League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Alameda County, CA November 2, 2010 Election
	Measure N Proposed Charter Modification City of Albany Majority Approval Required Pass: 3424 / 62.09% Yes votes ...... 2091 / 37.91% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure N

Arguments Against Measure N

VOTE YES because it's time for Albany to switch to an appointed attorney. 98% of California cities appoint their attorneys -- of 480 cities, only 11 elect City Attorneys. Appointing our City Attorney is simply good government. Here's why: First, appointing an attorney widens Albany's pool of legal expertise. Albany is the SMALLEST city that still elects its attorney. Presently, an elected attorney must live in Albany. But our small population severely restricts choices for a well-qualified municipal attorney. For the past nine terms, we have had only three elections with more than one candidate and may have no qualified residents in future elections. With an appointed attorney, we can choose from the entire Bay Area. Second, appointing an attorney is a more rigorous process than electing one. The City Attorney is an important job that needs to be performed by a competent professional. Few individual attorneys possess the expertise to practice increasingly complex municipal law. Appointing an attorney allows us to advertise, screen, and interview BOTH individuals and firms. The Ethics Code for City Attorneys says that selecting a city attorney must be based on a fair process that "emphasizes professional competence and experience." The power to hire the best attorney strengthens Albany in addressing complex legal issues. Third, an appointed attorney decreases conflicts of interest. The Ethics Code for City Attorneys states that city attorneys should provide legal advice based not on "political alignment or partisanship." Appointing our city attorney defines clear boundaries for duties and responsibilities. Finally, an appointed attorney brings legal costs under tighter control. The Charter Review Committee found that attorney costs in California cities are determined primarily by the number and type of legal issues they face. An appointed attorney gives Albany direct oversight in hiring the best attorney to address those issues. s/Joanne Wile Mayor s/Peggy Thomsen Council Person s/Jewel Okawachi Former Mayor s/Robert E. Nichols Attorney and Former Albany Mayor s/Geoffrey Piller Attorney and Former Chairperson, Albany Park and Recreation Commission Rebuttal to Arguments For The Argument in Favor offers no evidence that Measure N, which takes away our right to elect the City Attorney, will result in a more competent, less costly attorney or decrease conflicts of interest. Under California's Constitution, only Charter Cities elect City Attorneys, which 25% of Californians currently do in Charter Cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Rafael, and Albany. Suggesting that Albany may have no competent candidates insults Albany attorneys. A resident attorney who knows and cares about our community's well-being is preferable to a distant legal firm. Our current City Attorney had little municipal experience when first elected but has served well for decades. A council-appointed attorney is subject to political hiring and political pressure. The City Attorney's job is to render impartial, independent advice. Being accountable to council and voters reduces conflicts of interest. The Ethics Code says City Attorneys should volunteer unsolicited, unpopular advice about legal problems. Council members might prefer to have "direct oversight" of the City Attorney, but an attorney responsible to the voters prioritizes the community's interest. An appointed City Attorney will not reduce legal costs. The Charter Review Committee found Piedmont's and El Cerrito's appointed City Attorneys cost $180,000- $300,000 annually, versus $150,000-$175,000 for Albany's elected attorney. CRC concluded: "an appointed City Attorney may cost more than an elected official, particularly if a firm is selected..." Democracy means electing those who serve and represent us. Preserve our democratic right to elect Albany's City Attorney. Vote NO on Measure N. s/Nan Wishner Retired Teacher and Former Chair, Albany Integrated Pest Management Task Force s/Edward Fields Retired Engineer s/Francis J. Cebulski, Jr. President, Tech Script

Voting NO on Measure N will preserve our right, guaranteed by Albany's Charter, to elect our City Attorney. For almost 75 years, Albany citizens have elected our City Attorney to give the City Council quality, impartial legal advice and represent the community in legal matters. Measure N gives the City Council power to hire and fire the City Attorney, opening the door to dismissal for reasons such as offering legal advice unpopular with the council. Past councils unsuccessfully put this measure on the ballot when they disagreed with the elected City Attorney's advice. Council legal decisions are usually made in sessions closed to the public. An elected City Attorney, responsible to both the community and council, is an important check and balance on closed-session decision-making. Regrettably, government corruption exists. Past Albany Councils made unscrupulous real estate deals benefiting themselves. An appointed City Attorney might be reluctant to jeopardize his/her position by disagreeing with questionable council actions. An appointed City Attorney would likely not live in Albany. Are we better served by a member of a large law firm in another city who has no affiliation to Albany and will refer to others in his/her firm on specialty legal matters? An elected attorney lives here, alongside those whose interests s/he represents, and is free to seek the best experts for specialized legal advice, regardless of where they work. Our elected City Attorney has responded directly to constituents on important community issues such as cell towers, city contracts, and state pesticide spraying. An appointed City Attorney has no such obligation. Giving up our right to elect those who serve and represent us diminishes their obligation to be transparent and accessible. Preserve our right to elect the City Attorney. Vote NO on Measure N. s/Nan Wishner Retired Teacher and Former Chairperson, Albany Integrated Pest Management Task Force s/Edward Fields Retired Engineer s/Francis J. Cebulski, Jr. President, Tech Script Rebuttal to Arguments Against Voting YES on Measure N guarantees Albany the right to hire the most qualified and competent attorney in an open, transparent selection process. Despite the claims of those opposing Measure N, voters have rarely had a choice. We have had the same elected city attorney for 32 years+mostly as a result of uncontested elections in a city with a small population. How does this system ensure quality representation in the future? Measure N corrects this problem by giving the city far greater choice in selecting our legal advisor. The opposition refers to unscrupulous deals benefitting City Council members, but at that time the elected City Attorney did nothing to stop the Council's questionable actions. Elections do not guarantee ethical behavior. Indeed, it would be nearly impossible to remove a corrupt elected City Attorney from office. We must have a competent and ethical individual as our City Attorney. To achieve that goal, appointing our City Attorney is best. Election deprives us of having all possible choices. Opponents of Measure N ignore the increasing number of complex municipal issues that demand ever greater legal expertise. We must address this need by having a rigorous hiring process for our next City Attorney. Measure N is the first step in creating that process. Of ALL 337 California cities with populations below 58,000, Albany is the ONLY one that elects its City Attorney. Follow the wisdom of the 98% of California cities that appoint their City Attorneys. Vote YES on Measure N. s/Joanne Wile Mayor s/Marge Atkinson Council Member s/Michael Wallace Chairman, Charter Review Committee s/Joyce A. Jackson Former Mayor s/Geoffrey S. Taft Attorney