BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL TRANSITION COMMISSION
October 29, 2004
Honorable Sheila Dixon
President
Baltimore City Council
Room 400, City Hall
Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Madame President:
I am pleased to submit the enclosed
recommendations of the Baltimore City Transition Commission, which was created
by Resolution No. 03-1264 on December 8, 2003.
The Commission has met monthly
since January 2004 to consider the reports of its committees: Budget and
Miscellaneous Matters, Land Use, Open Government, and Ordinance and
Administrative Rules. As requested in Resolution No. 03-1264, it considered all
issues directly resulting from the reconfiguration of the Council and the
recommendations made by the City Council President’s Commission on Council Representation
(“Stokes Commission”) issued in July 2001. All meetings of the Commission have
been announced on the City Council’s website and open to the public. We held
public hearings on March 11 and June 8. The Commission’s business has been
conducted in a transparent manner.
All of the recommendations included
in this report were supported by at least a majority of the Commission
members. Nearly all of recommendations represent a consensus of the entire
Commission. Of the issues on which there were minority views, most stemmed
from concerns about whether issues fell within the scope of the Commission’s
charge rather than the merits of the recommendations themselves. On the
remaining few, substantive debate within the Commission was lively, and this in
itself was felt to be a useful service to the Council. We believe that our
recommendations can serve as a starting point for the Council’s own discussions
and we stand ready to review our findings and deliberations with you and any
interested Council Members.
In addition to the recommendations included in
the report, the Commission considered matters on which it declined to recommend
any action: consolidation in Article III of the portions of the City Charter
that deal with the City Council; prescribed meetings of the Council with the
City’s delegation to the General Assembly; whether Mayor’s Cabinet members
would provide sworn or unsworn testimony; and appointment of a Charter Review
Commission to
Honorable Sheila Dixon
October 29, 2004
Page 2
consider the complex matter of reconstitution of the Board
of Estimates and the balance of authority between the Mayor and the City
Council.
On behalf of the Commission and the
Baltimore Efficiency & Economy Foundation, I want to express our gratitude
for the courtesy and assistance you, your staff, the City Council, the City of
Baltimore, and particularly the Department of Legislative Reference, have
provided. We would also like to thank Marsha Schachtel for her invaluable
assistance.
Respectfully
submitted,
______________________________________
Zelig
Robinson
CHAIRMAN
Baltimore
City Council Transition Commission
cc: George A. Nilson, Esq.
Chairman, Baltimore Efficiency & Economy
Foundation, Inc.
Vice Chairman of the Baltimore City Council
Transition Commission
Members of the Baltimore City Council Transition
Commission
Distribution list
Baltimore City Council
Transition Commission
Final Report
October 29, 2004
Zelig Robinson, Chairman
George A. Nilson, Vice-Chairman
Tony Ambridge
Victor Bonaparte
Karen Footner
Vera Hall
Jody Landers Baltimore
City Council Staff
Kim Nunnally Beatrice
Tripps – Chief of Staff
Ronald L. Schultz Carolyn
Blakeney – Director of Fiscal Affairs
Michael Seipp Tony
Hayes – Legislative Director
Stuart O. Simms Jennifer
Coates – Director of Councilmatic Services
Joseph L. Smith Avery
Aisenstark – Director Legislative Reference
Otho M. Thompson
Marsha R. B. Schachtel
Senior Fellow
Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
In November 2002, the voters of
Baltimore City approved a new structure for Baltimore City Council
representation of citizen interests. Since 1922, the Council consisted of 18
council members, with three members elected from each of six districts. The
restructured Council will have 14 council members, each elected from a
single-member district. The Council President will continue to be elected by
voters citywide.
At the behest of City
Council President Sheila Dixon and in cooperation with the Baltimore Efficiency
and Economy Foundation (BEEF), the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission
was created by City Council Resolution 03-1264 in December of 2003. The
Commission was charged primarily with evaluating “all aspects of the City
Council and its operations to ensure a smooth transition from a body comprising
six 3-member districts to a body comprising 14 single-member districts, and to
facilitate a continuing satisfactory level of delivery of services to the
citizens of Baltimore.” The Commission issued an Interim Report on April 29,
2004.
Recommendations
(*denotes recommendations that
call for an amendment to the City Charter approved by the voters)
I.
Council Structure and Vacancies
*A. A Nominating Committee should be named
to fill council vacancies. The Nominating Committee should consist of the
President of the City Council and the Chairs of all Standing Committees.
.
B. The Council’s committee structure should
embody continuity, and the Budget and Appropriations Committee should be
codified.
II. Council
Procedures
A. The Council should adopt a Council
Rule governing the introduction of bills for zoning or land use changes or
amendments. The Rule should prescribe a process that requires concurrence when
land use changes affect more than one councilmanic district.
*B. The number of votes required to
override a Mayoral veto should be clarified by amending the City Charter.
*C. The Mayor
and City Council should have the authority to reallocate appropriations within
the Proposed Ordinance of Estimates while it is before the Council. Thus the
funds that the Council cuts from one appropriation could be added to another
appropriation provided the Mayor and City Council agree.
D. The City Solicitor should assign an
attorney to provide legal advice to the City Council on legislative matters.
E.
The
Council should meet year-round.
F. The Council,
both collectively and individually, should continue to review and make
judgments about the balance between their legislative and constituent services
functions.
III.
Open Government
A. The Council should utilize all available
technologies to improve public information about current city issues.
B. The Council should publish the City’s
General Fund budget annually.
C. The Council should
annually develop and publish reports linking the budget to the performance of
city services, as generated through the CitiStat program.
D. Committee votes on significant
issues should be conducted in public.
E. The Council agenda
should be reorganized to give separate prominence to consideration of
legislation. Council resolutions should be handled by consent calendar, as
ceremonial resolutions are today.
F. New options for interactive remote
access to City Council meetings should be explored.
IV. Budget, Staffing and Compensation
A. The Commission
recommends that all of the funds currently appropriated for the salary and
benefits of the four Council positions, and one-half of the appropriation for
the staff and support services of the positions be eliminated from future City
budgets. The remaining one- half of the staff and support funds saved should
be devoted to hardware and software improvements that enhance the capacity of
the Council President’s office to provide constituent services to Council
members and citizens.
B. The Council
needs augmented fiscal staff support.
*C. Salaries and benefits of City Council members
should be determined on recommendation of an independent commission and
approved by the Council at least 30 days before the primary election.
V. Baltimore City Code and
Council Rules
A. Council Rules
must be changed to reflect the change in number of Council Members.
B. The Baltimore City Code
must be changed to reflect the change in the number of Council members.
Introduction
In November 2002, the voters of
Baltimore City approved a new structure for Baltimore City Council
representation of citizen interests. Since 1922, the Council has consisted of
18 council members, with three members elected from each of six districts. The
restructured Council will have 14 council members, each elected from a
single-member district. The Council President will continue to be elected by voters
citywide.
In February 2003, Mayor O'Malley introduced
his redistricting plan to the Council, which reviewed and discussed the Mayor's
proposed plan with the help of public input through open forums, including
informational hearings, community meetings and talk show discussions. The
primary election to nominate candidates for the 14 Council Member seats and the
at-large Council President was held in September 2003. Following an anomalous
15-month lag time, the restructured Council will be seated in December 2004
after the general election in November 2004.
At the behest of City Council
President Sheila Dixon and in cooperation with the Baltimore Efficiency and
Economy Foundation (BEEF), the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission was
created by City Council Resolution 03-1264 in December of 2003. (See Appendix
A.) The Commission was charged with evaluating “all aspects of the City
Council and its operations to ensure a smooth transition from a body comprising
six 3-member districts to a body comprising 14 single-member districts, and to
facilitate a continuing satisfactory level of delivery of services to the
citizens of Baltimore.” Members of the Commission are listed in Appendix B.
The Commission has
met monthly since January 2004 to consider the reports of its committees:
Budget and Miscellaneous Matters, Land Use, Open Government, and Ordinance and
Administrative Rules. It was also asked to review the recommendations made by
the City Council President’s Commission on Council Representation (“Stokes
Commission”) issued in July 2001. It held public hearings on March 11 and June
8, 2004. All meetings of the Commission have been announced on the City
Council’s website and open to the public. All of the Commission’s
recommendations were endorsed by a majority of its members, almost all
unanimously; exceptions are noted in the body of the report.
The Commission was
asked to address first the issues that required immediate action by the sitting
Council in advance of the election and installation of the new Council. The
Commission’s interim report, issued on April 29, 2004, made recommendations for
the FY 2005 budget (see recommendation IV.A below), and regarding the City
Charter amendment required to change the way Council mid-term vacancies are
filled (see recommendation I.A below). An ordinance embodying the recommended
City Charter amendment was passed by the City Council on July 12, 2004 and the
proposed amendment will appear on the ballot on November 2, 2004 for the
voters’ consideration.
Recommendations
Each of the following recommendations was
supported by a majority of the Commission members who voted. Recommendations
marked with an asterisk (*) call for an amendment to the City Charter approved
by the voters.
I.
Council Structure and Vacancies
*I.A A Nominating Committee should be named to fill council
vacancies. The Nominating Committee should consist of the President of the
City Council and the Chairs of all Standing Committees.
Council Rules should be amended to recognize that
the Council will be changing from multi-member districts to single-member
districts. Council Rule 5-11 currently gives the power to nominate a person to
fill a vacancy in a multi-member district to the “remaining” members of the
district delegation. That process customarily results in the ultimate
selection of their nominee by the Council.
In the 14-member Council, if a vacancy should
occur in a single member district, there would be no “remaining” members. The
Commission recommends a nomination process that would lead to the presentation
of a single nominee to the Council for its consideration. A Nominating
Committee would be formed, consisting of the President of the City Council (who
would chair the Nominating Committee) and the Chairs of the various Standing
Committees. The Nominating Committee would review potential nominees and make
a recommendation to the full Council. If the full Council should reject the
Committee’s nominee, the Committee would be required to reconvene to consider an
alternative nominee, and report its recommendation at the next Council
meeting. If the President’s office should become vacant, the Vice President of
the Council would chair the Nominating Committee.
We recognize that this places considerable power
in the hands of the President (who is responsible for selecting the committee
chairs), but the President is after all accountable to all the voters in the
City whereas the other Council Members have been elected to their seats
cumulatively by everyone except the voters whose Councilperson is
being replaced. In addition, we recommend certain refinements to the
nominating process designed to insure that it is a completely open and
transparent process and proceeds to a prompt conclusion. These changes are
embodied in a proposed amendment to Council Rule 5-11, attached to this report
as Appendix C.
There are related provisions of the City Charter
that should be changed. An amendment to the Charter requires passage of an
ordinance to place the proposed change on the ballot for consideration by the
voters. Since the deadline for including issues on the ballot for the November
2004 general election fell before the issuance of this final report of the
Commission, the Commission’s Interim Report, issued on April 29, 2004, made the
following recommendation:
The Baltimore City Charter (Art. III, Sec. 6)
simply directs that vacancies shall be filled by the Council. In effect, this
means that the Council Rules prescribe the decision-making process. But the
Charter provides that vacancies shall be filled in this manner only until the
next primary and general election held in the City, at which time a successor
shall be elected by the voters. By way of example, if a vacancy were to occur
in February 2005, under the current Charter the “interim replacement” named by
the Council would only serve until the 2006 Gubernatorial elections, rather
than until the next Municipal Elections. However, neither the City nor its
voters have the power to dictate when elections may be held for municipal
offices; this power rests solely with the General
Assembly. And the General Assembly has not ever approved the holding of such
“vacancy elections” in Baltimore City at any time other than the regular
Municipal Elections held every four years. The Maryland Attorney General’s
office has opined that City Council members may only be voted on at these
Municipal Elections.
In short, the City Charter should conform to the
law. The Commission’s recommendation was accepted by the City Council following
the Commission’s Interim Report and passed on July 12, 2004. The adopted City
Council Resolution 04-055 for a City Charter amendment regarding vacancies is
attached as Appendix D. It will appear on the ballot on November 2,
2004 for the voters’ consideration.
I.B The Council’s committee
structure should embody continuity, and the Budget and Appropriations Committee
should be codified.
The
specific configuration of committees is the prerogative of the President and
Council. The Commission believes that continuity in the committee line-up gives
council members the ability to develop expertise and the public the ability to
identify and get to know relevant points of contact.
In addition, the
Commission believes that the City Council Budget and Appropriations Committee
should be institutionalized. Currently, Council committees are created (and
frequently reconfigured) through amending Council Rules. Only the Legislative
Investigations Committee is included in the City Code, a codification that ensures
that the committee has authorization to exist beyond the will of a Council
majority at a given point in time. The Commission adopted draft language to
amend Article 1, §1 of the City Code:
1) §1-5
(a)-(c): creates a committee of four or more members (at least one-quarter of
the new 14-member Council) with reappointment every year by the President and
Council;
2) §1-5
(d): requires public hearings on the budget; and
3) Encourages
an annual meeting with the City Auditor to discuss major audit findings and
city fiscal issues
II.
Council Procedures
II.A The
Council should adopt a Council Rule governing the introduction of bills for
zoning or land use changes or amendments. The Rule should prescribe a process
that requires concurrence when land use changes affect more than one
councilmanic district.
The Commission
spent a considerable amount of time deliberating this issue and believes that
it deserves serious consideration and discussion among the members of the
Council. The recommended protocol reflects the Commission’s strong desire to
prevent a single Council Member from exercising unilateral power over land use
legislation when the subject legislation has an impact beyond the individual
member’s district boundaries.
Protocol recommended for
adoption as a Council Rule:
The
Council Member elected from a single district may serve as the sole or primary
sponsor for purposes of introducing a bill or bills for zoning or land use
changes or amendments when the affected property or parcel of land is physically
located within the Council district from which the Council member was elected.
However, if a zoning or land use bill pertains to a property, parcel or use
that meets any one of the criteria enumerated below, then the report of the
Council committee to which the bill was referred must have the concurrence of
the sponsor and at least one other Council Member who represents the affected
or adjacent districts.
1)
The property or parcel is
located on, or overlaps a City Council district boundary line or lines, or
2)
The change or use will have a
direct impact on a residential or commercial area located in an adjacent City
Council district(s), as determined by the committee to which the Bill is
assigned, or
3)
The affected property is located
within a neighborhood designated by the Baltimore City Planning Department as a
Neighborhood Statistical Area, that falls within or overlaps two or more City
Council districts.
Nothing
in this protocol shall prevent the City Council President, as a City-wide
elected official, from introducing or sponsoring a zoning or land use bill at
the request of an interested party, or on behalf of the Administration, or
prevent the City Council from voting on such a bill.
Land use is
one of the most important powers of city council members, and Baltimore’s City
Council has historically had an unusually strong role in these decisions. In
the past, through the exercise of informal councilmanic courtesy, the three
members from each councilmanic district were able in large measure to be responsible
and answerable for land use decisions within their own boundaries. If
constituents could persuade two or all three of the members of their position
on a land use issue, the rest of the Council would usually accede to their
wishes. The exceptions have been in cases in which the Administration had a
strong position or deemed the project to be of citywide import, and those that
the Planning Commission has opposed. Residents, businesses, and investors
understood this unwritten protocol, generally bringing stability and
predictability to the process, which is critical to the quality of life in
neighborhoods and continued interest by outside investors. Further, it
promoted civility and collegiality among the Council Members.
More numerous, smaller single member districts pose
two significant challenges: the vesting of this control in a single individual
Council Member, and the increased likelihood that land use decisions will
affect more than one district. Many communities and commercial corridors are
now divided among multiple council districts, and the growth from six to
fourteen districts means that number and linear distance of district lines has
increased dramatically. It is far more likely that targeted properties will
lie on or adjacent to a district boundary.
After discussion at several meetings and numerous
revisions, the Commission adopted the revised protocol described above for
handling land use issues in the Council. Explicit in the protocol is the
responsibility given to the land use committee handling the matter for
determining whether the sphere of impact of a land use decision extends beyond
a single councilmanic district. After a lively debate, the majority of
Commission members recommended that the new protocol be adopted as a Council
Rule.
*II.B The number of votes
required to override a Mayoral veto should be clarified by amending the City
Charter.
The number of
votes required to override a mayoral veto should be clarified and disclosed by
amending the Charter (Art. IV (Mayor) §6(b) (third paragraph) to read:
“If the ordinance or
resolution, after reconsideration, shall be again passed by the City Council by
a vote of [three-fourths] eleven of its members, it shall become
an ordinance or resolution of the City.”
The change would “round down” the
result of a calculation of three-quarters of 15.
The Commission reviewed a survey (attached as Appendix E) showing that
11 members (73 percent) would continue to be the steepest requirement for a
veto override among comparable jurisdictions (cities nationally and urban
counties in Maryland) as well as the Maryland General Assembly and the U.S.
Congress. The average of the 10 cities examined was 69 percent, the median,
67 percent.
This
issue was discussed extensively at several Commission meetings. After further
research on policies in comparable jurisdictions, the majority of Commission
members endorsed the recommendation. A draft bill for a City Charter amendment
is attached as Appendix F. Some minority votes strongly favored a
two-thirds override requirement, which was the recommendation of the Stokes
Commission. Others felt the issue was beyond the charge given to the
Commission.
*II.C The Mayor and City Council should have the
authority to reallocate appropriations within the Proposed Ordinance of
Estimates while it is before the Council. Thus the funds that the Council cuts
from one appropriation could be added to another appropriation provided the
Mayor and City Council agree.
The present Charter
not only prohibits the Council from increasing any expenditure in the budget
proposed by the Mayor and the Board of Estimates, but also provides that if the
Council cuts the tax-supported budget, the funds saved may only be used to
reduce the property tax rate or as a reserve for spending in a future fiscal
year. They may not be added to any other item of expenditure. The Stokes
Commission recommended a change that permitted the Council, with the agreement
of the Mayor, to reallocate cut funds. This recommendation was endorsed by the
Transition Commission. In the State of Maryland’s budget process, the General
Assembly similarly may cut items but not increase expenditures in the budget
presented by the Governor. However, the Governor may submit for the General
Assembly’s consideration a supplemental budget reallocating the funds cut.
II.D The City Solicitor should assign an attorney to provide
legal advice to the City Council on legislative matters.
The City Council requires
competent legal advice on legislative matters before the Council and in the
development of new legislation. The mission of the Baltimore City Law
Department includes “provid[ing] sound legal advice and counsel to the Mayor,
City Council, and City departments, boards, and commissions.” The President of
the City Council should request that the City Solicitor assign an experienced
attorney to the City Council to provide advice on legislative matters. This
attorney should be able to draw on the expertise of the entire Law Department
as special issues arise.
II.E The Council should meet year-round.
The Commission supports the decision of the
Council to meet at least once in every month, and more frequently between
September and June.
.
II.F The Council, both collectively and individually, should
continue to review and make judgments about the balance between their
legislative and constituent services functions.
The Commission members did not feel
qualified to make a recommendation about the balance of Council Member activity
between legislative and constituent services functions. However, it was noted
that Administration initiatives to improve services and make Executive Branch
agencies more accessible and accountable might reduce the constituent service
requirements placed on Council Members, giving them more time for legislative
and year-round budget review functions. It was also pointed out that the
Council retains an important oversight role in assuring that agency responses
made through the 311 system are effective.
III.
Open Government
III.A The Council should utilize all available
technologies to improve public information about current city issues.
The public’s
understanding of key issues can be enhanced through the underutilized city
cable television channel for regularly scheduled programs featuring panels of
city government and other knowledgeable citizens, and sessions at which the
press and members of the City Council discuss matters of public health or
safety with provision for call-ins from citizens.
The Council’s
website can be used more intensively to provide public notice of all Council
activities. The General Assembly of Maryland’s website provides a framework for
significantly enhancing public notice of all matters to be taken up by the City
Council, and of City Council actions, particularly during the time between
enactment and effective dates of new laws.
III.B The Council should publish the City’s General Fund budget
annually.
The publicly available Baltimore City budget
does not enable the public to easily compare from year to year the proposed and
adopted changes in the most meaningful part of the budget – the portion funded
by General Fund dollars. The General Fund is a central fund that contains most
of the City’s tax and unrestricted revenues that are used to support basic City
operations and pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) capital projects. These are the tax
sources and revenues over which the Mayor and City Council have total authority
and control, unlike taxes or revenues coming from State, Federal or restricted
sources. The City’s website does not break down the $2 billion budget
expenditures by fund, and even with the $135 budget books that contain budget
detail, it is almost impossible to tease out the specific proposed and actual
uses of the $900 million General Fund. The Council should obtain from the
Finance Department and publish on its website a breakdown of the General Fund
budget, by department, by program, by activity and objects of expenditure. It
should retain previous year information on the website for at least three years
to enable the public to see changes over time.
III.C The Council should annually develop and publish reports linking
the budget to the performance of city services, as generated through the
CitiStat program.
The service
performance data generated by the CitiStat program should be published on the
Council website in conjunction with the General Fund budget. National
organizations are moving toward use of performance measurements in budget
analysis. The Department of Finance has experience and expertise in compiling
and publishing performance measurements. Baltimore’s CitiStat program
represents a leap forward in performance measurement. The City has an
opportunity to use this tool to increase public understanding of the link
between dollars spent and units of service produced. Institutionalizing this
type of performance measurement will also serve the City well in the future
when bond rating agencies evaluate the City’s budget development and
management. A majority of Commission members voted to approve this
recommendation.
