By Councilman Michael Allawos, City of Glendora
In a perfect or near-perfect world of government, all levels of government from the executive branch to your local city councils and town leaders should have open lines of communication, regardless of party affiliation or personal biases, and strict adherence to the United States and California constitutional limitations the “people” give to government in trust to do their bidding.
In many cases, individuals who wish to be public servants start at the city level and move on to higher offices such as assembly, senate, congress, or even governor and president of the United States. In these cases, experience and knowledge are gained on governance and the challenges thereof from being at the local level of government.
Where the process seems to break down is when one moves from local offices to state and federal offices; they become entrenched, forget where they came from, or are captured by party leaders that have an agenda that may be contrary to their ethos and or experience that they gained with
the many challenges learned while in city government as well as the needs of local government.
Such items that come to mind are but not limited to, unfunded mandates, laws that seem to wrest local control over uniquely local issues and become “one size fits all.” There is a danger that state and federal offices allow officeholders to simply ignore the wishes of their constituency, ignore the
impact of new laws on local communities, and enact rules that don’t apply to them. Every municipality or agency is different and requires different approaches and resources.
Each local government/city has its own unique culture, that’s why they formed their city in the first place along with resources and other needs.
The rules and laws that are enacted by higher levels of government that are designed to be implemented to lower forms of governmental agencies and people must also adhere to those passing those laws and mandates otherwise those who legislate and pass these dictates will do so without regard and experiencing the effects of such restrictions and mandate.
There is a proposed resolution that is currently with the League of California Cities that must make its way through a subcommittee then the policy committee and if it survives then on to the general membership for a vote.
That proposed resolution is as follows:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, 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.”
Examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
- California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[] that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
- Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly requires all government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials;
- Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
- Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a committee for one election for another election.
For a society to work cohesively and be prosperous the system and the political process need to enact laws and regulations that are flexible to fit each community but also be binding on all from the top of the political spectrum to the bottom.
Accountability leads to trust and trust leads to prosperity in a perfect or near-perfect world within government.
“The views or opinions expressed in this letter are intended to be interpreted as the individual work product of the author. They do not necessarily reflect an official position of the City Council, staff, or other entities.”
Leave a Reply