MURRIETA: Review of initiatives not favorable
Despite warning that initiatives would hamper the city, Murrietans to will have final say
By NELSY RODRIGUEZ - Staff Writer | ∞
MURRIETA ---- A city-commissioned report on the possible effects of three initiatives that have qualified to go before the public for a vote indicated that one ordinance would put the city at a great disadvantage to employ qualified staff members and another could prevent lower-income residents from running for office.
The report, produced by Management Partners Inc., a San Jose consulting firm, will be the focus of a discussion at Tuesday's City Council meeting. After the three initiatives qualified for a public vote by receiving more than 3,700 signatures of Murrieta registered voters, the council voted to spend nearly $22,000 on the report before deciding how to proceed with the initiatives.
The three initiatives were circulated by two Murrieta men and a Temecula resident who say they want to reign in what they feel is inflated spending on salaries and benefits for elected officials and top city administrators. They also want to limit residents to serving only two consecutive terms on the council.
On Tuesday, the council will have the option of either adopting any or all of the initiatives as law, or putting them before voters at the next general election in 2010. The deadline to get an initiative on the November ballot has passed.
Mayor Rick Gibbs said Friday that he had read the full report and stood behind the findings of the consultant that the initiatives would harm the city's ability to conduct business.
"I would say that the independent consulting firm kind of laid out a position that these initiatives were ill-conceived, drafted with imprecise and subjective language, and subject to legal challenge," Gibbs said. "They don't do, I believe, anything close to what the proponents had intended."
Backers of the initiatives could not be reached for comment Friday.
The first initiative would impose term limits on the council so no elected official could serve more than two four-year terms consecutively.
The second would cap the compensation for council members to 15 percent of the median household income, which was recently estimated at around $80,000, and do away with benefits they can receive such as life insurance or club memberships.
The last initiative seeks to cap the salary and benefits of top administrators, excluding police officials, at 2 1/2 times the median household income of Murrieta residents.
In addressing term limits, the report notes that term limits are not popular among California cities.
The consultants found that, in 2001, only 12.7 percent of cities in the state used term limits. More recently, an informal city survey showed that out of 50 cities in the state that responded, 32 percent had term limits.
The report notes that, while arguments can be made both in favor of and against term limits, the initiative as written leaves room for interpretation, which opens the door for a legal challenge.
City Attorney Leslie Devaney wrote in a report to the council that the wording was problematic ---- with all three initiatives.
Most concerning, according to the consultants, was the vagueness of the term "median household income," which are at the heart of two of the initiatives.
The consultant's report states it would not be a financially sound practice to base a salary or compensation package on an arbitrary income that fluctuates with the market.
Additionally, the consultant notes that the savings from the second initiative, which seeks to limit a council member's compensation, would only be realized by the city eliminating the health benefits available to council members. If voters decided to remove that benefit from the council members' stipends, the city could save as much as $15,922 per council member each year. But removing those benefits could dissuade persons with lower incomes from running for office, the consultants said.
Devaney also stated in her report that she found the initiative to be "legally defective."
"It is unclear as to whether its effect is retroactive, the standard by which compensation is limited is unclear," Devaney wrote.
But it is unlikely that initiative would pass, the consultant states. In order for an electorate to cap the compensation of their elected officials, a supermajority of registered voters would have to vote in favor of such a proposition. But only twice since 1992 has a supermajority, or 55 percent of registered voters, actually shown up to Murrieta polls, the report stated, leading analysts to believe that sufficient support wouldn't be attained for the initiative.
Analysts took particular issue with the third initiative that would cap the salary and benefits of top city administrators, including the city manager.
The consultant noted that the initiative could pose a situation where managers would earn less than some of their staff, who would be paid a market rate. It would also make it less likely that an employee would accept a promotion if it meant a pay cut, the consultants stated, which would hamper the city's ability to recruit qualified applicants.
"Although the city council term limits and compensation system have negative impacts, they are not as potentially detrimental to the city as limiting the salaries of management staff," the report states. "This initiative will have long lasting negative impacts on the city."
Backers of the initiatives have said that tying salaries to the median household income of residents would act as an incentive for city managers to find ways to raise the income of the community, but the report states that "directing funding to economic development activities would be more productive."
Gibbs agreed that this particular initiative was the most problematic.
"My belief was that (issue) was so critical to the life of the city that we had to have the report that would lay things out in black-and-white terms that would say what the impact on Murrieta's viability would be," Gibbs said.
The meeting begins at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 24601 Jefferson Ave.
Contact staff writer Nelsy Rodriguez at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2626, or nrodriguez@californian.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
McCainiac wrote on Aug 31, 2008 6:57 PM:Bigger entitlements with reckless spending.Is this the new face of Murrieta Conservative Rule?