III.D Committee votes should be conducted in public.
It is in the
public interest to achieve transparency in government decision-making,
including public observation of committee discussion and the justifications
provided by Council Members of the votes they cast. It is also beneficial to
Council Members to hear and discuss the issues with their colleagues
face-to-face. However, reform efforts must avoid slowing down the legislative
process. The Commission was pleased to learn that in the time since the Stokes
Commission report, the Council has adopted the practice of holding public
voting sessions on all ordinances and Mayor and City Council resolutions.
III.E The Council agenda should be reorganized to give separate
prominence to consideration of legislation. Council resolutions should be
handled by consent calendar, as ceremonial resolutions are today.
The current Council
calendar is a mix of ceremonial resolutions (handled in a separate consent
calendar), “nonbinding” Council resolutions of the Council’s intent or position
on issues, and substantive bills and resolutions of the Mayor and City
Council. Constituents interested in issues before the Council are
understandably confused by this mixture of meaningful and symbolic activities.
An agenda that gives prominence to proposed laws will make it easier for
citizens to participate in the legislative process.
III.F New options for interactive remote access to City Council
meetings should be explored.
The Commission
endorses the councilmanic tradition of holding committee and subcommittee
meetings in the community, and affirms the importance of the predictability of
holding regular Council meetings at City Hall. The Commission encourages the
exploration of electronic means (i.e. teleconferencing at libraries, schools,
and other dispersed locations) for enhancing interactive access by citizens to
meetings. Ideally, this would go beyond simply televising the Council sessions
to allow those who cannot attend meetings at City Hall to participate in the
deliberations.
IV.
Budget, Staffing and Compensation
IV.A The Commission recommends that all of the funds currently
appropriated for the salary and benefits of the four Council positions and
one-half of the appropriation for the staff and support services of the
positions be eliminated from future City budgets. The remaining one-half of
the staff and support funds saved should be devoted to hardware and software
improvements that enhance the capacity of the Council President’s office to
provide constituent services to Council members and citizens.
The most urgent issue the Commission considered
pertains to the budget for the City Council for the Fiscal Year 2004-05,
beginning July 1, 2004.
The change in the composition of the Council from a 19-member
body to a 15-member body (including the President) will occur in December,
following the November, 2004 general election. At that time the Council and
the City Budget will have four fewer Council Members to support, and the
Council will begin its transition from six 3-member districts plus an at-large
President to 14 single-member districts plus an at-large President. The
four Council Members whose positions will terminate beginning with the second
half of the 2004/2005 fiscal year are now supported by a total budget
allocation of approximately $540,000 in City general funds over the full year.
Of this total annual amount, $240,000 is budgeted for Council Members’ salary
and benefits and $300,000 for staff and other support services.
In its Interim
Report, submitted before the Fiscal Year 2005 budget was finalized, the
Commission recommended that all of the $240,000 now appropriated for the four
Council Members’ total annual salary and benefits should be deleted from future
City budgets, and that one-half of the $300,000 per year now allocated for
staff and other support services of the four Council Members, should be
eliminated from the City Council budget in the future. The Commission
recommended that the remaining one-half ($150,000) of the $300,000 annual
allocation for staff and other support services could be retained in the City
Council budget and dedicated to enhancing the capacity of the President’s
Office to provide constituent services for the Council and City citizens
generally. The Commission further recommended that those retained funds should
be dedicated by the President’s Office to technological improvements (software
and/or hardware) appropriate for delivery of constituent services—not to the
creation of new positions or the retention or compensation of existing
positions, with the possible exception of a fiscal analyst (see recommendation
IV.B below).
On the foregoing
basis, in the upcoming 2004/2005 initial partial fiscal year,
$120,000 which formerly would have been allocated for the four Council Members’
salary and benefits in that partial fiscal year period will be eliminated from
the proposed Council budget; $75,000 of the $150,000 which would otherwise have
been budgeted in the initial partial fiscal year for the four Council Members’
staff and other support services would be deleted from the proposed City
Council budget; and the remaining $75,000 of the $150,000 which would have been
budgeted for the four Council Members’ staff and other support services in the
partial fiscal year would be allocated to the President’s Office to provide
hardware and software to support constituent services required by individual
Council Members and by the City’s citizens, or other capacity-building services
(see IV.B).
These recommendations will save $120,000 in the
first (partial) fiscal year and provide $75,000 for better constituent services
in that same period. The recommended use of savings is based upon the
Commission’s determination that the loss of four Council Members may diminish
to some extent the Council’s resources to provide constituent services, and
that continuing constituent needs can best be satisfied by improving the
centralized hardware and software resources of the Council President’s office
to provide these services to Council Members and citizens.
IV.B The Council needs
augmented fiscal staff support.
Discussion with current and previous Council
Members revealed a strong desire to improve the capacity of the Council
to deal with financial and legal issues. The highest priority is to improve
fiscal staffing in a way that enables Council Members not only to evaluate the
budgets submitted annually by the Administration, but also to monitor budget
issues year-round, including review of management and fiscal audits and issues
under consideration by the Board of Estimates. Given Administration
initiatives to improve the responsiveness of City services, Council Members may
have more time for fiscal oversight, and would benefit from the full-time
services of an experienced budget analyst. The Council should consider the
relative merits of using the “capacity-building” portion of the savings gained
by reducing the size of the Council for this purpose.
