title
DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL POLICY 4.08- COUNCIL CENSURE
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
Information only. Staff seeks direction from the Committee on a potential amendment to Council Policy 4.08 regarding Council Censure.
body
Summary
This report provides information to facilitate a discussion on appropriate amendments to Council Policy 4.08 consistent with previous committee direction.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 1981, Stockton adopted a Council Policy Manual for the purpose of consolidating and condensing rules and procedures for the conduct of City Council meetings (Resolution 38,095).
In 2013, the Council Legislation/Environmental Committee took up a review of the Council Policy Manual in an effort to update the city’s standards in accordance with best practices as recommended by the California League of Cities. Among other revisions, the Committee recommended, and the Council adopted, a new Council Censure Policy (Resolution 2013-12-17-1213).
Council Censure is the public reprimand of a public official for inappropriate conduct in the form of a formal statement of disapproval via a resolution adopted by majority vote.
In 2016, there was a comprehensive review of internal policies by the City Auditor, Moss Adams. As noted in the staff report, the review resulted in a migration of policies into a new policy framework and streamlined template and the censure policy, as adopted back in 2013, remained unchanged.
Present Situation
In December 2023, this committee reviewed and discussed revisions to the council policy manual. Staff was directed to revise several sections including Section 4.08 regarding Council Censure. Specifically, staff was asked to provide options regarding procedure.
Currently, Council Policy 4.08 requires the following:
• Two councilmembers must submit a written complaint to the City Clerk
• The City Clerk must agendize the matter for discussion and notify the subject of the complaint
• The City Council has an initial discussion to determine whether the uninvolved Councilmembers will unanimously vote not to move the process forward
• Absent a unanimous vote by the uninvolved members, the process continues with the formation of a Council Ad Hoc Committee (the Ad Hoc makeup designation is thoroughly spelled out but in practice, can be complicated to implement depending on the circumstances)
• The Council Ad Hoc reviews and provides a recommendation to the full Council
• A public hearing is held where the subject of the complaint may provide evidence and arguments in his/her defense
• The Council (excluding the subject of the complaint) votes to censure or not censure (Attachment A- Council Policy 4.08)
In response to this Committee’s direction, a review of four cities with censure policies was undertaken and the results compiled into a table for ease of reference and comparison with Stockton (Attachment B- Comparison Table).
As you will see in the attachment, most censure policies consist of the following:
• Submittal process
• Charging requirements
• Initial process
• Council process
Most of the reviewed policies are similar. The main differences generally occur in the submittal, initial, and council processes. Staff welcomes any input and/or direction regarding the existing policy.
Conclusion
Staff seeks direction from the Committee on a potential amendment to Council Policy 4.08 regarding Council Censure.
Attachment A - Council Policy 4.08
Attachment B - Comparison Table