Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Charter review committee backs research and public outreach on reforms: inspector general, strategic plan, two‑year budget and outreach
Loading...
Summary
San Bernardino’s Charter Review Committee asked staff to research reforms to strengthen the council–manager system — including options such as an inspector general or independent auditor, a required strategic plan, and a two‑year budget cycle — and to return with survey and forum plans for public outreach.
The San Bernardino Charter Review Committee directed staff to prepare research and public-engagement materials on a suite of possible charter changes aimed at strengthening the council–manager form of government, including the creation of an inspector general or independent auditor, a formal strategic‑plan requirement, and consideration of a two‑year budget cycle.
Staff liaison Corey Hodges reviewed items the committee had raised at prior meetings: ranked‑choice voting for filling some vacancies, reinstating an elected city clerk, and recent charter-city examples such as Riverside’s 2024 inspector general measure, Long Beach’s independent auditor (Measure AAA), and San Diego’s independent budget analyst. Hodges told the committee that implementation details and costs vary by measure and election timing; as an example he cited the registrar-of-voters cost to place a 2020 local sales-tax measure on the ballot as roughly $54,000.
Members asked about safeguards to preserve independence for proposed watchdog offices and about the potential staffing and budgetary impacts. Committee members also emphasized operational reforms: Vice Chair Casey Daley argued for a charter requirement that the city adopt a five‑year strategic plan with annual reviews to provide continuity, measurable goals and budget alignment. "A proper strategic plan, not a one‑pager," Daley said, would help the city measure progress and give the city manager consistent direction.
On outreach, the committee favored a two‑step public engagement plan: a survey to gauge and educate residents followed by community forums informed by the survey results. Members debated whether outreach should be led by a neutral outside facilitator for objectivity or be committee‑led for community trust; staff suggested possible hybrid approaches and offered to check costs and logistics (for example, multilingual materials and possible water‑bill inserts to reach households).
Outcome: The committee asked staff to return with candidate language examples and operational estimates, comparative examples of other charter cities’ reforms, draft survey questions and forum options, and cost estimates for outreach and potential ballot placement. No charter amendments were advanced at the meeting.
