HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD FOR INTRODUCTION 09-04-90ENDA-4AC-90
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 28, 1990
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION NO. 1
9-4-90
Inter - Com
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1048
As you are aware, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Kelly are still
maintaining one lawsuit against the City. In that lawsuit, they
are claiming that Ordinance No. 1032, which changed the City's
election date from November to April, is invalid because it was
adopted by a vote that included the vote of Councilman Hoesterey
who they contend was not a resident of the City. At the latest
pre-trial hearing, the attorney for Mr. Prescott and Mr. Kelly
acknowledged to the Court that they were no longer challenging the
right of the present City Councilmembers to their Council seats
(this acknowledgment was made because the Court indicated the
Plaintiffs' action could not proceed on that basis), but that Mr.
Prescott and Mr. Kelly were pursuing the action in order to
establish that the City elections in the future should be in
November, not April.
Accordingly, we recommend that the City Council re -adopt the
operative provisions of Ordinance No. 1032 by adopting Ordinance
No. 1048, as submitted with this Inter -Com.
-SAME G. ROURKE
City Attorney
JGR:cj♦:8/28/90:C\568'
cc: W. Huston
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 1048
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 980 WHICH REQUIRED THE
CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTION HELD IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN
NUMBERED YEARS PURSUANT TO SECTION
36503.5 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby finds and
determines as follows:
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1032 was duly and regularly adopted on
November 20, 1989, and
WHEREAS, certain legal actions have been filed in Orange
County Superior Court challenging the adoption of Ordinance No.
1032, including Case No. X618541, Earl Prescott, et al. v. City of
Tustin, et al., and Case No. 619899, Earl Prescott, et al. v. City
of Tustin, et al. (hereinafter "pending lawsuits"); and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1990, the Orange County Superior Court,
per the Honorable David H. Brickner, ruled that Ordinance No. 1032
is valid, refused at that time to issue a writ of mandate or to
preliminarily and/or permanently enjoin the general election of the
City of Tustin then scheduled by Ordinance No. 1032 for April 10,
1990; and subsequently entered judgment in Case No. 619899 in favor
of the City of Tustin, the City Council of the City of Tustin and
the City Clerk of the City of Tustin; and
WHEREAS, a general election of the City of Tustin was duly and
regularly held on April 10, 1990 as called for by Ordinance No.
1032; and
WHEREAS, counsel for plaintiffs and petitioners in the pending
lawsuits have in open court stated that they do not now see::
invalidation of the election held on April 10, 1990 and neither do
they seek to oust those councilmembers elected at that election,
but, nevertheless, plaintiff and petitioners continue to assert
that due to the alleged invalidity of Ordinance No. 1032 all future
general elections of the City of *Tustin should be held in November
of even numbered years pursuant to former Ordinance No. 980, rather
than in April of even numbered years as called for pursuant to
Ordinance No. 1032; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin and the City
of Tustin remain convinced of the validity of Ordinance No. 1032,
and that it was properly and duly enacted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tustin desires to
resolve the remaining dispute and pending lawsuits without the need
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17''
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of continued, protracted, expensive litigation, and to that and
desire to reenact the operative provisions of Ordinance No. 103?;
and
WHEREAS, nothing in this Ordinance shall in any way be
construed as admission of any of the allegations in the pending
lawsuits:
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin does
hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1: Ordinance No. 980 is hereby repealed.
Section 2: The City Clerk is directed to conduct the general
municipal election on the 2nd Tuesday in April of an even numbered
year, to canvass the return of the general municipal election, and
to otherwise conduct the election in all respects pursuant to the
provisions of Elections Code Section 22800, and following,
pertaining to municipal elections.
Section 3: The period to nominate candidates for the general
municipal election shall be as set forth in Elections Code Section
22836.
Section 4: The general municipal election following adoption
of this Ordinance and each municipal election thereafter shall be
held on the date for general municipal elections held in April of
even numbered years.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Tustin held on the day of , 19
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17''
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1048
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the
whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of
Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1048 was
duly and regularly introduced and read at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the day of , 19 , and
was given its second reading and duly passed and adopted at a
regular meeting held on the day of , 19_f by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
JGR:kbg:R:8/28/90(a\27)
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk