REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Approve a Take No City Position on Proposed League of California Cities’ 2024 Annual Conference Resolution
Report
BACKGROUND
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League of California Cities. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy committees and board of directors. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Proposed by member cities, resolutions must have at least five cities and/or city officials concur before they can be included for consideration. The League of California Cities (League) 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet (Attachment 1) has one resolution presented for consideration by the League policy committees and membership. This report provides guidance on how to vote on this issue as it pertains to City business for Councilmembers who serve on policy committees, on the resolutions committee, or as the City’s voting delegate/alternates.
EXISTING POLICY
Council Policy 7.3.1 Legislative Management - Goals and Policies, Goal 7.3C: Participate in intergovernmental activities, including national, state, and regional groups, as a means to represent the City’s interests, influence policy and legislation, and enhance awareness.
Council Policy 7.4.14 Legislative Advocacy Positions: City business is defined as all matters directly related to service delivery, or otherwise contributing to the City’s operational success.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 (a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
DISCUSSION
This report transmits the League’s 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet (Attachment 1). The report contains the proposed resolution to be considered at the League’s Annual Conference from October 16-18. Below is a description of the resolution, followed by staff’s analysis and recommendation.
Staff may recommend the following positions: Support, Oppose, No Staff Recommendation, or Take No Position. While the meaning of Support and Oppose
recommendations are clear, “No Staff Recommendation” and “Take No Position” are clarified as follows:
• No Staff Recommendation - Staff does not provide analysis or make recommendations on measures that do not impact City business as defined in Council Policy 7.4.14, Legislative Advocacy Positions.
• Take No Position - Despite a measure’s ability to impact City business, Staff may recommend that Council abstain from taking a position. This recommendation to remain neutral on an issue may be made for a variety of reasons (e.g., ballot language is not clear; the pros and cons of the business impact cancel each other out; etc.). When this option is recommended, the reason will be explained in staff’s analysis.
Resolution No. 1 - Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels
This Resolution calls on the League of California Cities to request the Legislature to adopt a policy, practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what applies to one applies to all.” This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy: “The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
Concurrence:
Source: City of Glendora
Cities: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Related City Policy: N/A
Staff Analysis: The proposed Resolution was initiated by the City of Glendora and supported by the mayors of Arcadia, Azusa, La Verne, Lomita, and Rancho Palos Verdes. The first paragraph of the resolution states that “the General Assembly of the League of California Cities objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California.”
The resolution identifies four examples of such unequal treatment: the Brown Act, which only applies to local legislative bodies; the State Legislature’s practice of creating “one off” exemptions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and adoption of campaign rules that only apply to candidates for local offices such as SB 1439 (Glazer) and AB 571 (Mullin).
The League of California Cities Staff Analysis offers some additional context to the examples cited in the Resolution. For instance:
• A different law requires the Legislature to hold open and public meetings, although the requirements are less detailed than in the Brown Act.
• The Legislature has created many CEQA exemptions for local projects to the benefit of local agencies. In addition, CEQA is not a good example of the type of unequal treatment that the Resolution objects to, because CEQA applies to government agencies as entities, not to individual elected officials.
• Although the Legislature is not subject to the Levine Act (Gov. Code 84308), the Legislature also does not issue permits or licenses, which are a focus of the Levine Act’s “pay to play” restrictions.
• AB 571 allows cities and counties to establish their own campaign contribution limits, including no limits.
The Staff Analysis acknowledges that the Legislature has passed many laws that apply to local governments but not the state or state Legislature. An example this year was AB 2561 (McKinnor), which would require local governments but not the state to submit reports on vacancy rates and hiring practices. In addition, AB 817 (Pacheco) which attempted to make teleconference rules the same for state and local advisory bodies, but was not adopted by the Legislature.
Finally, the Staff Analysis notes that the impact of the Resolution could be negated by the last clause which states that “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the Legislative branch under the California Constitution.” The Legislature has inherent power to enact laws that apply to both general and charter cities.
The proposed Resolution can be summarized as an expression of discontent with the relationship between the state and local levels of government, particularly when the Legislature and Governor enact laws and rules that only apply to local elected officials. This generally aligns with Sunnyvale’s efforts to maintain local control and strengthen home rule authority.
Recommended Position: Take No Position
FISCAL IMPACT
The resolutions will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council meeting agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board at City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Public Library and in the Department of Public Safety Lobby. In addition, the agenda and this report are available at the NOVA Workforce Services reception desk located on the first floor of City Hall at 456 W. Olive Avenue (during normal business hours), and on the City's website.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Approve a Take No Position for the proposed Resolution No. 1 (Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels) and authorize the City’s voting delegate/alternates to cast votes consistent with the City Council’s adopted position. Approval of the Consent Calendar constitutes direction to the Voting Delegate to abstain from voting at the League of California Cities conference.
Levine Act
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (Gov. Code Section 84308) prohibits city officials from participating in certain decisions regarding licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use if the official has received a campaign contribution of more than $250 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the previous 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
A check or “Y” in the checklist below indicates that the action being considered falls under a Levine Act category or exemption:
SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
___ Land development entitlements
___ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use
___ Contract or franchise
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
___ Competitively bid contract
___ Labor or personal employment contract
_X_ General policy and legislative actions
Staff
Prepared by: Michelle Zahraie, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Sarah Johnson-Rios, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Tim Kirby, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. League of California Cities 2024 Annual Conference Resolution Packet