2011081501- Voting Delegate Appointment - League of California CitiesMEETING DATE: 8/15/2011
ITEM NO:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2011
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPOINT MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING DELEGATE
AND VICE MAYOR STEVE RICE AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE
FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 21-23, 2011 IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Mayor Joe Pirzynski as the primary voting delegate and Vice Mayor Steve Rice as the alternate
voting delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference scheduled for September 21-23,
2011 in San Francisco, California.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the League of California Cities conducts an annual conference to discuss key legislative,
social, fiscal, and service issues affecting California communities. One important aspect of the
conference is its annual business meeting where the League membership takes action on conference
resolutions . Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in efforts to improve the quality,
responsiveness, and vitality of local government in California.
To expedite the annual business meeting, participating cities/towns have been asked to designate a
primary and an alternate voting representative. This year, Mayor Joe Pirzynski will serve as the primary
voting delegate and Vice Mayor Steve as the alternate voting delegate.
Attached are the proposed conference resolutions. It has been the past practice to have the Town voting
delegate determine the Town's position based on resolution discussion and feedback at the League
Annual Business Meeting.
PREPARED BY: PAMELA S. JACOBS
Assistant Town Manager
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\2011 Council Reports \8-15-11 League Voting Delegates.docx
PAGE2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPOINT MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSICI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING DELEGATE
AND VICE MAYOR STEVE RICE AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE
FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 21-23, 2010 IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
July 15, 2010
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council appointment of a primary and alternate voting
delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Attachment: 2011 League of California Cities Resolutions
V.
2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF MEETING PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ADVOCATE FOR REVISIONS TO THE
GOVERNMENT CODE RECOGNIZING ALTERNATIVE METHODS AS A MEANS TO
MEET NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Referred To: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes local
municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open, noticed public meetings; and
WHEREAS, that same duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale of
public meetings, public hearings, introduction and adoption of Ordinances, and bid opportunities; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 54954.2, the requirement for
posting meeting agendas reads as follows:
54954.2. (a) (1) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local
agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each
item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed
in closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words.
The agenda shall sped the time and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a
location that is freely accessible to members of the public ...
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 6066, the requirement for
publishing public hearing notices reads as follows:
6066. Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive
weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener, with at least five
days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates,
are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates
at the end of the fourteenth day, including therein the first day.
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 6060, the term "notice" is
defined as follows:
6060. Whenever any law provides that publication of notice shall be made pursuant to a
designated section of this article, such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation for the period prescribed, the number of times, and in the manner provided in that
section. As used in this article, "notice" includes official advertising, resolutions orders, or
other matter of any nature whatsoever that are required by law to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation.
WHEREAS, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a newspaper is a "newspaper of
general circulation" if it meets the criteria listed in California Government Code Sections 6000 and 6008,
which read as follows:
6
6000. A "newspaper of general circulation" is a newspaper published for the dissemination of
local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, which has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers, and has been established, printed and published at
regular intervals in the State, county, or city where publication, notice by publication, or official
advertising is to be given or made for at least one year preceding the date of the publication,
notice or advertisement.
6008. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a newspaper is a "newspaper of
general circulation" if it meets the following criteria:
(a) It is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and
intelligence of a general character, which has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers and has been established and published at regular intervals of not less
than weekly in the city, district, or judicial district for which it is seeking
adjudication for at least three years preceding the date of adjudication.
(b) It has a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the city, district, or judicial
district in which it is seeking adjudication.
(c) It has maintained a minimum coverage of local or telegraphic news and intelligence
ofa general character of not less than 25 percent of its total inches during each year
of the three-year period.
(d) It has only one principal office of publication and that office is in the city, district, or
judicial district for which it is seeking adjudication.
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, within 15 days after a
passage of an Ordinance, a City Clerk shall publish and post Ordinances, and if so chosen, a member of the
public may request notification as follows:
(d) (1) Any member of the public may file with the city clerk or any other person designated
by the governing body to receive these requests, a request for notice of specific proposed
ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances.
