2026-06-02 CC Agenda Packet - Public Communication related to Item C13 - Proposed Charter2026-06-02 CC AGENDA PACKET
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ITEM 13 - PROPOSED CHARTER
Outlook
Re: Proposed City of El Segundo Charter
From Anya Goldstein <anyagoldstein@grnail.com>
Date Wed 6/3/2026 12:13 PM
To ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS <ALLELECTEDOFFICIALS@elsegundo.org>
And since the website remains broken such that residents cannot see past agenda packets, the
proposed charter is now unavailable anywhere on the city website.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 10:22AM Anya Goldstein <anyagoldstein gmail.com> wrote:
Good morning, all,
Thank you for your consideration of these and other concerns yesterday. I wanted to write briefly to
note that, while I appreciate the City Attorney's making some revisions to language in response to
my concerns, the revisions and his comments last night do not address all of these concerns. The
major mismatch between what is claimed and what is done in each of these provisions remains --
except possibly in the elections provision, which is now word salad, instead of simply stating that the
provisions of the Elections Code apply, full stop.
Mr. Hensley told me he remains open to feedback, so I will try to get a meeting to talk all this
through with him, but I wanted to flag that my concerns have not been addressed. I would also like
an opportunity to meet with each of you. I want to empower you to read this document yourself.
You do not have to be a lawyer to understand that any of these provisions that does not expressly_
incorporate all of state law in a given area does not incorporate all state law in a given area. Those
provisions embrace the full range of power available to charter cities under current and future state
law, with only whatever limitations are in that provision. Also, since city charters are
actually limiting documents rather than power -granting documents, anything this charter has left
out also becomes fair game for any future council to have their way with.
Thank you,
Anya
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:23AM Anya Goldstein <anyagoldstein@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Pimentel, Mayor Pro Tern Baldino, and City Councilmembers Keldorf, Giroux, and
Boyles,
As you already know, I have significant concerns about the rushed and opaque process that the
Council majority has taken so far regarding the charter city proposal, as well as regarding the
unintended bureaucratic and other consequences of becoming a charter city in general. But I
write now with substantive concerns about the revised proposed charter itself (May 26, 2026
version, made public May 29, 2026), which I have now had the chance to review. While the
revision is significantly scaled back from the outlandish power grabs in the earlier version, it still
does not "take the general law and put it in the charter" as the city attorney claimed at the last
public hearing, nor does it codify what the city is doing now as councilmembers in favor of the
proposal said.
Sections 103, 300, 600, and 601 (and potentially section 301, though it is ambiguous as drafted)
adopt some provisions of the Government Code, Public Contracts Code, and Elections Code, but
leave large portions of these codes unincorporated, meaning the city council could draft
ordinances that differ from what is provided under general law without going back to the voters
for a charter amendment. This charter would, for example, allow the city council to adopt (on
day one, not with a charter amendment) different recall procedures for itself than it currently can.
If these provisions were intended to codify existing law, they would be drafted (for example) as,
"The provisions of the California Elections Code and any other California statute regulating the
same, as now existing and as may be amended, are accepted, reaffirmed and made applicable to
the City." Instead, the provisions are drafted as "With regard to the holding of City of Ell
Segundo elections, the filling of vacant offices, and for voting by mail, the provisions of the
California Elections Code and any other California statute regulating the same, as now existing
and as may be amended, are accepted, reaffirmed and made applicable to the City." (Proposed
Charter, May 26, 2026 revision, § 600 (emphasis added).) That means that only the provisions of
the Elections Code regarding the holding of elections, the filling of vacant offices, and for voting
by mail -- three discrete topics found within the Election Code -- are incorporated as part of the
city's charter; all other provisions of the Elections Code are not. True, city council would have to
pass ordinances to change the current default rules. But the point is that, under this charter, the
council could draft and pass such ordinances, which it cannot do now, and it could do so without
going back to voters, because this charter would already permit it to do so.
Sections 302, 303, 305, 306, 500, and 700, for their part, explicitly disclaim the relevant
provisions of general law, reserving for the city council vast new powers to adopt ordinances
and engage in risky behavior in the fields of public financing, utilities and utility franchises, city -
owned enterprises, land use, and fines and penalties -- areas where the council (and city more
broadly) is currently constrained by state law, which contains important guardrails at least in the
areas of public financing, utility franchises, land use, and fines.
(Section 400 does not make sense, since El Segundo cannot control any other level of
government.)
Section 800 gives a 4/5 supermajority of council the ability to call a costly (and likely low -
participation) special election to amend the charter at any time.
None of these provisions are codifying being a general law city, or just serving as an "insurance
policy" for state law changes down the road. These are significant new grants of power to the city
council that I have not heard considered or discussed in any way.
It is deeply troubling that what was represented to the public at the March city council meeting
and April public hearing are so far from the truth, especially in a matter of such great public
importance. If I am wrong about any of the above, please let me know as soon as possible given
your accelerated timeline for considering this proposal. And please let me know if any of those of
you in favor of this proposal are available to discuss before tomorrow's public hearing.
Thank you,
Anya