*IV.C Salaries and benefits of City Council members should
be determined on recommendation of an independent commission and approved by
the Council at least 30 days before the primary election.
City Council salaries have increased dramatically
over the last several terms. The Council has effected these raises in
ordinances adopted after primary elections but before the general elections, as
required by the City Charter and the Maryland Constitution.
The Maryland General Assembly looks to an
independent General Assembly Compensation Commission to make recommendations
for salaries and benefits of its members. In the year before an election year,
the Commission begins the process of considering and weighing evidence on these
compensation issues. The Commission’s recommendations are embodied in a
resolution of the General Assembly the following January at the start of the
legislative session and which becomes law if the resolution is not amended or
superceded within 90 days. The Governor appoints one-third of the members of
the Commission and the General Assembly’s presiding officers select two-thirds.
The City Council
Transition Commission recommends that the City adopt a similar approach to
setting salaries, adjusting timelines as appropriate to match the City
legislative and elections calendar. A City Commission’s recommendations should
be introduced at least 120 days before the primary elections and resolved at
least 30 days before the primary elections in the fall. The Maryland
Constitution provision creating the General Assembly Compensation Commission is
attached as Appendix G. Amendment of the City Charter would be required
to modify the existing Baltimore City Compensation Commission for Elected
Officials to give it comparable powers. The City Code subtitle pertaining to
the Compensation Commission is also attached in Appendix G.
V. Baltimore
City Code and Council Rules
With the support of the Baltimore City Department of
Legislative Reference, the Commission reviewed provisions of the Council Rules
and Baltimore City Code that need to be amended to reflect the transition to a
15-member Council. Recommendations are largely confined to making numerical
changes to allow new voting requirements to match the percentages established
under old Council Rules. More substantive recommendations are included in
other sections of this report.
V.A Council Rules must be amended to reflect the change in the
number of council members.
Proposed amendments to Council
Rules are attached as Appendix H.
V.B The Baltimore City Code must be amended to
reflect the change in the number of council members.
A proposed
corrective ordinance to amend various provisions of the City Code is attached
as Appendix I.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appendices
A. City Council Resolution 03-1264
B. Members of the City Council Transition Commission
C. Proposed amendment to City Council Rule 5-11
regarding vacancies
D. City Council Resolution 04-055 for City Charter
amendment regarding vacancies
E. Veto Override Survey
F. Draft bill of City Charter amendment regarding
veto override
G. Maryland Constitution: General
Assembly Compensation Commission
and Baltimore City Code: Compensation Commission For Elected Officials
H. Proposed amendments to Council Rules
I. Proposed amendments to Baltimore City Code
APPENDIX
A
City of
Baltimore
Council
Bill 03-1264
(Resolution)
Introduced by: President Dixon, Councilmembers Young, Pugh,
Curran, Mitchell, Welch, Garey,
Rawlings Blake,
Abayomi, Reisinger, Carter, Harris, Cain, Spector, Stukes, Branch
Introduced and adopted: December
8, 2003
A Council
Resolution Concerning
Creation of the Baltimore City
Council Transition Commission
For the purpose of creating
the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission in partnership
with the Baltimore
Efficiency and Economy Foundation (BEEF) to evaluate all aspects of the City
Council and its operations to ensure a smooth transition from a body comprising
6 3-member districts to a body comprising 14 single-member districts and to
facilitate a continuing satisfactory level of delivery of services to the
citizens of Baltimore.
Recitals
The
Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation (BEEF) was founded in 1998, to
sponsor and publish independent research in the areas of: (1) aspects of local
government management, operations, fiscal and tax policy; (2) strategies to
increase Baltimore City’s tax base with new businesses and homeowners; and (3)
strategies to improve regional cooperation between Baltimore City and the
adjacent counties.
The President of Baltimore
City Council, members of her staff, and BEEF personnel collaborated to design
the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission, a Body specifically designed
to examine aspects of the City Council and operations that may be affected by
the reduction in size from 18 to 14 members and from 6, 3-member districts to
14 1-member districts, to review and lay out the optional courses of action
with regard to each affected area, and to make recommendations as to which
course(s) of action are preferable.
The Baltimore City Council
Transition Commission will be made up of Board members of BEEF, and staff from
the President of City Council’s office, University officials, government policy
experts, and members of the community at-large. From time to time, as
appropriate, staff from the key local government agencies will be requested to
assist the Commission in its work.
The Commission proposes to
have preliminary recommendations available for the Council to consider and act
on before the Baltimore City Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 is finalized. This
report will include all matters that are likely to have fiscal ramifications.
A final report, with approval of the President of the City Council, will be
available in early September 2004, and will include further recommendations on
matters of fiscal impact, amendments, if any, to the initial report, and
recommendations on all other matters pertaining to the reconfiguration of the
Baltimore City Council.
The Commission process for
forwarding its mission will include monthly meetings with individuals key to
the review process and conference calls or interim meetings as needed and the
Commission will provide periodic reports to keep the President and members of
the City Council informed on its work.
Specific recommendations of
the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission will include, but not be
limited to, the following:
$ Creating a Body
that will be accountable, accessible, and efficient in regards to legislative
process and constituent service
$ Reducing the
Baltimore City Council budget
$ Evaluating the
Council Rules and adjusting them if necessary to address the new configuration
of the Body
$ Reviewing the
recommendations from the Commission on Council Restructuring to evaluate the
Baltimore City Charter and the Baltimore City Code as these documents relate to
the Council
$ Addressing
current procedure and process that are impacted by the change in Council
configuration.