(2) Notice pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be mailed or otherwise transmitted at least five
days before the council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinances or
proposed amendments to an ordinance. Notice may be given by written notice properly
mailed or by e-mail if the requesting member of the public provides an e-mail address.
Notice may be in the form specified in either paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (c), as
determined by the city council.
(3) As an alternative to providing notice as requested of specific proposed ordinances or
proposed amendments to ordinances, the city clerk, or other person designated by the
governing body, may place the requesting member of the public on a general mailing list
that gives timely notice of all governing body public meetings at which proposed
ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances may be heard, as provided in Section
54954.1. If this alternative is selected, the requesting member of the public shall be so
advised.
(4) The city may charge a fee that is reasonably related to the costs of providing notice
pursuant to this subdivision. The city may require each request to be annually renewed.
(5) Failure of the requesting person to receive the information pursuant to this subdivision
shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate an otherwise properly adopted
ordinance or amendment to an ordinance.
WHEREAS, as California Government Code Section 36933 already recognizes electronic mail as
a form of communicating with the public when it comes to Ordinances, the Desert/Mountain Division of the
League of California Cities seeks other public noticing requirements in the Government Code reflect the
same; and
7
WHEREAS, the traditional means of noticing in local adjudicated newspapers is antiquated and
inefficient; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes that in
recent decades, technology has vastly improved; and
WHEREAS, that technology includes the advent of the internet, electronic mail, social media, smart
phones and other smart devices (i.e. iphones/ipads); and
WHEREAS, the public is becoming increasing familiar with the use of new technology and using it
as a means to gain quick and up-to-date information; and
WHEREAS, the public has a preference for receiving information in an electronic format; and
WHEREAS, the DeserUMountain Division of the League of California Cities is in support of cities
communicating with the public using innovative, enhanced methods of communication; now therefore be it
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual
Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of
California Cities:
1. Desires to enhance current public noticing requirements by communicating with the public using
innovative, technologically friendly methods of communication.
2. Request that the League, as a whole, support alternative methods of meeting public notice
requirements.
3. Request the League advocate for the State Legislature to adopt revisions to the California
Government Code recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice
requirements.
4. Support any legislation that would adopt revisions to the California Government Code
recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice requirements.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open, properly noticed public meetings. That same
duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale of public meetings, public hearings,
introduction and adoption of Ordinances, bid opportunities and the like. The public has a right to know what
local elected officials are doing with public funds. The public has a right to know what decisions are being
made that will affect them.
In efforts to engage the public, encourage more participation at public meetings and enhance communication
with constituents, our division has discussed current public noticing requirements required by the State of
California. Current requirements include cities place notices in a general newspaper of circulation.
Annually, cities spend quite a bit on this task. For example, the City of Big Bear Lake, population 6,700,
spends $15,000 - $20,000 a year on noticing in their local weekly newspaper and on occasion, in a regional.
This is a substantial amount for a small city.
8
Noticing is typically done in the classified section, next to garage sale and help wanted ads. This system is
antiquated and inefficient. Can you remember the last time you read that section of the paper? In recent
decades, technology has vastly improved, given the advent of the internet, electronic mail, social media,
smart phones and other smart devices (iphones/ipads). The public is becoming increasing familiar with the
use of new technology, using it as a means to gab quick and up-to-date information. We see more and more
the public have a preference for receiving information in an electronic format. Technology allows us to be
more efficient and when it comes to business, much more economical.
Our division would like to see a change to State Law that allows cities more discretion based on their
community's distinct needs (i.e. residents can sign up for e-mail alerts of public hearings, meetings, etc.); and
that would count towards meeting the public noticing requirements. We don't want to eliminate noticing in
newspapers, just enhance requirements by allowing cities to use alternate methods as a means of meeting the
law. -
In recent years, this issue has come before the State Legislature, but newspaper publication groups have
lobbied against this. They receive revenue from classified ads. But noticing is not supposed to be about
generating revenue for private industry. It is supposed to be about informing the public, getting them more
involved in local government and enhancing our methods of communication. Many times, we don't always
see the turnout we would like at public meetings and hearings. We need to enhance our methods to change
this.
In addition, cities are supposed to be reimbursed by the State for a portion of the cost to notice meetings, but
these funds have been deferred for several years now due to the State Budget. If we are not receiving these
funds, why can't the legislature work with cities to modify the requirements? We want to work smarter, not
harder!
»»»»»
2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TORT REFORM
Source: Mayor Charlie Goeken, City of Waterford
Referred To: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, frivolous lawsuits cost cities, counties, special districts, and school districts millions
dollars a year to defend; and
WHEREAS, the money that cities spend each year in legal fees fighting frivolous lawsuits is a waste
of taxpayers' money; and
WHEREAS, the money spent to defend frivolous lawsuits could be put to better public use; and
WHEREAS, cities or other government entities are easily sued without reasonable cause when there
is no requirement that the person or entity filing the lawsuit have any responsibility when the lawsuit is lost;
and
WHEREAS, the public good would be served if the law were changed to require the person or entity
who filed the lawsuit to pay for all fees and costs of the city, or other sued party, to defend the lawsuit if it
were unsuccessful; now, therefore, be it
9
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League encourages the existing 482
California cities to adopt resolutions calling for tort reform; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities be encouraged to ask their state legislators to pass a bill that
establishes loser -pays lawsuit and tort reform; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities are encouraged to ask the League to sponsor and support a
statewide proposition that makes loser -pays lawsuit and tort reform a constitutional amendment.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: City of Waterford
Every year cities must weigh the cost of fighting frivolous lawsuits against the amounts requested by the
plaintiffs. The frivolity of the lawsuits usually have little bearing on this balancing act, nor does the
likelihood that settling will only encourage more lawsuits. This perverse use of the court system penalizes
cities and other government entities by allowing a person to file a lawsuit with no regard for the facts and no
exposure on their part. Attorneys accept these lawsuits, relying on getting paid by a city settling the lawsuit
as a purely business decision, often times receiving more money than the plaintiffs.
Scarce taxpayer dollars are squandered fighting frivolous lawsuits or paying settlements to avoid lengthy
trials and bad publicity. The passage of tort reform and a loser -pays constitutional amendment would enable
elected officials to govern fairly without the fear of frivolous lawsuits, while still allowing the public to file
suit when they have genuinely been wronged. The money saved through court costs, attorney's fees, payouts,
staff time, and insurance premiums would be put to better use by cities to serve their taxpayers.
»»»»»
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
3. RESOLUTION RELATED TO RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE
IMMINENT HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR BULLIED CHILDREN
Source: City of Elk Grove
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, cities throughout the State of California are becoming more aware of the growing trend
of bullying in schools and on the Internet that has become a serious nationwide problem, one with often
severe consequences; and
WHEREAS, surveys indicate that as many as half of all children are bullied at some time during
their school years, and at least 10 percent are bullied on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, more than 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through
their cell phones or the Internet and more than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the
most popular form of technology and a common medium for cyber bullying; and
WHEREAS, the social media network has vastly increased the number of users online and young
people are eager to participate without understanding the consequences of their behavior; and
10
WHEREAS, general bullying and cyber bullying have both caused severe damage, heartache, and
even fatal tragedy to young people and their families and friends; and
WHEREAS, victims of bullying display a range of responses, even many years later, such as: low
self-esteem, difficulty in trusting others, lack of assertiveness, aggression, difficulty controlling anger, and
isolation; and
WHEREAS, bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, cities providing an open forum to discuss bullying gives an opportunity for parents,
students, and communities to acknowledge this issue, open up the conversation about the topic and raise
awareness of the issue; and
WHEREAS, the League supports cities who take a stance against bullying by raising education and
awareness about anti -bullying efforts throughout the State of California to provide a better life and
foundation for young people; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual
Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League encourages cities to promote anti -
bullying efforts across California as well as provide education and awareness to the general public about the
imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children; and, be it further
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, that the League will
forward this Resolution to the CCS (Cities, Counties, Schools) Partnership for consideration at their next
meeting to help promote anti -bullying efforts throughout California.
////// H
Background Information on Resolution No. 3
Source: City of Elk Grove
Cities throughout the State of California are becoming painfully aware of the growing trend of bullying and
its effects on children. Bullying has a potentially devastating effect on students and young adults, their
families, schools, and communities. A guiding principle of the League is that the children of California must
be recognized as our state's most valuable resource. Their development, education and well-being are key to
our state's future.
Many studies and statistics show the frequency and unfortunate effects that bullying has on children:
o Bullying is a common experience for many children and adolescents. Surveys indicate that as many as
half of all children are bullied at some time during their school years, and at least 10 percent are bullied
on a regular basis (The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry)
• More than 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or
the Internet. More than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most popular form of
technology and a common medium for cyber bullying (bullvingstatistics.org)
• Victims of bullying display a range of responses, even many years later, such as: low self-esteem,
difficulty in trusting others, lack of assertiveness, aggression, difficulty controlling anger, and isolation
(bul lvingstatistics.oru)
11
6 Research shows that bullying will stop when adults in authority and peers get involved (bullying.org)
® Bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S. (NEA, 2003)
The health and safety of the residents of Elk Grove is paramount to the members of the Elk Grove City
Council. On July 13, 2011, the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution raising public awareness of
the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children. This resolution is in conjunction with an
aggressive, yet economical, public outreach campaign the City held to educate its residents about the effects
of bullying on children. In conjunction with the Elk Grove City Council, Ellc Grove Youth Commission, law
enforcement and nonprofit agencies, the City hosted three public workshops focused on the subject of
bullying that strengthened partnerships between youth and law enforcement, nonprofit agencies, parents and
teachers. Workshop topics included how to keep teens safe from cyber bullying and online harassment, safe
and responsible Internet use, social media and `sexting' safety issues, dangers of bullying and strategies to
stop bullies and empower victims. The City informed the community about the campaign through media
coverage on every television and radio news outlet in the Sacramento region, the City's newsletter which
reaches every Elk Grove household, and the City's social media outlets Facebook and Twitter.
Other cities in California are encouraged to raise the awareness of bullying in their community by educating
residents about the dangers and effects of bullying on children. Educational outreach will benefit children,
parents, teachers, and the community. Local governments have the ability to implement wide -spread cost-
effective educational tools to communicate with residents about this important public safety issue.
All local government officials and parents in California want to protect their children, families, themselves,
and others. Please help raise public awareness of the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied
children.
»»»»»
4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003
Source: Council Member Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 10,000 children are held in adult jails and
prisons on any given day; and
WHEREAS, the annual number of youth exposed to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is
significantly higher because of the "flow" of youth entering and exiting facilities; and
WHEREAS, studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk profile of
those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault; and
WHEREAS, studies also show that the overwhelming majority of youth tried as adults are
nonviolent offenders, with a considerable proportion being first-time offenders; and
WHEREAS, according to the prison rape literature, the persons with the highest likelihood of being
sexually assaulted are young people; and
WHEREAS, according to studies from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, youth who are tried in the adult criminal justice system
are 34% more likely to recidivate than youth in the juvenile justice system; and
12
WHEREAS, 70% of prisoners in adult prisons were once juvenile offenders, so the long-term effect
of preventing harm to youth will decrease recidivism and substantially reduce the adult prison population and
the associated economic, social and human cost; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice has an opportunity to ban the placement of youth (under
18) in adult jails and prisons as part of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA); and
WHEREAS, PREA was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual violence behind
bars; and
WHEREAS, a key component of the law was the development of national standards addressing
prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities, including federal and state prisons,
jails, police lock -ups, private facilities, and immigration detention centers; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League includes in its 2011-12 Federal
Legislative Program support for standards implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 which
would ban the placement of young people under the age of 18 in adult jails and prisons.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 4
Source: City of Los Angeles
What is the Prison Rape Elimination Act?
