Issue suggested and article written by J. (Ep) Epstein
Summary
Under Section 3.02 of the current Berkeley Municipal Code, commissioners may not serve more than eight consecutive years on a given commission. However, they are not barred from being re-appointed if they leave - even briefly - before eight years. In March 2007, City Council will probably decide whether or not to amend the Code to limit a individual's service on the Planning, Zoning, Housing Advisory, and Landmarks Preservation Commission to eight years in any ten-year period. Should these restrictions be enacted?
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Mandatory time off creates more room for other citizens to serve on commissions, which results in a diversity of input from the community as a whole. Some commissioners resign just short of their eight-year consecutive limit and then are re-appointed to the same commission after a brief time off, either by the same Councilmember or by another one. The City is deprived of a fresh perspective. This new policy would prevent Councilmembers from making repeated appointments by putting a cap on the time that any single citizen volunteer might serve on a given commission in any ten-year period. The City would have the benefit of more, as well as different opinions, since a Councilmember would be required to choose someone new from the community to fill an empty post. | Relatively few people possess the special knowledge of zoning and planning regulations needed for service on quasi-judicial commissions. Fewer still are willing to volunteer for biweekly meetings and the necessary hours of "homework" to prepare for them. Limiting the pool of volunteers increases the likelihood that the most qualified people will be barred from service. Worse yet, vacant posts may remain unfilled, because no one is able to volunteer so much time on a consistent basis. Commissioners gain valuable experience over years of service; they get a deeper understanding of complicated legal questions and can navigate the bureaucracy more effectively. The diversity argument is a red herring: it distracts from the fact that more experienced commissioners are less likely to be manipulated by political arguments. After the first year of service, a commissioner can be fired at any time for any reason. If lack of diversity was actually an issue, it could be easily remedied. |
Background
The message from the City Clerk in the introduction to the Commissioners' Manual says, "Members of boards and commissions provide an invaluable service to our City. They advise the City Council on a wide variety of subjects by making recommendations on important policy matters. Over the years the services and programs provided by the City have expanded. Without the assistance of the various boards and commissions, the City Council could give many complex and significant matters only a perfunctory review. The detailed studies and considered advice of boards and commissions are often catalysts for innovative programs and improved services."
A citizen who serves on a commission must have some level of interest and expertise in its area, but the qualifications do not have to be professional or educational. Many ordinary citizens have extraordinary knowledge and experience in some fields. Some commissions such as Zoning Adjustment Board (ZAB), Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC), and the Design Review Committee (DRC) require far more expertise in the given area, as well familiarity with the Berkeley Municipal Code and relevant State law. These commissions have heavy workloads, which require a great deal of advance preparation. They make legally-binding decisions, which can later be appealed to the City Council; these commissions are called quasi-judicial.
Councilmembers and the Mayor each appoint commissioners in equal numbers, usually one each to a commission. Each appointment expires on December 1st of the year it was made, however commissioners may be removed for excessive absence, conflict of interest, not taking the oath of office, not satisfying the residency requirement, or at the whim of the appointing official after the first year of service.