CHULA VISTA VOTERS TO WEIGH IN ON AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTER

One change would allow non-u.s. citizens to serve on boards and commissions

Chula Vista voters will decide in November whether to allow non-u.s. citizens to serve on boards and commissions, whether to use only mail-in ballots for special elections and whether the city attorney should be required to live within city limits.

All three items are part of a proposed amendment to the city’s charter, a 49page document listing its specified powers and functions in accordance with California law. Any changes to the charter require voter approval. If these changes are approved, it would be the first time the charter has undergone a substantial update since 1978.

Last week, council members unanimously agreed to place a ballot measure before voters in this year’s general election asking them to answer “yes” or “no” to the following question:

“Shall the measure modifying the City Charter to conform with State laws, eliminate outdated provisions, clarify ambiguous terms, reorganize and reformat to improve usability, require residency and increased experience for the elected City Attorney, remove the requirement that most board and commission members be qualified electors, and to allow City Council to take action at special Council meetings, use mail ballot elections to fill vacancies, and approve bonded debt under State general laws be adopted?”

The creation of the 75-word question came after several hours of council deliberation and back-and-forth changes since July, which followed more than a year of proposal-drafting by the city’s charter review commission.

There are numerous edits the council approved that include the elimination of redundancies, rewording of some sections for clarity and the replacement of practices no longer used with current ones. Most of the council’s debate focused on five major amendments that dealt more with the powers of the city council and city attorney’s office. Of those five, the council members agreed on the three that are in the ballot measure.

They approved language requiring that an elected city attorney must be a resident of Chula Vista. A 2019 survey by the commission found that 82 percent of respondents favored instituting a residency requirement for the position. Current City Attorney Glen Googins, whose seat is up for election because he is termed out, lives in the city. The amendment also mandates that the city attorney have 10 years — seven years are now required — of legal expertise.

The city council also accepted language that would allow city residents, regardless of immigration status, to serve on city boards and commissions. Currently, the charter reads that an individual must be a “qualified elector,” meaning they qualify to register to vote. The requirements to become a registered voter include that an individual is at least 18 years of age and a U.S. citizen.

Councilmember John Mccann did not support swapping the citizenship amendment but the rest of the council voiced approval. For some residents, this amendment would allow “ways for immigrants to fully participate in our city and fosters great connections between newcomers and longtime residents,” Carolyn Scofield told the council.

The third change they approved would allow all vote-by-mail balloting for special elections to fill vacancies. Results from the same 2019 survey found that 53 percent favored the option. About 190 people took the survey in a city of roughly 280,000.

Mayor Mary Casillas Salas and Councilmember Andrea Cardenas did not support this update, saying that special elections have low voter turnout and that without polling places, turnout could be lower, as it could discourage those who prefer in-person voting or who require assistance. The mail-in option was proposed with cost savings in mind. A traditional polling place election could cost up to $600,000, whereas a vote-by-mail election could cost between $250,0000 and $500,000, according to the county registrar.

The remaining two amendments failed to make it to the ballot measure for reasons council members believed would leave an open door for political benefit and misuse.

One of them was to permit the council to suspend by majority vote an elected official from their duties if felony charges are pending against them. During the suspension period, the individual would not receive pay but maintain their health benefits. Their pay would be reimbursed if they are not convicted.

Councilmembers questioned the ambiguity of what felonies constitute cause for removal and they took issue with language that the city attorney could make that determination. Councilmember Steve Padilla said the provision was “a very dangerous slippery slope,” and opined that the council should not have that power,. Rather, it should be left with the justice system, he said.

The second unsuccessful amendment would create an alternative legal adviser to the city council when the city attorney has a conflict of interest. Councilmembers believed it was a provision that should be carefully and individually mulled, and not thrown in with other amendments for voters to decide.

Chula Vista had to submit all its materials on the measure to the county Registrar by Aug. 12 to officially qualify it on the November ballot.