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 is a Federal law established to address the elimination and
prevention of sexual assault and rape in correctional systems. PREA applies to all federal, state, and local
prisons, jails, police lock -ups, private facilities, and community settings such as residential facilities. The
major provisions of PREA are to:
9 Develop standards for detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of prison rape
• Collect and disseminate information on the incidence of prison rape
• Award grants and technical assistance to help state governments implement the Act
Youth in adult facilities are at the greatest risk of prison rape. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 10,000 children are held in adult jails and prisons daily, and the annual number of youth exposed
to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is significantly higher because of the "flow" of youth
entering and exiting facilities. Studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk
profile of those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault. Studies also show that the overwhelming
majority ofyouth tried as adults are nonviolent offenders, and a considerable proportion are first-time
offenders. In more than half of the states, there is no lower age limit on who can be prosecuted as an adult, so
even young children can be prosecuted as adults and sent to adult jails and prisons.
Row Does PREA Apply to Jails?
PREA seeks to insure that jails and other correctional settings protect inmates from sexual assault, sexual
harassment, "consensual sex" with employees and inmate -inmate sexual assault. These violations affect
security and staff safety, and pose long-term risks to inmates and staff inside jails, and to the public when
victimized inmates are released into the community.
Where is PREA at?
The U.S. Department of Justice is currently considering banning the placement of youth (under 18) in adult
jails and prisons as part of the implementation of PREA. As such, this resolution seeks to raise awareness of
13
youth spending time in adult facilities so elected and appointed officials could develop more effective
juvenile justice policies and support the passage of the bill.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act was originally signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual
violence behind bars. A key component of the law was the creation of the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission (NPREC), a bipartisan federal commission charged with developing national standards
addressing prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities, including federal and
state prisons, jails, police lock -ups, private facilities, and immigration detention centers. The NPREC held
public hearings, had expert committees to draft the standards and released their fmal recommendations by
issuing a report and set of standards (available online at http://www.ncirs..eov/ndflesl/226680.ndf)
Who supports PREA?
American Probation and Parole Association
Correctional Education Association
International Community Corrections Association
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
Missotu'i Youth Services Institute
**This is only a partial list of national supporters
Campaign for Youth Justice
American Jail Association
National Juvenile Detention Association
Center for Children's Law and Policy
Family Violence Prevention Fund
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
»»»»»
5. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WITH
THE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE
Source: Council Member Joseph Lyons, City of Claremont
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS the administration of the death penalty costs California taxpayers hundreds of millions
of dollars more to administer than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS death penalty cases cost County taxpayers millions of dollars more to prosecute than
cases that seek life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS the non -partisan California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Senate
Commission concluded that California's death penalty system is systemically dysfunctional and will require
hundreds of millions of dollars to reform;
WHEREAS the death penalty is nth a deterrent and does not make our Cities or the State of
California a safer place to live;
WHEREAS California's Cities face severe cuts to the services needed to keep their neighborhoods
• safe and have had to resort to layoffs and furloughs because of reductions in revenues from State and County
sources;
WHEREAS the millions of dollars in savings realized by replacing the death penalty with life
without the possibility of parole could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety
programs, after -school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health
services, and services for crime victims and their families.
14
WHEREAS Governor Brown has the power to convert death sentences to sentences of life
imprisonment without any possibility of parole, saving the state $1 billion in the next five years without
releasing a single prisoner;
WHEREAS California's County District Attorneys are solely responsible for pursuing the death
penalty for persons convicted of special circumstance first -degree murders within their Counties;
WHEREAS the California State Legislature and Governor Brown have the ability to place a
constitutional amendment on the ballot to permanently replace the death penalty with a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League of California Cities call upon
Governor Jerry Brown to convert all death sentences to sentences of life imprisonment without any
possibility of parole, mandating those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to work in prison and
pay restitution to the victims' families, and that the money saved by the state be used to fund education, local
government, and public safety;
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities call upon California's County District Attorneys to
desist from pursuing the death penalty, and to invest the savings in solving homicides, violence prevention,
and effective public safety programs;
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities call upon the California State Legislature and
Governor Brown to place on a statewide ballot a constitutional amendment to replace the death penalty with
a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Pursuant to this resolution copies of the adopted and officially signed resolution will be sent to Governor
Jerry Brown, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the leadership of the California State Senate and
Assembly, County District Attorneys and their County Board of Supervisors
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 5
Source: City of Claremont
California's death penalty is broken and remains at risk of executing an innocent person. A new study of the
costs of California's death penalty was recently conducted by Judge Arthur Alarcon, a conservative federal
judge who supports the death penalty, and Prof. Paula Mitchell, a law school professor who opposes the
death penalty. With access to new information and documentation, their study is the most comprehensive
appraisal of expenditures associated with the death penalty. They concluded that the death penalty costs
California taxpayers $184 million each year; California has spent a total of $4 billion on the death penalty
since 1978 and is expected to spend another $1 billion over the next five years; each execution in California
costs $308 million.
Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell concluded that the current death penalty system is broken. With over
700 inmates, California's death row is the largest and most costly in the country, yet we have only executed
13 people since 1978. Victims' family members are put through a decades -long legal ordeal based on the
hollow promise of execution, but 99% of those sentenced to death are never executed.
The funds wasted on California's dysfunctional death penalty could be better spent to ensure public safety if
the death penalty were replaced with Life Without the Possibility of Parole, allowing $1 billion over the next
15
five years to be re -invested in public safety measures like law enforcement and education. There are three
ways to accomplish this addressed in this resolution:
1. Governor Brown should convert all existing death sentences to Life Without Parole
The governor has the authority to convert death sentences to the alternative of Life Without Parole, saving $1
billion over five years. This will allow the more than 700 existing death row inmates to be re -housed in the
general population, eliminating the additional housing costs associated with death row and the cost of
prosecuting and defending death row appeals. Three states have enacted this reform in the past to ensure that
innocent men and women sentenced to death will not be executed and to save funds spent on maintaining
death row. Life Without Parole is a real solution that ensures public safety and effectively punishes horrible
crimes. It also allows inmates to work and pay restitution to the Victims' Compensation Fund. Recent polling
from David Binder Research indicates that 64% of likely voters in California support this reform as a
budgetary measure.
2. County District Attorneys should reduce or end the practice of seeking death sentences
According to Judge Alarcon and Prof. Mitchell's study, each prosecution seeking death costs the county
approximately $1 million more than a prosecution seeking Life Without Parole. The decision to seek the
death penalty over the alternative of Life Without Parole falls to each county's District Attorney. According
to the ACLU's 2009 report "Death in Decline '09," most counties in the state currently do not seek the death
penalty, or do so very rarely, due to the excessive costs of such prosecutions. However, a small number of
counties continue to seek the death penalty, at great expense to the cities within the county and the taxpayers
of the state at large. When the county district attorney decides to seek the death penalty, everyone within the
county is impacted as the entire county criminal justice system strains to accommodate the massive
expenditures associated with a death penalty trial. Justice is slowed for everyone.
The ACLU's 2011 report, "The Death Penalty is Dead," showed a dramatic decrease in the number of death
sentences in California in the first half of 2011, leaving the state on track to sentence the fewest men and
women to death since 1978. Los Angeles County, historically the state's leader in death sentences, also saw a
substantial decline in the first half of 2011. This trend should be encouraged and all County District
Attorneys should be called upon to reduce or eliminate the practice of seeking the death penalty.
3. The California Legislature should pass SB 490 and give voters the option to replace the death
penalty on the November 2012 ballot
SB 490 is currently under consideration by the California legislature. If passed, voters will be given the
option of replacing the death penalty with Life Without Parole, saving $1 billion over five years. California
voters have not had an opportunity to vote on maintaining the death penalty since 1978, and have never been
made aware of the costs associated with the system. Don Heller, the author of the 1978 initiative to reinstate
California's death penalty, now supports its replacement because of the death penalty's costly failure over
the Last 30 years. Numerous attempts to streamline, speed up, and reduce waste within the death penalty have
been made, but all have failed and often result in increasing the cost of the system. Voters should be given a
chance to make an educated decision about whether the death penalty is worth $184 million each year, or if
there are more productive ways to invest those funds.
