League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Los Angeles County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
	Measure CS Withdrawal of Specified Positions from Civil Service City of Inglewood Amended Ordinance - 2/3 Approval Required Fail: 3,114 / 48.93% Yes votes ...... 3,250 / 51.07% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure CS

Arguments Against Measure CS

Please Vote YES on Measure CS and encourage your neighbors to do the same. This amendment to our Civil Service Ordinance permits the City to better control its long-term expenses. This Ballot Measure affects just six employees. Members of the City Council (mayor and four councilmembers) hire their own staff (two full-time positions for the mayor and one part-time position for each councilmember). As it is now, when the electeds leave office, their staff does not leave with them, but must be absorbed into the personnel system of the City. This means that the individuals have "bumping" rights over other employees, are entitled to long-term retirement benefits, etc. This is an unfair and costly policy. Most cities consider City Council staff as "exempt" (or non-classified) employees. This means that the employee does not get civil service protections and must move on when his/her "boss" moves on. Another expression for these employees is "at will." This amendment to our Civil Service Ordinance is long overdue. Vote YES on Measure CS on Tuesday, June 8th JUDY DUNLAP Council Member, District 2 RALPH FRANKLIN Council Member, District 4 DANNY TABOR Council Member, District 1 ELOY MORALES, JR. Council Member, District 3

This is a giant step backward and plain wrong! When the city is trying to "right-size" and become "results oriented" along comes an initiative that rewards cronies and flies in the face of good government. Prior to 2003, there were six administrative assistants, plus three front office staff, inclusive of the two executive assistants assigned to city administration. Since then, the experiment of part-time Council assistants has led to at least four additional full time positions. Part-time employees can be let go ("fired") under the current civil service rules. Why remove them from these provisions now, when there have been four assistants that have been let go in a span of six years as it is? Why does the City Council need more discretion when they do not act responsibly now? Are they not themselves full time executives? And why single out the Executive Assistant to the Mayor and not the Executive Assistant to the City Administrator? Removing them from Civil Service or any public employee for that matter is an alarming trend as there would be no separation from the politics. We should aim to be better than business as usual. This will be a terrible cross for all of us to bear: the perception of cronyism, nepotism and the politics of self-serving populists will become overt. This is a town where less than 15% of the eligible voters cast ballots of a population of less than 125,000. We are not that big. There should be a bright line between the professionals who run the city and self-indulgent politics. Vote NO and bring "good government" and sensibility back to the City as this is the foundation on which the city originated, reflected over the years in the Charter, its numerous revisions and the Municipal Code. Respectively Submitted by: ROBERT L. BROWN Concerned Resident THELMA D. WILLIAMS Concerned Resident