Although the Baltimore City
Council Transition Commission is specifically charged with overseeing the
transition of the Council, the cooperation of all members, staff, and the
public is needed to ensure that Baltimore City government continues to address
the needs and concerns of the citizens of the great City of Baltimore.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of Baltimore,
That the Baltimore City Council Transition Commission is created in partnership
with the Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation (BEEF) to evaluate all
aspects of the City Council and its operations to ensure a smooth transition
from a body comprising 6 3-member districts to a body comprising 14
single-member districts and to facilitate a continuing satisfactory level of
delivery of services to the citizens of Baltimore.
And be it
further resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be sent to the
Mayor, the Board of the Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation, the
Director of Finance, the Director of Planning, the Director of Councilmanic
Services, the Director of the Department of Legislative Reference, and the
Mayor’s Legislative Liaison to the City Council.
APPENDIX B
MEMBERS OF THE BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL TRANSITION
COMMISSION
ZELIG
ROBINSON, Esq., CHAIR
Partner, Gordon, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffman & Hollander
LLC; past associate counsel and consultant to U.S. House of Representatives
committees; past member of the Commission to Revise the Annotated Code of
Maryland; Chairman, Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission, 1991 – 1995;
President, Board of Directors, Everyman Theater. Board Member, Baltimore
Efficiency & Economy Foundation
GEORGE A. NILSON, Esq. VICE-CHAIR
Partner, Piper Rudnick LLP; previously Deputy Attorney
General of Maryland, 1976 - 1982; Chair, General Assembly’s Compensation
Commission, 1982 - 1994; President, Board of Directors, Midtown Academy, Inc.;
President, Baltimore Efficiency & Economy Foundation.
ANTHONY AMBRIDGE
President, Lambda Development,
LLC; Member, Baltimore City Council, 1983 – 1996 representing the Second
District; Baltimore City Real Estate Officer, 1997 – 2002.
VICTOR BONAPARTE
Vice President, Programs and
Advocacy, Center for Poverty Solutions, 2003-2004; Deputy Director, Maryland
Food Bank, 2002-2003; Director of Capital Planning and Development Review,
Maryland Department of Planning, 1997-2002; Deputy Director,
Baltimore City Planning Department, 1991-1996.
KAREN FOOTNER
Secretary and Executive Director, Baltimore Efficiency &
Economy Foundation; Principal, Karen M. Footner LLC.
VERA HALL
Member, Baltimore City Council, 1987-1995; Baltimore City
Public School System from 1962-1975; Maryland Department of Education, 1975 –
1979; Assistant State Superintendent of Schools, 1979 – 1983; Legislative
Liaison for Morgan State University, 1983 – 1992; Member, Baltimore City
Council, 1987 – 1995.
JOSEPH T. “JODY” LANDERS III
Executive Vice President, Greater Baltimore Board of
REALTORSâ; Director of Fiscal Affairs
in the Office of the City Council President, 1995-1997; Member, Baltimore City
Council, 1983 – 1991.
KIM NUNNALLY
Principal and broker, Kim Nunnally Realty; Commissioner, Maryland Real Estate
Commission
RONALD SCHULTZ
Head of financial operations, Engineering Research Center,
School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University; R. L. Schultz + Associates,
governmental and NPO consulting 2001-2003; Director, City Council Office of
Council Service, 1984-2001; and, Financial Analyst Baltimore City Bureaus of
Treasury Management and Budget and Management Research, 1974-1883. Board
Member, Baltimore Efficiency & Economy Foundation
MICHAEL V. SEIPP
Baltimore Director, AHC and
President, Seipp & Associates; Executive Director, Historic East Baltimore
Community Action Coalition, 1994-2000; Assistant
Secretary Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development,
1992–1994; Deputy Commissioner, Baltimore City Department of Housing and
Community Development, 1984-1990.
STUART O. SIMMS, Esq.
Partner, Brown, Goldstein &
Levy LLP; Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Corrections;
Secretary, 1997–2002; Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice, 1995- 1997;
Baltimore City State’s Attorney, 1987-1995. Board Member, Baltimore
Efficiency & Economy Foundation.
JOSEPH L. SMITH
Director of City Relations, Johns Hopkins Institutions;
Director of External Affairs, Verizon Communications, 1991 - 2001; Office of
Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro, III, 1968-1971;
Baltimore City Department of Housing, 1963 –1968. President, Baltimore City School Board, 1988 – 1991.
OTHO M. THOMPSON, Esq.
Partner, Venable LLP; City
Solicitor of Baltimore City, Baltimore City Law Department, 1996 - 2000; Deputy
City Solicitor, 1992 – 1996; Head of Litigation Division, Baltimore City Law
Department, 1979 – 1992.
STAFF:
Baltimore City Council
Beatrice Tripps, Chief of Staff
Carolyn Blakeney, Director of Fiscal Affairs
Tony Hayes, Legislative Director
Office of Councilmanic Services
Jennifer Coates, Director
Department of Legislative Reference
Avery Aisenstark, Director
Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation
Marsha R. B. Schachtel, Senior Fellow, Johns Hopkins
Institute for Policy Studies
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL RULES
By: {TBA}
FOR the purpose of
modifying the procedures for filling a vacancy in the Council.
BY amending
Rule(s) 5-11
Rules of the City Council
(xxxx
- 20xx Council Session)
BE IT RESOLVED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
That the Rules of the City Council read as follows:
Rule 5-11. Vacancy.
(a) Scope[; definition].
[(1)] This rule applies whenever a
vacancy occurs in the Council.
[(2)
In this rule, “remaining members” means the remaining Councilmembers from the
Council District in which the vacancy occurs.]
(B) NOMINATING COMMITTEE
DESIGNATED; OPEN SESSIONS.
(1) THERE IS A NOMINATING
COMMITTEE, WHICH COMPRISES THE CHAIR OF EACH STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL.
(2) THE CHAIR OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE
IS THE PRESIDENT OR, IN THE PRESIDENT’S ABSENCE, THE VICE-PRESIDENT.
(3) ALL INTERVIEWS, MEETINGS,
DELIBERATIONS, DECISIONS, AND OTHER ACTIONS OF THE
NOMINATING COMMITTEE MUST BE CONDUCTED IN SESSIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WITH REASONABLE ADVANCE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THOSE SESSIONS,
AS PROVIDED IN THE STATE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
(C) [(b) District]
PUBLIC hearing.
(1) The
[remaining members] NOMINATING COMMITTEE must hold a public hearing to interview
applicants for the vacant seat.
(2) The
[remaining members must:
(i) publicly
announce the hearing at least 7 days before it is held; and
(ii) hold the] hearing MUST BE HELD within 30 days after the vacancy
occurs.
(3) PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE HEARING MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST 7
DAYS BEFORE IT IS HELD.
(D) [(c)] Applicants.
Applicants must:
(1) possess
the qualifications specified in Article III, § 1 of the City Charter; and
(2) submit
their resumes to the [remaining members] NOMINATING
COMMITTEE before the day of the
public hearing.
(E) [(d)] Additional
interviews.
After the public hearing, the
[remaining members] NOMINATING COMMITTEE may conduct additional interviews with
any of the applicants who appeared at the public hearing.
(F) [(e)] Report
to Council.
Within 30 days of the public
hearing, the [remaining members] NOMINATING COMMITTEE must report [their recommendation] to
the Council THE NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL IT
RECOMMENDS TO FILL THE VACANCY.
(G) ACTION BY COUNCIL.
(1) THE VOTE OF THE COUNCIL
ON THE COMMITTEE’S NOMINATION MUST BE TAKEN BY ROLL CALL.
(2) IF THE COUNCIL
REJECTS THE COMMITTEE’S NOMINATION, THE COMMITTEE MUST:
(I) PROMPTLY
RECONVENE FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS; AND
(II) RETURN WITH A
FURTHER RECOMMENDATION BY THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COUNCIL.
AND BE IT RESOLVED,
That these Amendments take effect {TBA}.
APPENDIX D
City of
Baltimore
Resolution
04-055
Council Bill 04-1398
Introduced by: President Dixon,
Councilmembers Spector, Carter, Branch, Holton, Curran,
Harris, Pugh,
Reisinger, Stukes
At the request of: Baltimore City
Council Transition Commission
Introduced and read first time: May
24, 2004
Assigned to: Committee of the
Whole
Committee Report: Favorable
Council action: Adopted
Read second time: July 12,
2004
A Resolution
of the Mayor and City Council Concerning Charter Amendment –
City Council – Vacancy
For the purpose of proposing
a charter amendment to delete an inoperative provision relating to the filling
of vacancies in the Council; clarifying certain language; and submitting this
amendment to the qualified voters of the City for adoption or rejection.
By
proposing an amendment to
Article III - City Council
Section(s) 6
Baltimore City Charter
(1996 Edition)
Section 1. Be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, That the City Charter is proposed to be amended to read
as follows:
Baltimore
City Charter
Article
III. City Council
§ 6. Individual vacancies.
Each vacancy in
the City Council shall be filled without delay [from the council district in
which the vacancy occurs by:]. [(a)
after] After public notice, [the
election as an acting council member by] the City Council, by a majority vote
of its remaining members, [of] shall elect a person possessing the
qualifications prescribed in Section 1 of
this article[; and (b) the election by the voters at the primary and
general elections next regularly scheduled after the vacancy occurs of a person
possessing the qualifications prescribed in Section 1] to serve the remainder
of the unexpired term of the former incumbent.
Section 2. And be it further resolved, That this proposed
amendment to the City Charter be submitted to the legal and qualified voters of
Baltimore City, for adoption or rejection, in accordance with Article XI-A, § 5
of the Maryland Constitution, in the form specified by the City Solicitor.
APPENDIX
E
|
|
|
Veto Over-ride
Survey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparable Jurisdictions
|
2000 Population
|
Per Capita Representation
|
Size of Council
|
Yeas Required
|
%
|
Notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baltimore City
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
651,000
|
34,263
|
19
|
15
|
79%
|
3/4 is 14.25,
rounded up to 15
|
|
Transition Issue:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charter, current
provision:
|
43,400
|
15
|
12
|
80%
|
3/4 is 11.25,
rounded up to 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed,
amendment:
|
43,400
|
15
|
11
|
73%
|
eliminate rounding
requirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparable Cities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boston, MA
|
589,000
|
45,308
|
13
|
9
|
69%
|
|
|
Cleveland, OH
|
478,000
|
22,762
|
21
|
14
|
67%
|
|
|
Columbus, OH
|
711,000
|
101,571
|
7
|
5
|
71%
|
|
|
Indianapolis, IN
|
782,000
|
31,280
|
25
|
18
|
72%
|
|
|
Jacksonville, FL
|
|