A few days ago an article appeared in The OC Register written by Kris Murray regarding districting. In the article, Kris Murray falsely claimed that "if the council had approved the ballot initiative proposed last year by Mayor Tait to divide Anaheim into single-member districts, it would have been a violation of state law."
The truth is that CA government code 34458 only applies to adopting a new charter not amending the charter as the initiative brought forth by Mayor Tait would have done. The City of Bell didn't amend their charter they adopted a new one.
(b) Prior to approving the submission to the voters of a proposal to adopt a charter, the governing body shall hold at least two public hearings on the matter of the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter.
Murray went on to state "In the wake of the city of Bell corruption scandal, state law was changed requiring charter cities, like Anaheim, to engage their citizenry in a broad public process before any changes to the charter can be put before voters. Assembly Bill 1344 became effective Jan. 1, 2012, and requires extensive public noticing and a minimum of two hearings before the council may consider and approve initiatives changing the city's charter. None of these steps occurred before Mayor Tait's ballot initiative was agendized for council consideration last September."
The law again specifically speaks to adopting a charter not amending it. Therefore the public hearings would not be necessary. The law only requires that 88 days have passed before the election when proposing changes to the charter.
Former Anaheim City Attorney Cristina Talley, who wrote the staff report regarding Mayor Tait's initiative, also made no mention of any potential conflicts. Click here to read the staff report: