This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/la/ for current information.
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Revised Duties of City Prosecutor
City of Long Beach
12,749 / 59.1% Yes votes ...... 8,815 / 40.9% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Information shown below: Summary | Impartial Analysis | Arguments ||
Shall Proposition F, which amends the Long Beach City Charter by removing the duty of the City Prosecutor to prosecute hearings before the Civil Service Commission, be adopted?
The Way It Is Now: The City Charter now requires that the Prosecutor prosecute, attend and conduct all hearings before the Civil Service Commission on behalf of the City managers or other appointing authorities.
What Measure F would do: The City Charter would be amended to delete these duties related to the Civil Service Commission.
Presently, the Long Beach City Charter requires that, among other duties, the office of the City Prosecutor shall prosecute, attend and conduct on behalf of the City Manager and other appointing authorities, all hearings before the Civil Service Commission. The proposed amendment would eliminate this duty from the office of the City Prosecutor.
|Arguments For Proposition F||Arguments Against Proposition F|
City Prosecutor Tom Reeves
But for now, your No vote can send a more important message. Council has no business wasting a million dollars and creating voter inconvenience for this extra and utterly non-urgent election.
|In its call to this election, the City Council did not even bother to issue a 'whereas' declaration of need and urgency to justify the big extra cost to the city and the notable extra inconvenience to voters. Council also offered no 'whereas' justifications for any one of the particular eight propositions it wants voters to rubber-stamp, or for the choice just of these and not of others, such as the proposed independent LBUSD operations auditor.
So this election and its propositions are the Council's million-dollar tax-paid solution. But the Council didn't bother to state what is the problem.
One instance is Prop. F, which removes one role of the City Prosecutor. Prof. F may well have good reason, but none has (as of the time of this writing) been stated. Nor does Prop. F clarify how that role would instead be filled - if indeed it need still be filled. And why couldn't transfer of the role to another office be done by inter-office memorandum-of-understanding rather than charter change?
Even if good answers emerge on all these issues, Prop. F makes a small and non-urgent change which does not alter the basic structure of city government.
A No vote will send two clear messages:
We the voters are not mere rubber stamps.
The need for Proposition F was explained at two community meetings and in writing to the City Council. It is not necessary, and would actually create future problems, to specify an alternative Civil Service representative for City Management in the City Charter. As the legal advisor for all city departments including Civil Service, the City Attorney can readily make arrangements to represent management at Civil Service.
The duties imposed by the City Charter cannot be transferred by an "inter-office memorandum-of-understanding". That's like saying the duties of the State Assembly can be transferred to the State Senate by a memo + it just doesn't work that way.
The City Prosecutor has said that Proposition F is necessary to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and to enhance the efficient prosecution of crimes. These are not "small" or "non-urgent" reasons for changing the charter! Vote YES on Proposition F.