This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/alm/ for current information. |
| ||||||
|
||||||
Measure F Amends Emeryville Municipal Code regarding City Attorney City of Emeryville Ordinance - Majority Approval Required Fail: 448 / 34.78% Yes votes ...... 840 / 65.22% No votes
See Also:
Index of all Measures |
||||||
|
Results as of Nov 14 12:36pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (4/4) |
Information shown below: Official Information | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | | |||||
Shall an initiative ordinance be enacted that amends Emeryville Municipal Code Section 2-1.302 to prohibit the Emeryville City Council from employing a City Attorney and subordinate employees in the City Attorney's Office and require the City Council by contract to designate a City Attorney or law firm to act as City Attorney?
2. Finding 3 concludes that "the office of the City Attorney would be most efficiently and economically provided for by having that office filled on a contract basis by a qualified outside law firm or attorney." By virtue of the MESA contract the City already contracts for City Attorney services with MESA and the measure would have no effect on the current staffing configuration of the City Attorney's office. 3. The Measure would prohibit the City Council from employing a City Attorney or any employees in the City Attorney's office. The Council by contract would be required to appoint a City Attorney or law firm. This provision would have no legal effect because the City already contracts with MESA for City Attorney services and none of the members of the City Attorney's office, including the City Attorney, are employees of the City of Emeryville. 4. The Measure would preclude any City Council in the future from employing an in-house City Attorney and staff, irrespective of whether the City Council concluded that such a staffing configuration was the most cost effective way of receiving city attorney services. The City Manager has concluded that contracting with a law firm would cost the City 71% more than employing in-house City Attorney staff and, if the law firm contract is limited to the same amount as that incurred for an in-house City Attorney's office, there will be a 38 % reduction in the level of City Attorney services and additional costs would likely still be incurred for additional legal services. 5. The City Council has been advised by special counsel that the Measure is likely invalid because it conflicts with powers of the City Council under state law to appoint a city attorney. 6. Unlike current practice, the measure requires the Council to act on the recommendation of the City Manager, concerning the City Attorney's contract.
7. The measure limit of two years on the term of the City Attorney's contract is already the
law.
|
News and Analysis Oakland Tribune
|
Arguments For Measure F | Arguments Against Measure F | ||
Under the Emeryville Municipal Code, the City Council hires the City Attorney. To
reduce the cost of legal services, this measure would force the City Council to acquire
its legal services on a contract basis from an outside firm, using competitive bidding. To
promote a greater harmony with City staff, the measure requires the Council to consider
the recommendation of the City Manager in contracting for its legal services.
Currently, the City Attorney receives a salary package of $263,000 a year, and nine month's severance pay, both of which are more than the Emeryville City Manager or the Oakland City Attorney receives. The City Attorney, in turn, hires a deputy City Attorney, a paralegal, and the outside law firms that do the nuts and bolts of the City's legal work. The City Attorney has no assigned duties other than attending City Council meetings. The City Attorney has unfettered authority to spend money and to set priorities independent from other City departments, without prior approval of the City Council. No budget is ever prepared for an upcoming case. No accounting is made for the City Attorney's time. By transitioning to an outside firm, the City Manager will be able to reduce the cost of legal services by setting priorities, approving expenditures in advance and monitoring the work. Passage of this measure will send a strong message to the City Council, demanding fiscal responsibility in its procurement of legal services.
s/ Ken Bukowski
Currently, the City Council has the ability to contract out legal services for the City or hire an in-house City Attorney. Let the City Council continue to provide oversight for the most cost effective legal services to the taxpayers of Emeryville. Forcing the Council to contract out legal services could dramatically increase our costs. Emeryville, as a "general law city," may find that removing this power from your City Council is unconstitutional as it usurps powers granted to the City Council by state law. Your City Council is open to evaluating the most cost effective and efficient ways to provide legal services, whether it is having an in-house legal department and private contracts, or another alternative. Your City Council welcomes verifiable information about the City's legal costs, with increased accountability, specific tracking of time and expenses, and greater transparency. But we do not support a structural change. We put great faith in the voters' role: to elect representatives, with wise choices in November. Unfortunately, too often, initiatives become a way of manipulating the general public. In the interest of Emeryville and its taxpayers, let's examine our legal department and get the best representation for our hard-earned dollars. The City Council employs the City Attorney and the City Manager. They work for you. Please reject one council member's attempt to disrupt Emeryville's governance structure. Please vote "NO" on this ballot initiative.
s/ Nora Davis
s/ Jennifer West
s/ Ruth Atkin
s/ Kurt Brinkman
| We urge you to vote "NO" on the City Attorney Ballot Initiative.
The truth is this initiative is one council member's attempt to circumvent the decisions of the City Council because of his disagreement with the Council majority. He has distributed incomplete or misleading information to qualify a ballot measure to change the structure of legal services in Emeryville. This is not the way to conduct our city business and sets bad policy for this and future City Councils. Please vote "NO" on this ballot initiative.
s/ Nora Davis
s/ Jennifer West
s/ Ruth Atkin
s/ Kurt Brinkman
Not surprisingly, the survey found that the cities that contracted out their legal department spent less than half as much for legal services as cities with a staff City Attorney. This was true both for larger as well as smaller cities, as the average percentage of the general fund spent on legal services was 1.54% for in-house counsel cities, while only 1.31% for outside counsel cities. Six of the ten cities that spent the highest percentage of their general fund on legal services had in-house counsel. Nine of the ten cities that spent the lowest percentage of their general fund on legal services had outside counsel. There is a pattern here: contracting out these services costs less. Given these data, can the "impartial" analysis possibly be correct, claiming that contracting out would cost 71% more? How convincing is its assertion that the City Attorney is not a City employee? He is employed by MESA, the Emeryville entity whose Board of Directors is the City Council! The Initiative would require the City Council to contract for legal services with an entity that it doesn't control. Your YES vote on this measure will enable the City to better control its legal expenses, resulting in lower costs to the taxpayers.
s/ Ken Bukowski
|