»»»»»
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
6. RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF THE CITY OF BELL
Source: Council Member Tony Cardenas, City of Los Angeles
Referred To: General Assembly
16
WHEREAS, the city of Bell has a Native American history dating back thousands of years with the
Gabrieliao Indians migrating to what is now known as the City of Bell in 500 B.C., and
WHEREAS, in the early 1800's, Spanish aristocrat and former soldier, Don Antonio Maria Lugo
settled on 30,000 acres of land that encompasses the City of Bell, and
WHEREAS, between 1870 and 1890 settlers arrived to the area and among those was the city's
founder, James George Bell who acquired approximately 360 acres of land and helped in its development as
a small farming and cattle community, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell was incorporated on November 7, 1927 and is now home to many
businesses, small industries, schools, churches and community organizations, and
WHEREAS, in July 2010, the City of Bell was devastated with a municipal scandal that made
national and international headlines, and -
WHEREAS, it was revealed during the corruption scandal that Bell city officials were receiving
unusually large salaries, perhaps the highest in the nation, and
WHEREAS, upon the removal of the previous administration, including the City Administrator and
City Attorney, the City of Bell began taking steps to immediately address this unprecedented scandal, and
WHEREAS, under the new leadership of Pedro Carrillo, Interim City Administrator for the City of
Bell, and James M. Casso, Interim City Attomey, the City of Bell has taken action to restore trust, ethics and
fiscal sustainability in the City of Bell, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell helped craft legislation (AB 900) authorizing the refunding of the
illegally charged taxes to Bell property owners, which the state legislators quickly and unanimously adopted
so that refund checks could be issued to constituents, and
WHEREAS, in March 2011, voters turned out in record numbers to recall and replace City Council
members charged in the corruption scandal, and
WHEREAS, the City of Bell continues 'to consider all options for recovering all taxpayer funds that
were spent improperly, and has implemented best practices that will enable the City of Bell to emerge from
this unprecedented situation with an efficient, transparent and trusted government; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco, September 23, 2011, that the League acknowledges the efforts of the
City of Bell to address municipal corruption and restore policies and actions that create an environment of a
responsible government.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 6
Source: City of Los Angeles
In July 2010, the City of Bell was devastated with a municipal scandal that made national and international
headlines. At that time, the Los Angeles Times reported that the City of Bell had the second -highest property
tax rate in the county — 1.55 percent — well above the county average of 1.16 percent with Bell city
officials receiving unusually large salaries. It was reported that City Manager Robert Rizzo was being paid
an annual salary of $787,637; Police Chief Randy Adams was receiving $457,000; and Assistant City
17
Manager Angela Spaccia was receiving $376,000. Additionally, the mayor and three of the four City Council
members were being paid about $97,000 a year, including health benefits for their part-time jobs.
During this unprecedented corruption scandal, the previous administration, including the City Administrator
and City Attorney, were immediately removed and the City of Bell began taking steps to immediately
address this unprecedented scandal. In March 2011, voters subsequently turned out in record numbers to
recall and replace City Council members charged in the corruption scandal with the City of Bell continuing
to implement best practices that is enabling the City to emerge from this situation with an efficient,
transparent and trusted government.
BRINGING GOOD GOVERNMENT PRACTICES BACK TO BELL
Since the scandal broke last year, the new Administration, under the leadership and guidance of Pedro
Carrillo, Interim City Administrator for the City of Bell, and James M. Casso, Interim City Attorney, has
taken exceptional action to restore trust, ethics and fiscal sustainability in the City of Bell. As such, the City
of Bell continues to be fully committed to open government and is working diligently with all stakeholders to
bring transparency and good government practices to Bell
In the past few months, the Bell City Council, Interim CAO and Interim City Attorney have made substantial
changes to bring good government practices to Bell. For example, the Bell City Council reduced property
taxes worked with State Legislators and the State Controller on Assembly Bill (AB) 900 to secure rebates for
Bell residents who were over assessed from 2007-2010. AB900 was signed into law allowing the City of Bell
to authorize nearly $3 million in refunds to Bell residents and small businesses with Los Angeles County
providing fiscal oversight.
PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION
Given the actions of the City of Bell to restore good government practices, and the fact that the League of
California Cities has taken steps to learn from this unprecedented scandal, this resolution would acknowledge
the on -going efforts of the City of Bell to address municipal corruption and restore policies and actions that
create an environment of a responsible and open government.
»»»»»
18
TIES PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK