|
Neighborhood/Community Services Manager, Coryn Campbell presented the staff report.
Councilmember Chu stated there were four to five instances where Council took positions opposing ballot measures. He asked staff that since the measures no longer exist, should they be imbedded within the document of Legislative Advocacy Positions.
City Manager Amy Chan stated that the City Council Legislative Advocacy Positions reflect all the legislative positions that Council has taken in the past and that annually staff and Council review the validity of what is listed and may remove any positions they no longer wish to have on the books.
Councilmember Spitaleri thanked the City Manager for her review of the policies.
Councilmember Hamilton spoke about Item 18 on page 7 of Attachment A (Support the use of eminent domain on non-residential properties as a last resort to further the City’s effort to alleviate blight, enhance the economic vitality of the Redevelopment Project Area and to carry out the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment plan for the benefit of the Community). She asked if she does not support it within the Legislative Action Positions can the City still support it. Manager Campbell stated that in order for the City to take a position to advocate for or against any position it must be part of City Policy which means Council would have to take a position on the issue. Councilmember Hamilton asked if Council action automatically becomes a legislative action position. Ms. Campbell confirmed that was correct and that the City can advocate on an issue for which there is a history of Council action.
City Manager Chan clarified that advocacy positions are all the positions Council has taken in the past by majority vote. She stated that if an individual Councilmember has a policy that he/she does not wish to support then the Councilmember may express his/her minority view. City Manager Chan stated that the policy positions allow staff to quickly respond (support or oppose) to proposed legislation based on previous action by Council. She stated that if new legislation is proposed (where Council has not yet taken a position) then staff presents the legislation to Council with a request for a position so staff can follow that direction. City Manager Chan stated that at times the timing is such that the City may miss an opportunity to express their view because a policy does not yet exist. She informed Council that if there is legislation in Attachment A (Draft 2006 Legislative Advocacy Positions) which Council thinks is no longer valid, Council should take a formal vote to change or delete.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that she would like to state for the record that she opposes Policy 2.3 – Item No. 18 and did not think it would be appropriate for her to make a motion to remove this Item from the Legislative Advocacy Positions since she was required to recuse herself from the original vote. She commented that if another Councilmember would like to make a motion to remove this advocacy position, she would second it.
City Manager Chan and City Attorney David Kahn stated that Councilmember Hamilton did not have to recuse herself since this is an advocacy position only and she could make a motion.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Peter Cirigliano stated his request to add a legislative position to not allow one-way streets in the City. Councilmember Moylan asked Mr. Cirigliano if there were some action at another level of government that brought about his request of Council to include a position on one-way streets. Mr. Cirigliano stated that he felt the existing document of advocacy positions gave staff the opportunity to speak on Council’s behalf and that he saw this item as missing.
City Manager Chan stated that she wished to inform Council that they have other policy guidelines such as Land Use and the General Plan. She stated the speaker’s concerns would be more appropriately addressed under the Land Use Sub-Element.
No one else in the audience wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Councilmember Chu stated there were a number of propositions in November 2005 where Council took a position based on certain ballot measures that were one-time positions that would not apply to future ballot measures; therefore they should be removed.
Councilmember Chu moved and Councilmember Spitaleri seconded to delete the following Legislative Action Positions:
Page 13 – 3.5 Energy Policy (Item 10)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 80, electric service provider regulation. The measure attempted to subject electric service providers to regulation by California’s Public Utility Commission, restrict electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other providers and require all retail electric sellers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by 2010.)
Page 22 – 5 E/F Education and Training (Item 13)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 74, public school teacher waiting period for permanent status and dismissal. The measure attempted to increase the probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years and modify the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.)
Page 24 – 5 G/H Health and Social Services (Item 31)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 78, discounts on prescription drugs. The measure attempted to establish a discount prescription drug program for certain low and moderate income Californians and authorize the Department of Health Services to contract with participating pharmacies for discounts and with participating drug manufacturers for rebates.)
Page 25 – 5 G/H Health and Social Services (Item 33)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 71, waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. The measure attempted to amend California’s Constitution, defining and prohibiting abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after a physician notifies minor’s parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver; mandate reporting requirements and authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation.)
Page 29 – 7.1 Planning and Management/Fiscal Management ii State (Item 2)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 76, state spending funding limits. The measure attempted to limit state spending to prior years’ level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth, change minimum school funding requirements (Prop 98) and permit the Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of Governor’s choosing.)
Page 31 – 7.3 Legislative/Management-Elections (Item 7)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 77, redistricting. The measure attempted to amend the State Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Congressional, Senate, Assembly, and Board Equalization districts and require a three-member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders perform the redistricting.)
Page 37 – 7.3 Legislative/Management -Miscellaneous (Item 7)
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 75, restrictions on use of public employee union dues toward political contributions and requirements for employee consent. The measure attempted to prohibit using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees’ prior consent, excluding contributions to benefiting charities or employees. The measure also attempted to require unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission.)
Councilmember Chu stated that these are all specific ballot measures from a special election in November 2005 and are no longer appropriate for Council to continue to list as advocacy positions. He stated that part of good government involves eliminating advocacy positions that will not come up in the future nor will illicit any further discussions among Councilmembers.
City Manager Chan stated that generally the policy is not meant for specific ballot measures, but refers to the intent (oppose or support) of Council. She stated that if Council sees any intent within any of the Items listed in Councilmember Chu’s motion that could be referred to future legislation then Councilmembers should not delete the action; instead, send it back to staff to restate the intent and remove any specific ballot measures.
Councilmember Hamilton offered a friendly amendment to reword (but not delete) the advocacy position for :
· Page 25 – 5 G/H. Item 33
(Council opposed November 2005 Ballot Initiative-Prop 71, waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. The measure attempted to amend California’s Constitution, defining and prohibiting abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after a physician notifies minor’s parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver; mandate reporting requirements and authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation.)
to read:
Council opposes any legislation related to creating a waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. Legislation attempted to amend California’s Constitution, defining and prohibiting abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after a physician notifies minor’s parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver; mandate reporting requirements and authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation.
Councilmember Chu accepted the friendly amendment and stated he wished to leave his motion as stated with the exception of Councilmember Hamilton’s friendly amendment.
Motion carried 7-0.
Councilmember Spitaleri moved and Councilmember Moylan seconded to delete:
· Page 33 7.3 Legislative Management Human Resources Item 4 (Oppose the state mandating binding arbitration on local government).
Councilmember Spitaleri stated that of the 377 Legislative Advocacy Positions, most of the Council did not have information regarding the reasoning behind why these positions were supported or opposed. He stated that with Item 4 (7.3) information is lacking as to why this position was opposed and because it is a state issue he felt Council needs more time to debate the issue. He stated he is not supporting it, rather requesting that it be removed so as not to have opposing language on this issue until further debate occurs.
Motion carried 5-2 (Councilmember Hamilton and Mayor Swegles dissented).
Councilmember Spitaleri moved and Councilmember Chu seconded to approve the 2006 Intergovernmental Relations Legislative Advocacy Positions as amended.
Councilmember Hamilton made a friendly amendment to remove the advocacy position on page 7, 2.3 Housing and Community Revitalization Item 18: (Support the use of eminent domain on non-residential properties as a last resort to further the City’s effort to alleviate blight, enhance the economic vitality of the Redevelopment Project area and to carry out the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the benefit of the community).
Councilmember Spitaleri accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Chu asked the City Attorney for clarification regarding the process for removing this position since it is related to a City ordinance. City Attorney Kahn stated that since it is based on State Redevelopment Law (not City ordinance) taking a position either for or against would not alter the City’s ability to use eminent domain.
As the second to the motion, Councilmember Chu did not accept the friendly amendment stating that the City still may use eminent domain; therefore, it is misleading not to list the position since the City would have the ability to use it.
Councilmember Moylan offered (with respect to Councilmember Hamilton’s friendly amendment 2.3 – Item 18) that this advocacy position does not really reflect the Council’s direction for staff with respect to other levels of government as the other positions do and for that reason it should be dropped. However, he offered a friendly amendment that rather than delete it, to insert the word “only” after the word properties in the first line. Councilmembers Spitaleri and Chu accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Hamilton suggested removing Position 2.3 - Item18 from the motion in order to allow a separate vote on the position.
Councilmember Chu made a friendly amendment to remove Position 2.3 - Item18. from the motion in order to be voted on separately. The friendly amendment was accepted.
Motion carried 7-0.
Councilmember Hamilton moved and Councilmember Moylan seconded to delete advocacy position 2.3 - Item18.
Motion failed 3-4 (Councilmember Howe, Vice Mayor Lee, Mayor Swegles, and Councilmember Chu dissented).
Councilmember Moylan moved and Councilmember Spitaleri seconded to approve the 2006 Intergovernmental Relations Legislative Advocacy Position 2.3 – Item 18 with a correction to the language by adding the word “only” to read as follows:
· Support the use of eminent domain on non-residential properties only as a last resort to further the City’s effort to alleviate blight, enhance the economic vitality of the Redevelopment Project area and to carry out the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for the benefit of the community.
Motion carried 6-1 (Councilmember Hamilton dissented).
|