The ballot initiative to force the city council to outsource all legal services has been placed on the ballot for November. As I stated before, I do not support this ballot initiative.
This initiative is the work of one disgruntled city council member who has been ineffective at getting his way, and he disagrees with the current council. The city council has 5 individuals, elected at large to represent all the residents in our city. As you know, 3 seats are up for election this fall. The best way to impact all decisions made by the council is to elect city council members who take their responsibilities seriously and listen to your concerns. I am supporting Jacqueline Asher, as I think her integrity, intelligence and attention to detail will serve the residents of Emeryville well. (Another blog post coming on her candidacy!)
In the efforts to secure signatures for the petition for the ballot measure, there was incomplete information. First of all, as written this ballot measure will have NO IMPACT on the current situation regarding legal services in Emeryville. Secondly, the ballot initiative strips the city council of having power to provide legal services for the city with in-house attorneys, which might be the most efficient and cost-effective way. Third, taking this power away from the city council is most likely against the state requirements for general law cities, and if challenged, could be illegal. Fourth, by making this decision with a ballot initiative instead of by city council decision, the only way to reverse the effect of the initiative is also by the ballot box.
1. The reason that this ballot measure will not change current practice is because of technicalities. All employees besides the police and fire employees are actually employed by the Management of Emeryville Services Authority (MESA). This entity was created as a joint power authority by the City of Emeryville and the Redevelopment Agency (and now the Community Development Commission of Emeryville) to be the agency that hires most of the employees. By contracting through MESA, the city and the employees do not contribute to Social Security, saving 6-7% of salaries (both for the city and the individual workers). Technically, the city attorney and the other 2 employees in his department, all of whom would be affected by this ballot measure are already "contracted" out. Passing this measure would tie the city council's hands then only in the future, if there were some change from using MESA as an employment agency.
2. The City Council controls the city staff only by hiring and firing 2 individuals: the City Manager and the City Attorney, both of whom report directly to the council. If, in the future, the city wants to hire a city attorney directly, not through MESA, this ballot initiative would prohibit hiring an individual, and would require us to hire a firm, or outside counsel. I believe, based on the information I have so far, that this would cost the city more money than we spend on having someone on staff. Some small cities have little to do in their legal departments, perhaps, but as a complex city with a large number of businesses and a large area that was contaminated by industry, we have plenty of work for a minimum of one legal staff. At least one full time employee on staff is warranted. We currently have 3 and we still contract additional work with outside legal firms as needed. This combination gives Emeryville the flexibility to respond to complicated litigation and contracts as needed. Having outside counsel provides less accountability in my opinion and I do not support more outsourcing of services. I think it is valuable to have an individual on staff who knows the city's needs well and can manage whatever outsourcing we need to do.
3. This is the city council's job. We are elected to sift through all the information and make difficult decisions about how best to provide services in lean times. Emeryville is a general law city which means we are subject to the rules the state has given all general law cities in terms of operation. Deciding who serves the city in terms of legal representation is the job of the city council, and it cannot be turned over to the voters, as this initiative does. The council has decided not to challenge the ballot initiative now, as it could be costly, but if it were to pass, it is likely that it would be thrown out as unconstitutional if challenged.
4. Ballot initiatives are not the best way to make complex decisions, and they are only reversed through another ballot initiative. Gathering signatures and putting an item on the ballot is costly and requires time. I trust the Emeryville voters to make a good decision, but only if they are given correct information.
In summary, I feel it is my duty to act responsibly. This ballot measure to outsource the city attorney services is not the way to go about making changes to our legal department. I cannot support it, as I fear it would cost the city a great deal of money, or limit our legal services. The technicality that it would not change current structure is somewhat of a relief, but I am opposed to the phony need to change the structure, created by one council member who can't get what he wants. He needed an issue for his re-election campaign, and he doesn't support the individual who currently serves as our city attorney. Those are not valid reasons to change the power of the city council to effectively govern our small city.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
