves. Councilmember Frate agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Councilmember Clark suggested including under this section that any Councilmember has the opportunity during Council's Items of Interest to bring forward the consideration of new committees, This would be for the purposes of new members in the future. She added the notion that any Councilmember had the opportunity to bring this forward was news to her. Mayor Scruggs remarked that they were constantly discussing different committees that have or have not had any support. She asked for additional comments or opinions on this item. She asked if they should enact a separate process or leave it to be brought up in Council's Items of Special Interest. Councilmember Goulet commented that he had used Council's Items of Special Interest for offering an opportunity for a Green Committee. However, he agrees that there should be a formal process in place to make sure everyone knows the proper procedure. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Mayor Scruggs clarified for Mr. Bowers that what the Council was supporting was that at the time when the Vice Mayor review will be discussed, they will also be discussing memberships on committees. She noted that it was still not clear if this will be based on seniority or not. Councilmember Goulet stated that seniority should not be a factor for committee appointments. He believes that as the opportunities are presented each person should state their desire and qualifications. Councilmember Knaack asked if they wanted to limit terms. Councilmember Clark commented that she believed in term limits because it provided others an opportunity to serve. Councilmember Frate agreed. Councilmember Knaack noted that the terms would be for two years. Mayor Scruggs clarified that it would be for two terms of two years each. Mayor Scruggs noted that it was decided to eliminate all reference to specific committees and their numbers. She also asked Mr. Bowers to note that if a Councilmember wishes to suggest a new Council committee, the appropriate time to bring that suggestion forward will be during the Council's Items of Special Interest 11 process. Mr. Bowers continued with Office Space and Seating of Council Meetings. Councilmember Clark stated that she would like to address this issue as a seniority issue. She noted that currently the Council was based on continuous years of service. She stated that hers and others have had their service separated. She cited different sources that did not include the word "continuous" years of service, therefore, believes it should not be used. She stated that she respectfully asked that they strike the word "continuous" as a means of decision with regards to seniority. She believes that neither she nor any other member should be penalized by years of service and experience being disregarded because they were not continuous years of service. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that he supports keeping the word "continuous" in the section. Councilmember Clark asked Vice Mayor Martinez on what basis did he come to his conclusion. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that he did not know how long the separation period would be and does not believe it was fair to other members that have served continuously to have that person assume the same seniority as others that have been in their position continually. Councilmember Goulet stated that he would support deleting the word "continuous" because they should be looking at years of experience that had been brought to the table. He also cited that a person may have legitimate reasons for their leave of absence that could be out of their control. He believes that it would be more appropriate to delete the word. Mayor Scruggs asked to put that issue aside until it applies to the items at hand. She stated that she could not make a decision on this matter until it was known how this information is to be used. She remarked if they intended to use seniority to pick office spaces or seating. Everyone responded no. Councilmember Clark commented that she did not know where seniority would apply, however, believes that an acknowledgment of prior years of service should be made. Councilmember Lieberman related a story about how others had gone back after a long sabbatical and received all their benefits. He stated that in this case it was not a boss that wanted someone back but the citizens. He believes she should come back with the same rights and privileges she had to begin with. He noted that he was in favor of deleting that word. Mayor Scruggs provided an example of the opposite effect on a job rehire. Councilmember Clark reiterated that her main issue was that she would like to be recognized for her prior years of service and reiterated her stand to remove the word "continuous". Mayor Scruggs commented that since it was decided that seniority would not apply and not be written in the language, why should it be an issue. Mayor Scruggs repeated her original question of how this seniority issue would be used which would determine if she is to support it or not. She added that she was open to the seating arrangements as far as Vice Mayor Martinez was seated to her right or left. 12 Councilmember Clark reiterated her statement that this did not involve office space or seating arrangements but rather recognition for her previous years of service. She added that the concept of seniority in their discussions of Council guidelines was used in this document or for other Council procedures. Councilmember Knaack commented that she was not here when Councilmember Clark left, however, believes that if one leaves voluntarily, they know they will most likely lose their seniority. She added that it was the process used in the business world today. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Vice Mayor Martinez. If they are using seniority to determine positions such as seating or office space, it makes sense to leave it in. She commented again on how this seniority issue will be used and is concerned that someone might get passed over. Councilmember Clark stated that her intent is not to bump anyone on seniority but only to be recognized. Mayor Scruggs commented that she did not understand in what way she was not being acknowledged or was being denied recognition since her website, pension, biography, as well as any introductions; all states her service to the city. Councilmember Clark stated that Mayor Scruggs was clearly being obtuse and her request was obviously being denied by Council. Mayor Scruggs disagreed and asked for help in understanding how she was being denied. She asked for an example. She asked her what the Council could do to make her feel better about this issue. Councilmember Clark stated that it was not a question of feeling better but wanting formal recognition of service for herself and anyone else in the future. Councilmember Clark stated that she would like the word "continuous" deleted. Councilmember Goulet reiterated his earlier support of striking the word because of the experience and knowledge that is being brought back. Mayor Scruggs stated that all of the seniority verbiage was gone now as per Council's direction unless they want to bring it back now. Councilmember Frate stated that everyone had spoken and does not see a clear consensus, and they should move on. Mayor Scruggs asked to continue discussing seating and office spaces. Councilmember Lieberman explained that seniority determined seating arrangements and office space. Mr. Bowers asked if they wanted this topic included in the guidelines or would they like to work this out among themselves. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Bowers to finish this item because she did not understand some of the issues being raised on this item. Mr. Bowers suggested not including it since it was bothersome to some. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs continued with the next item, Boards and Commissions. She stated that her recommendations were not given to the Council; however, she provided her recommendation through the government services committee. She asked Mr. Bowers to modify that portion. Mr. Bowers inquired about the last paragraph on page eight. Mayor Scruggs ask Mr. Bowers to strike Glendale's Mayor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities. She also asked him to modify that the Chairperson of the Risk Management Trust Fund was a 13 separate process. Mr. Bowers explained that they will make sure that any items that have a corresponding connection to the Code of Ethic or Code of Conduct will be balanced out so they will correspond with each other. Mr. Bowers continued with language in the Code of Ethics that related to written correspondence. He suggested inserting their language. Everyone agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Bowers to reference the Council's Code of Ethics or Code of Code when using written communication from Councilmembers. Mayor Scruggs continued with Lobbying. Mr. Bowers explained the concept that when you speak for yourself, you notify everyone that you're doing that, and when you speak for the Council, you do not alter the message. Mr. Bowers explained that the next section dealt with legal issues. Mr. Nick DiPiazza, Deputy City Attorney, commented on an e-mail sent by the City Attorney on the enforcement on violations of the Executive Session Confidentiality Rules. He asked if they had any specific questions. He informed them that the role of the City Attorney was to advise and be available to advise each of the Councilmembers and the Council as a board. He noted that if the City Attorney was asked to take an enforcement role, there would be a legal conflict. In addition, state law makes it clear as to who has jurisdiction and who is appropriate as an enforcement agent with respect to violations to open meeting laws and confidentially. He advised that guideline language which might be contrary to the law might impede the City Attorney from performing his most valuable function, which is to advise them individually and as a group. Mr. Bowers stated that this item was fully covered in state law. He noted that the document that they had discussed today will be in a single document with the Charter, the Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, Council Guidelines and the state statute as it applies to elected officials. Councilmember Goulet asked for clarification on a city creating new law or rules which supersede state law. He asked if this would be void or prohibited from being enforced and the state laws would prevail. Mr. DiPiazza stated that state law always prevails over municipal law; however, they were not talking about creating any new laws but merely guidelines. Mr. Bowers commented that he will be working on the document with the changes discussed today. Councilmember Goulet asked if they could possibly have it made into a CD. Mr. Bowers agreed to do so. 14 Mr. Bowers explained that he will finalize the document as per discussions today and send it to them. He noted that they will have one last session to discuss any final changes. Mayor Scruggs asked if they would like to adopt these guidelines formally or informally. Vice Mayor Martinez stated that he would like to adopt them formally. It was the consensus of City Council to adopt the guidelines formally. Mayor Scruggs thanked Mr. Bowers for his assistance throughout this process. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. 15