Dear McCainiac wrote on Sep 1, 2008 2:15 AM:Bigger entitlements? If you think $600 a month is too much to pay a council member who works 20-25 hours per week, has no personal life, and spends 5-6 nights a week attending non-profit, homeowners meetings, and commission meetings, you need a reality check. As far as term limits - yeah, that's what we need, perpetual trainees. In a city the size of Murrieta, there's no room for on the job training for the top job!! And let's put an ad in the paper for a "city manager that reads like this: Wanted: City Manager. Beautiful, wealthy So Cal city of 100,000 seeking brilliant individual to head dynamic team of public administrators. Must have master's degree and minimum of 10 years experience in public administration at the highest levels. $110,000" . What a joke! Oceanside's city manager makes $240,000 and Temecula's makes $220,000 and they deserve it! Murrieta wouldn't get one qualified person to apply at that rate. These initiatives are nothing more than a group of leading Republicans trying to find a way to get Casey Evans on the council even though he lost miserably in teh last election. This move is about as obvious as an elephant in the living room!!
Murrieta Resident wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:26 AM:These initiatives are a waste of time and money. We don't need term limits. If the council isn't doing the job then they get voted out just like they got voted in. As for income, if you want quality then you have to pay for it.
Hello wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:01 AM:Ever heard of the fox guarding the henhouse? In this case, you have a whole slew of those foxes, and some are lawyers, some are politicians, and some are city employees, all officially opposing these initiatives on the tax payers' dime. Actually, they all smell more like rats than foxes, but that's just how the old saying goes.
CleanHouse wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:39 AM:Terms limits have merit, but the rest of these poorly worded initiatives are good examples of the out of control initiative process in California. There are 12 initiatives on the statewide ballot, plus Congressional, state and local elections. How can busy, working Murrieta residents, or any California voters, keep up with all of the issues and candidates and the detailed language in the initiatives. This idea that we don't need term limits because people vote the politicians into office and they can vote them out simply ignores the reality of the political process. As it is now, political gadflies are about the only ones who have the time to research all the issues and the candidates, and that's why only a tiny percentage of incumbents are ever voted out of office. The only way to get new blood into local elected offices particularly, but also at the state and federal level with Gerrymandering, is to have term limits. The statistics quoted in the story indicating only a third of cities have term limits may very likely not tell the whole story. Look at the cities in California with populations the size of Murrieta or larger and you are likely to find a much higher percentage of term limits. Without term limits you get entrenched politicians who become corrupted by long-term, growing power. Congress has a 12 percent approval rating but there doesn't seem to be any way to throw the bums out because of the power of incumbency and the Gerrymandering that creates safe districts.
ToCleanHouse wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:23 AM:Well stated. Some of us remember whose campaign slogan during the Murrieta recall election was "Clean House". If that happens to be who's writing today, maybe you can explain why we did not see your name among those filing for this year's ballot.
Informed wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:29 AM:These initiatives were ill-conceived and poorly written from the get go. Gotta wonder how many people who signed the petitions actually read the initiatives or just listened to the hype of the people collecting the signatures. When you read these intitiatives, the pitfalls are evident.
InformedYeahRight wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:57 AM:The main "pitfall" for the term limits initiative is that the very people whose entrenched interests are at stake are the leading opponents, with their attorneys and hirelings in tow.
Nonsense wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:06 AM:Lets see...the city has spent $22,000 so far to study the initiatives. I'm betting that if the electorate gets duped into voting to pass these initiatives, more taxpayer dollars will be spent on legality issues; probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the meantime, it will place Murrieta in the headlines once again for dysfunctional politics and a way to de-motivate its workforce. Common sense and history has told us that if you limit someone's earning potential, they are either going to look somewhere else for employment or not work very hard. Either way, we lose. This runs counter to Republican principles and what I've heard from McCain thus far. This type of issue is not what we want Murrieta to be famous for. We want low crime, great schools, quality development, shopping and restaurants. Why would anyone want to invest in a city with an unstable political environment?
VOR wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:54 AM:Nonsense, you're right on your first points. Murrieta doesn't need to hamstring themselves anymore then we are with initiatives that take our one strength, the power to vote off the table and limit us from hiring the very best employees.
But who cares about Republican principles and for that matter what McBush says! This is Murrieta, a city that has already been hurt by the conservative principles of Corporations (developers) coming before the interests of the residents that live here. Where are initiatives from Kowell and Evans to lower crime, bring us schools that spend time teaching our children and bring retail dollars to pay for it all. They are too worried about Conservatives principles to care.
To Hello wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:56 AM:What's odd is that the initiative supporters such as yourself seem to narrow your focus on the term limits initiative. That may be your strongest argument, but your crediblity is lost when it is lumped with the other two. Hey, they chose this strategy. Maybe because the wording on "median income" is too hard to calculate. Is Casey Evans, Bob Kowell and Rob Reiss going to knock the door of every Murrieta resident and ask us to verify our income every month? every year? I guess they didn't think past their noses on this issue and the legal fees that will cost us all. In a past article, I recall Bob Kowell adjusting the numbers of the salary cap from 1.7 to 2.5 of median income. Why not 1.152, 4.298 or 7.243? Keep rolling the dice and you can create whatever scientific formula you'd like.
Unsolicited Protection wrote on Sep 1, 2008 1:42 PM:People want to vote on these issues worded that way. They signed and now some outside Law Office is going to say "This is not what you want". And our leaders are going to agree!!!??A first year economics college student can figure "median income". 2.5 times the median is not $110,000.00 it is around $200,000.00, and in my book,that plus all the perks is reasonable for a MASTERS DEGREE pay scale. City Council is volunteer public service, not a career.I love these politicians who think the job should pay ,AFTER the election.
To Unsolicited Protection wrote on Sep 1, 2008 3:26 PM:As you say, if a first year economics student can figure 2.5 the median income, this same economics student can also explain the law of supply and demand and how these initiatives are going to be dismal failures. If people can get paid 3-4 times the median income of their communities by working for surrounding cities and the county without income caps, why would they stay to work in Murrieta when they could gain baseline experience then go elsewhere? That same student can also describe for you what a free-market economy is and why it has worked for 232 years. Also, if the backers want to take these initiatives "statewide" as they say, how fair and prejudicial is it to implement this same formula on cities where median incomes are not quite as high. This way poorer communities are led by leaders who are even less experienced and paid even less! Way to disenfranchise even more people in this state!
Lastly, look at the demographics of our school board and city council and those candidates who continually run for those seats. Only those who are retired, their children are grown, or they are financially well off seem to run. Like the article states, those with lower incomes would be discouraged from running. For most, family comes first. The already small stipend for our elected representatives is a small price to pay to live in a great city.
FinalWord wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:28 PM:The legal challenges we have to worry about would be spearheaded by our very own elected and hired officials, with our hired city attorney's office fighting the will of the electorate right along with them. They are all simply self-interested, willing to fight their own citizens from their positions of power, and if that doesn't say something about the mindset of the people we have chosen to serve us, nothing does.
Fredrick wrote on Sep 2, 2008 12:43 AM:I don't get the comments saying this is a Republican idea. There is no Republican Club or official Republican Party behind it or that has endorsed it. It is true the three named individuals claim to be Republicans.
I suggest there could easily be found many Republican residents that would be happy to vote to increase the city council members pay to the maximum allowed by state law.
Fredrick wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:02 AM:Pay for city employees is one serious problem. Pay for city managers is another problem. When pensions are so generously given to keep up with other cities problems arise, like in San Diego with its real budgetary crisis and deteriorating infrastructure.
It should be made mandatory for cities and counties and the state to fund annuities every year, year by year as employees work, not just vote to give them a big pension years in the future and leave the problems for some future city councils to deal with. Look at Vallejo. A city of 120,000 that has survived for maybe a hundred years. It has now filed bankruptcy this year.
Fredrick wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:11 AM:Pay for city employees: Decades ago city employees claimed to earn less than private sector employees, and they often did. However most city employees did have better job security. Gradually they have caught up and passed any number of private sector employees AND have pensions besides. During this time more and more private companies have greatly reduced or eliminated pensions.
Fredrick wrote on Sep 2, 2008 1:21 AM:City Managers may be making a lot more pay than managers in private corporations, and in Federal civil service positions with comparable numbers of employees and/or budgetary responsibilities. Due to the lingo for different city funding means, etc, a skilled manager from private industry with a masters degree and 10 years experience inprivate company finance cannot immediately step in to a city manager position even with good management skills over the same number of employees. But could do well with a little extra training. There should be some way to train them instead of cities bidding against each other higher and higher.
Cant wait to move from here wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:12 AM:The people that run our city are self centered power mongers. They don't care about the residents of this community. If they did, we would have as many businesses and community services as Temecula.
They don't work 25-30 hours a week for our benifit. They go to meetings and parties and get off on all the photo opps that bring them local fame.
This city is so broken. It couldn't much worse. We need some changes in this community and these initiative could do the job.
Rasta Man wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:21 AM:You can beat this horse all day,it still is not going to move. Some lawyer in "SAN JOSE" knows (how to deny you the Democratic right to vote) whats best for you. Council-1 Citizens-0
toCantWait wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:29 AM:If you and people like you give up and move, who will be left to fight the self interested politicians and city employees who think they have the legal right to milk the system and bleed the public they are supposedly there to serve? These tyrants who are now trying to intimidate their own constituents with veiled and unveiled references to lawsuits should be thrown out of office.
Hey Rasta Man wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:13 PM:Term limits TAKE AWAY MY VOTE! How dare you imply that people are too stupid to make good decisions. Don't take aware our right to vote for the people we want to serve on the council! If Casey Evans can't win in a legitimate election, he doesn't deserve to win in a shell game of smoke and mirrors like these initiatives.
toHey wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:16 PM:Voting for term limits is a prime example of exercising the right to vote. It is an exercise which runs counter to the interests of traditionally campaign-financed incumbents who would be so hard hit by it, so of course it is the target of irrational and panicky sounding comments such as that at 9:13.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement