All Charged Up About the Charter

Prodded by a fast-approaching March 8 public vote, the verbal punches thrown by opponents and supporters of the city’s charter initiative were sharp and strong at a public debate Wednesday night sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

About 60 people attended the debate at Hesse Park, which was recorded and will be replayed at 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Feb. 14 on Channel 33. The debate occurred the same time as another across town at the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association.

Planning Commissioner Jeff Lewis and former mayor and councilman Larry Clark spoke in favor of Measure C, which would convert the city from a general law to a city charter form of government. Sharon Yarber, an RPV attorney who has emerged as the face of the anti-C movement, and Don Reeves, a PVP Watch member who twice ran for city council, represented the opposition.

In her closing argument, Yarber summed up her suspicion that the current draft of the charter shows that council is more interested in increasing its power than saving the city money through practices that could be enabled through the charter, such as not paying prevailing wages for labor on capital improvements.

“I don’t think this is about prevailing wages,” she said. “I truly believe this is about [the council] getting control over our elections, our land use and the speed with which our ordinances can be adopted.  

“What’s at risk [to residents’ rights] is far more important than the dollars to be saved.”

Lewis characterized those allegations as “scare tactics” and said no such abuses have occurred in other 120 California cities that converted to a charter government. 

Lewis and Clark pointed out that the draft charter was lengthened from one page to two pages to include specific provisions protecting RPV from the pay and compensation scandals that occurred in Bell, which is a charter city. Clark also objected to the opposition’s mention that a Bell scenario could happen in RPV.

“To compare RPV to Bell is equivalent to comparing the United States to North Korea,” he said, criticizing the recurring tone of “mistrust and distrust” in the opposition’s campaign. 

“It’s an insult to the 42,000 residents of this wonderful community and those who have served in office here. “

The amount of citizen input to the charter, which was drafted by a city-appointed commission, surfaced as another contentious point. Yarber said that at last year’s council meetings discussing the charter, “a sum total of six people” spoke at the meetings or e-mailed their concerns. 

“How many workshops were held to solicit your input about what you’d like your city’s constitution [charter] to include?” she asked the audience. “That’s right, there were no workshops, because your input was not wanted.”

Clark said he had first proposed the idea of going to a charter city several years ago.  Lewis said in his opening statement that the process has not been “rushed and secret,” citing a recent newspaper editorial that said the charter process had been “fully vetted.”

Another point of debate was why the charter is being considered as part of a special election in March costing the city an estimated $80,000 to $90,000, instead of the November election when three new council people – a potential majority -- will be elected.

“Our council didn’t want this to become a big debate issue in the general election and  become politicized,” said Clark. 

“Nothing could be more important to be politicized and discussed than the adoption of our constitution [city charter],” Yarber said.

Only one unidentified resident spoke, and he voiced a concern that a March vote constituted a “rush to judgment” on the charter.

Reeves emphasized the opposition’s opinion that they don’t object to the idea of RPV becoming a charter city – they object to this particular charter. He said he is most disturbed by the “things that aren’t in the charter,” such as statements that RPV will follow the same election processes that it has follows a general law city.

“If you take your time and write this charter with the things you want to do and not want to do,” he said, “that issue [of concerns over trust] begins to be minimized because you spent the time and effort to do it right in the first place.”

Clark and Lewis underscored the financial advantages that becoming a charter city can bring RPV in avoiding requirement to pay prevailing wages on many projects; on being able to negotiate design and build contracts with single vendors; and increasing changes of protecting tax revenues from the Terranea resort.

The sooner the city adopts a charter, said Lewis, the sooner it will begin saving money. 

“I view our five city council members as having the responsibility to guard our taxpayers’ money,” he said, “and I’m frankly disappointed they didn’t get us a charter earlier.

“Every month that goes by is another lost opportunity to save money.”

“They’re missing the point,” Yarber said. “It’s not about the charter versus remaining a general law city. It’s about having a bad charter to achieve financial benefits or having a good charter and achieving the same financial benefits.”

Besides savings, Lewis said, supporters believe the charter should be enacted now to take more power from Sacramento and give it to the city before a cash-strapped governor and legislature tries to raid revenue streams of the cities and counties.

“It’s a question of who do you trust more, our local elected representatives who answer the phone and respond to e-mails?” he asked the audience. “People in Sacramento have big, big problems, and they’re not focused on RPV.

“When it comes to our parklands, the Annenberg project or anything else, I’d rather have Sharon Yarber or Don Reeves on the council addressing these issues than waiting for Sacramento to protect us, because we’ll be waiting a long time.”