Fresno County, California, Charter Amendments, Measure U (November 2016)

* Text of measure
* Ballot question
* Impartial analysis
* Support
* Official argument
* Opposition
* Official argument
* Path to the ballot
* See also
* External links
* Footnotes
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure U: Fresno County Charter Amendments Measure

The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
County governance
Related articles
County governance on the ballot

* * *

November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California

* * *

Fresno County, California ballot measures

* * *

Local charter amendments on the ballot
See also
Fresno County, California

A measure to enact several county charter amendments was on the ballot for Fresno County voters in Fresno County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the county charter to allow the Director of Public Works to appoint a county surveyor instead of being the county surveyor, make the position of Public Administrator an appointed rather than elected office, modify language regarding the purchase of local goods, services, and supplies, and repeal charter section 32, which addresses the defunct office of County Constable.

|

| A no vote was a vote against amending the county charter to allow the Director of Public Works to appoint a county surveyor instead of being the county surveyor, make the position of Public Administrator an appointed rather than elected office, modify language regarding the purchase of local goods, services, and supplies, and repeal charter section 32, which addresses the defunct office of County Constable.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Impartial analysis
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official argument
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official argument
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure U

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 132,101| 55.88%
Yes|  104,288|  44.12%

Election results from Fresno County election results

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]

“  |

Shall the Fresno County Charter be amended as follows: Amend section 16 to remove the Director of Public Works as county surveyor and authorizing Director of Public Works to appoint a county surveyor; Amend sections 14 and 16 to change the Public Administrator from an elected position to one appointed by the County Administrative Officer; Amend section 12(h) regarding a local preference for Fresno County goods, services and supplies; and Repeal section 32 obsolete language? [2]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Fresno County Counsel:

“  |

Measure U includes amendments to four distinct portions of the Fresno County Charter.

Fresno County Charter Section 12(h) presently requires the County in the purchase of "property" to give preference to "Fresno County products or vendors" if price and quality are equal with non-local products or vendors. Voter approval of this measure will amend Charter Section 12(h) by revising language to refer to the purchase of "goods, services and supplies" and to provide preference shall be given to "Fresno County goods, services and suppliers," to the extent allowed by state and federal law.

Fresno County Charter Sections 14 and 16 presently provide that the office of Fresno County Public Administrator is an elective office. Voter approval of this measure will amend Charter Sections 14 and 16 to change the office of Public Administrator from an elected position to one appointed by the County Administrative Officer with prior approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Fresno County Charter Section 16 presently requires the County Director of Public Works to be a registered civil engineer and provides that the Director of Public Works shall be the "ex-officio County surveyor". In order to hold the title of County surveyor, a person must be licensed by the State as a surveyor or specifically exempted from licensure. Voter approval of this measure will amend Charter Section 16 to remove the requirement that the County Director of Public Works shall be "ex-officio County surveyor" and add the provision that the County Director of Public Works shall appoint a separate qualified County surveyor if the Director of Public Works is not certified to practice as a licensed surveyor in the State of California.

Fresno County Charter Section 32 presently provides for the office of "Constable" to be consolidated with that of sheriff in Fresno County with effect January 1, 1973. The office of Constable is now defunct. Voter approval of this measure will repeal Fresno County Charter Section 32 thereby removing the now obsolete language from the Charter.

This measure was placed on the ballot by order of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.[2]

| ”

|
|

—Fresno County Counsel[3]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]

* District Attorney Lisa A. Smittcamp
* Sheriff Margaret Mims
* Steven E. White, Director of Public Works and Planning
* County Supervisor Buddy Mendes
* County Supervisor Andreas Borgeas

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]

“  |

Fresno County's Charter has not kept up with the times. Originally approved by 3.4 voters in 1933, it has been decades since the Charter has been updated and glaringly outdated provisions obstruct efficiencies and accountability. The Charter Modernization Act proposes the following four reforms:

1) Local Preference By amending Charter Section 12, we will better define the preference for the purchase of goods and services from local businesses.

2) Strengthen the District Attorney's office Currently the District Attorney also serves as the Public Administrator. Charter Section 15 requires the Public Administrator to be consolidated with another elected official, and through administrative reorganization the District Attorney was forced into dual responsibilities, creating an inherent conflict of interest. As recent embezzlement allegations in the Public Administrator's office have revealed, the District Attorney cannot effectively prosecute her own employees. By changing the Public Administrator to an appointed position, our elected District Attorney will be able to focus exclusively on promoting public safety and seeking justice for victims of crime.

3) Public Works Director Charter Section 16 requires the Public Works Director to be licensed as both a Civil Engineer and Surveyor. This requirement was appropriate in earlier times as university education included both areas of study. Over the past 30 years, the field evolved into more specialized areas of study and dual certifications were phased out. It is unnecessary to maintain this dual requirement, a professional civil engineering certification is appropriate. This change will make it easier for the County to hire top-notch Public Works Directors going forward.

4) Elimination of the Office of County Constable Charter Section 32 warrants repeal as we no longer have a County Constable.

By voting YES on the Charter Modernization Act, you will help Fresno County become more efficient and accountable to you, the taxpayers of Fresno County.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individual signed the official argument against the measure:[6]

* Carol Fiorentino, Chairman, San Joaquin Valley Taxpayers Association

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[7]

“  |

Vote NO on these Charter Amendments. They are a mishmash of ideas that don't make sense —like tossing a bunch of laundry in the hamper to be washed (whitewashed in this case).

Director of Public Works and the County Surveyor. A similar proposed change was presented to the voters just a few years ago and they wisely rejected it. We should again VOTE NO. When a vacancy recently arose, there was no problem attracting qualified candidates. There is NO reason to change the current charter and potentially pay two people to do what one person does now.

Public Administrator. This is a vital function that can and should be performed by a person elected by the people, not someone plucked from the bureaucracy. The Public Administrator job involves managing the assets of people who do not have someone to settle their affairs, or worse, are the victims of financial abuse. We do not need faceless bureaucrats with no accountability to the voters of Fresno County holding this position. DO NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE for a person who holds such an important position of trust.

Local Preferences. Our Charter already requires preference to Fresno County products and vendors - when price and quality are equal. This change is not necessary. It is unimaginable that our elected board of supervisors would give preference to people and businesses outside of Fresno County. OUR BUSINESSES AND TAXPAYERS COME FIRST. We should not be misled. This is solution in search of a problem that does not exist in our county.

Measure U asks voters to fix problems that do not exist.

Vote NO on these Charter Amendments. They reduce voter power and oversight. In an era in which we need greater accountability, these amendments send us in the wrong direction. Vote NO.[2]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Fresno County, California.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Fresno County County governance. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Fresno County, California, Charter Amendments, Measure U (November 2016) - Google News

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2016
* County governance on the ballot
* Local charter amendments on the ballot
* Fresno County measures

California

* November 8, 2016 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* Fresno County, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Fresno County Elections Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Fresno County Board of Supervisors, "Resolution 16-269," August 5, 2016
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
3. ↑ Fresno County Counsel, "County of Fresno Charter Amendment Measure U Impartial Analysis," August 29, 2016
4. ↑ Fresno County, "Charter Modenization Act Impartial Analysis," August 16, 2016
5. ↑ Fresno County, "Charter Modenization Act Impartial Analysis," August 16, 2016
6. ↑ Fresno County, "Argument Against Measure U," August 17, 2016
7. ↑ Fresno County, "Argument Against Measure U," August 17, 2016

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy