RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_09_20_08_League_CA_Cities_ResolutionsCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER®
SEPTEMBER 20,2011
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2011 ANNUAL
CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
REVIEWED BY:CAROLYN L~R,CITY MANAGER~
Staff Coordinators:Kit Fox,A~~:6S:~~r Administrative Analyst and Matt Waters,~
Senior Administrative Analyst C/"
RECOMMENDATION
1)Provide direction to the City Council's Voting Delegate regarding the adoption of League
of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No.1 (Alternative Methods of Meeting
Public Notice Requirements and to Advocate for Revisions to the Government Code
Recognizing Alternative Methods as a Means to Meet Noticing Requirements);and,
2)Authorize the Voting Delegate to support the adoption of League of California Cities
General Assembly Resolution NO.4 (Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003);and,
3)Direct the Voting Delegate to take no position regarding League of California Cities
General Assembly Resolution NO.5 (Replacement of the Death Penalty with the Sentence
of Life Imprisonment without the Possibility of Parole).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The League of California Cities 2011 Annual Conference is being held September 21-23,
2011 in San Francisco.At the annual conference,the League General Assembly will
consider six (6)resolutions at the annual business meeting.At its September 6,2011
meeting,the City Council authorized the City's voting delegate to support Resolution Nos.2
and 3 and oppose Resolution NO.6.The Council voted to continue action on Resolution
Nos.1,4,and 5 and directed staff to perform additional research on these three
resolutions.Based on the additional research,combined with the analysis from the
8-1
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
Page 2
September 6,2011 staff report,staff recommends that the Council provide staff and the
voting delegate with direction regarding Resolution NO.1 after taking into consideration the
City Attorney's input;recommends the adoption of Resolution No.4;and recommends
taking no position regarding League of California Cities General Assembly Resolution No.
5.
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities 2011 Annual Conference is being held September 21-23,
2011 at the Moscone West Convention Center in San Francisco.At the annual
conference,the League General Assembly will consider six (6)resolutions at the annual
business meeting on September 23,2011.The City Council reviewed the resolutions on
September 6,2011 to determine a City position on each so that the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Voting Delegate (Le.,Councilman Wolowicz)could effectively represent and
convey the City's position on each resolution.
Policy development is a vital and on-going process within the League.The principal
means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities and the League is through
the League's eight (8)standing Policy Committees 1 and the Board of Directors.The
process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures
city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.Annual
conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy.
At that September 6,2011 meeting the City Council authorized the City Council's Voting
Delegate to support the adoption of Resolution No.2 (Tort Reform),Resolution No.3
(Raising Public Awareness about the Imminent Health and Safety Concerns for Bullied
Children).The City Council voted to oppose Resolution NO.6 (Honoring the City of Bell).
The City Council discussed Resolution NO.1 (Alternative Methods of Meeting Public Notice
Requirements and to Advocate for Revisions to the Government Code Recognizing
Alternative Methods as a Means to Meet Noticing Requirement).After a short discussion
about the merits of traditional notifications methods versus alternative methods,Council
continued action on this item to September 20,2011,pending additional research on this
topic by the City Attorney.
The City Council also discussed Resolution No.4 (The Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003).The discussion centered around the appropriateness of approving a Resolution that
may not have any direct connection to the City and its residents.Council continued action
on this item to September 20,2011 and directed staff to contact the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department for its official position on this matter.
1 Of the six (6)resolutions presented for consideration at this year's conference,Resolution Nos.1
and 2 will be referred to the Administrative Services Policy Committee and Resolution Nos.3,4 and 5 will be
referred to the Public Safety Policy Committee prior to their consideration by the General Assembly.
Resolution NO.6 will be presented directly to the General Assembly.
8-2
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
Page 3
Staff had recommended taking no position on Resolution NO.5 (Replacement of the Death
penalty with the Sentence of Life Imprisonment without the Possibility of Parole)because
the State Assembly Appropriations Committee recently shelved Senate Bill 490,which
proposed placing a constitutional amendment on a statewide ballot to replace the death
penalty with life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.The Bill's author,State Senator
Loni Hancock of Berkeley has turned it into a 2-year bill.Council continued action on this
item to September 20,2011.Staff was directed to respond to a series of statistical,
financial and religious questions posed to staff by Mayor Long on this issue (see attached).
DISCUSSION
A brief description of Resolutions No.1,4,and 6 and Staff's recommendation is provided
below.The additional information and research requested by City Council is also included.
The full text of each of the three (3)Resolutions is attached to this report,along with
related background information.
Resolution No.1:Supporting Alternative Methods of Meeting Public Notice
Requirements and to Advocate for Revisions to the Government Code
Recognizing Alternative Methods as a Means to Meet Noticing Requirements
The League's Desert/Mountain Division proposes a Resolution that would "enhance current
public noticing requirements by communicating with the public using innovative,
technologically friendly methods of communication."The Resolution asks the League to
"support alternative methods of meeting public notice requirements"by advocating for
revisions to the California Government Code recognizing alternative methods as a means
of satisfying public notice requirements,and supporting any subsequent legislation that
would adopt such revisions.
As the City Council is aware,California cities have a duty to conduct business at open,
properly-noticed public meetings.Traditionally,such notification has been provided via the
publication of notices in general-circulation newspapers and the physical posting of
meeting agendas seventy-two (72)hours in advance of a meeting.The League's
Desert/Mountain Division argues that these are "antiquated and inefficient"means of
providing timely and useful information to the public.Recent years have seen a boom in
personal communications technology,including the Internet,electronic mail,social media
and "smart"phones and devices.With each passing year and the arrival of each new
device,the public appears to become more comfortable with-and expectant of-receiving
information through these alternate means.
For several years,Rancho Palos Verdes has supplemented its public notification
procedures with the use of e-mail and the list-serve function on our website,which allows
subscribers to receive targeted updates on topics of interest to them.The City has also
explored the use of social media (Le.,blogs,etc.)in community outreach efforts.At the
same time,we have seen our local general-circulation newspaper,the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News,reduced from twice-weekly to weekly publication,with a substantial loss
8-3
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
Page 4
of staff and resources devoted to the coverage of Peninsula issues.
Additional Observations from City Attorney
The League Resolution is somewhat vague about what is being proposed,which may
make it problematic for the Council to decide whether to support it.
On the one hand,the Resolution mentions "enhancing"public noticing requirements to
add electronic communications.That seems completely acceptable because it would
appear to allow more options for local agencies to provide notice to the public.As
people become more accustomed to using city websites and receiving notice by email,
the proposal would be cost effective and efficient for cities.Presumably,enhancement
of noticing requirements would not eliminate traditional methods of notice,such as
publication of notices in newspapers,which still may be relied upon by a significant
segment of the community.
On the other hand,the Resolution also says that electronic notices could be used as an
alternative to traditional.means of notification.If that means that a city could eliminate
all published notices and use electronic communications instead,the City Council may
not wish to support it.If there is an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation within
a city,state law requires ordinances that are adopted to be published in the
newspaper.This provision means that a city either has to publish an entire ordinance
or a summary of the provisions of an ordinance,if the ordinance is lengthy.This can
be a very expensive procedure for cities to follow,and appears to be the focus of the
resolution.Making a change to state law to address this concern would be reasonable,
since ordinances still could be required to be posted at city hall and would be available
from the city clerk's office.However,the resolution is not restricted to publication of
ordinances in newspapers.Given that specific language isn't proposed,it is unclear
exactly what the legislation ultimately will address.
Since Rancho Palos Verdes successfully uses email and its website to provide notice to
the public,and because the scope of the legislation is not specified,the Council may
wish to express its general support of the concept of using electronic methods to
provide notice to the public.Alternatively,because the scope of the proposed
legislation is not stated specifically,the Council may wish to abstain or vote no.
Recommendation:Staff recommends that Council provide direction to staff and the
voting delegate regarding the adoption of League of California Cities
General Assembly Resolution No.1.
Resolution No.4:Supporting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
The City of Los Angeles proposes a Resolution in support of the timely implementation of
the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)of 2003.PREA is a Federal law-signed by
President George W.Bush in 2003-that was established to address the elimination and
8-4
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
PageS
prevention of sexual assault and rape in the nation's correctional systems.Specifically,the
proposed Resolution calls upon the League to support "standards implementing [PREA]
which would ban the placement of young people under the age of 18 in adult jails and
prisons."The Resolution notes that:
•According to the prison rape literature,the persons with the highest likelihood of
being sexually assaulted are young people.
•According to studies from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,youth who are tried in the adult
criminal justice system are 34%more likely to recidivate than youth in the juvenile
justice system.
•70%of prisoners in adult prisons were once juvenile offenders,so the long-term
effect of preventing harm to youth will decrease recidivism and substantially reduce
the adult prison population and the associated economic,social and human cost.
PREA is adopted Federal law.The U.S.Department of Justice is currently considering
banning the placement of youth in adult jails and prisons as a part of the implementation of
PREA.Staff believes that efforts in support of the implementatiol1 of Federal law that may
serve to reduce recidivism,prevent the exploitation of at-risk youth and improve public
safety are worthy of support.
Additional Information
Staff was directed at the September 6,2011 meeting to determine the official position of
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on this issue.The Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department supports the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.Sheriff Lee Saca
sent a letter to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission in 2008 that supports the
Commissions recommendations and objectives.
Sheriff Saca states in this letter that:
"The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)of 2003 requires both correctional and
law enforcement authorities responsible for the operation of jails and lockups to
comply with the national standards and regulations that you have set forth to take a
zero-tolerance stance toward the sexual abuse of people in confinement."
The letter also recommends that facility inspections done in compliance with PREA should
be performed by the California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations to
avoid unneeded and costly duplication of effort.Sheriff Saca points out that the Sheriff's
jails are already inspected by the State,County Health Department and the Los Angeles
County Grand Jury.See attached letter.
Recommendation:Staff recommends supporting the adoption of League of California
Cities General Assembly Resolution NO.4.
8-5
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
Page 6
Resolution No.5:Calling for the Replacement of the Death Penalty with the
Sentence of Life Imprisonment without the Possibility of Parole
The City of Claremont in Los Angeles County proposes a Resolution calling for the State to
abolish the death penalty and replace it with the sentence of "life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole."The Resolution's author cites a recent study conducted by U.S.9th
Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon,a conservative Federal judge and death-penalty supporter,
and Loyola Law School Professor Paula Mitchell,a law school professor and death-penalty
opponent.Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell have concluded that the death penalty
costs California taxpayers $184 million each year;that California has spent a total of $4
billion on the death penalty since 1978 and is expected to spend another $1 billion over the
next five (5)years;and that each execution in California costs taxpayers $308 million.
They assert that the current death penalty system is dysfunctional,resulting in protracted
legal battles and appeals that result in the vast majority of death-row inmates not being
executed.They suggest instead that the replacement of the death penalty with "life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole"could save $1 billion over the next five (5)
years that could be re-invested in statewide public safety measures.Senate Bill No.490
(SB 490),which would nave placed a constitutional amendment on a statewide ballot to
replace the death penalty with the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole,has been shelved by the State Assembly Appropriations Committee.
The proposed Resolution asks the League to commit to taking the following three (3)
actions:
1.Call upon the Governor to convert all death sentences to sentences of life
imprisonment without any possibility of parole,mandating those sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole to work in prison and pay restitution to the victims'
families;and that the money saved by the State be used to fund education,local
government and public safety.
2.Call upon California's County District Attorneys to desist from pursuing the death
penalty,and to invest the savings in solving homicides,violence prevention and
effective public safety programs.
3.Call upon the State Legislature and the Governor to pass SB 490 and place on the
statewide ballot in November 2012 a constitutional amendment to replace the death
penalty with a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The argument in favor of this Resolution is primarily fiscal;the State financial resources
that are currently expended on the death penalty system could (and should)be re-directed
to education,local government and public safety.This argument presumes that the State's
death penalty system is "broken"and does not serve its intended purpose;namely,to deter
and punish violent crime by imposing the "ultimate sentence"upon convicted felons.
However,aside from the purely fiscal argument,legitimate arguments may be made that
the death penalty does have a deterrent effect,and should be retained as an appropriate
sentence in cases of the most heinous crimes.Furthermore,opponents of SB 490 have
argued that the existing death penalty process should instead be reformed to "speed up
8-6
MEMORANDUM:League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
September 20,2011
Page 7
the process"and reduce costs.Victims'rights groups have also argued that the measure
is an affront to the memory of the victims of violent crime.
The adoption of the proposed Resolution would have no direct effect upon the City,
although there could be some positive future benefit in the event that the projected cost
savings to the State actually occur and are passed along to local government.In Staff's
estimation,this seems highly unlikely.Staff believes that the relative merits of the fiscal
and philosophical arguments in this matter should be weighed by the City Council as a
matter of policy before taking a position on the proposed Resolution.
Additional Information
Staff responses to Mayor Long's questions regarding the death penalty are attached to this
report.
Recommendation:Staff recommends taking no position on League of California Cities
General Assembly Resolution No.5.
Attachments:
•2011 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions
•Staff Research on Death Penalty Questions from Mayor Tom Long
•Letter from Sheriff Lee Baca to Judge Reggie B.Walton,Chairman of the National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission
8-7
V.
2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1.RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AI..TERNATIVE METHODS OF MEETING PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND TO ADVOCATE FOR REVISIONS TO THE
GOVERNMENT CODE RECOGNIZING ALTERNATIVE METHODS AS A MEANS TO
MEET NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Source:DesertlMountain Division
Referred To:Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS,the DesertlMountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes local
municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open,noticed public meetings;and
WHEREAS,that same duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale of
public meetings,publie:~arings,introduction and adoption of Ordinances,and bid opportunities;and..
WHEREAS,in a~cordance with California Government Code Section 54954.2,the requirement for
posting meeting agendas reads as follows:
54954.2.(a)(1)At least 72 hours before a regular meeting,the legislative body ofthe local
agency,or its designee,shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each
item ofbusiness to be transacted or discussed at the meeting,including items to be discussed
in closed session.A briefgeneral description ofan item generally need not exceed 20 words.
The agenda shall specifY the time and location ofthe regular meeting and shall be posted in a
location that is freely accessible to members ofthe public ...
WHEREAS,in accordance with California Government Code Section 6066,the requirement for
publishing public hearing notices reads as follows:
6066.Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for two successive
weeks.Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or oftener,with at least five
days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates,
are sufficient.The period ofnotice commences upon the first day ofpublication and terminates
at the end ofthe fourteenth day,including therein the first day.
WHEREAS,in accordance with California Government Code Section 6060,the tenn "notice"is
defined as follows:
6060.Whenever any law provides that publication of notice shall be made pursuant to a
designated section of this article,such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation for the period prescribed,the number of times,and in the manner provided in that
section.As used in this article,"notice"includes official advertising,resolutions orders,or
other matter ofany nature whatsoever that are required by law to be published in a newspaper
ofgeneral circulation.
WHEREAS,notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,a newspaper is a "newspaper of
general circulation"if it meets the criteria listed in California Government Code Sections 6000 and 6008,
which read as follows:
6
8-8
6000.A "newspaper ofgeneral circulation"is a newspaper published for the dissemination of
local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character,which has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers,and has been established,printed and published at
regular intervals in the State,county,or city where publication,notice by publication,or official
advertising is to be given or made for at least one year preceding the date of the publication,
notice or advertisement.
6008.Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,a newspaper is a "newspaper of
general circulation"ifit meets the following criteria:
(a)It is a newspaper published for the dissemination oflocal or telegraphic news and
intelligence ofa general character,which has a bona fide subscription list ofpaying
subscribers and has been established and published at regular intervals ofnot less
than weekly in the city,district,or judicial district for which it is seeking
adjudication for at least three years preceding the date ofadjudication.
(b)It haiJ a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the city,district,orjudicial
district irz which it is seeking adjudication.
(c)It has maintained a minimum coverage oflocal or telegraphic news and intelligence
ofa general character ofnot less than 25 percent ofits total inches during each year
ofthe three-year period.
(d)It.has only one principal office ofpublication and that office is in the city,district,or
juatcial districtfor which it is seeking adjud!cation.
WHEREAS,in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933,within 15 days after a
passage of an Ordinance,a City Clerk shall publish and post Ordinances,and if so chosen,a member of the
public may request notification as follows:
............(d)(1)Any member;ofthe public may file with the city clerk,or any other person designated
by the governing body to receive these requests,a request for notice ofspecific proposed
ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances.
(2)Notice pursuant to paragraph (1)shall be mailed or otherwise transmitted at leastfive
days before the council is scheduled to take action on the proposed ordinances or
proposed amendments to an ordinance.Notice may be given by written notice properly
mailed or bye-mail ifthe requesting member ofthe public provides an e-mail address.
Notice may be in theform specified in either paragraph (1)or (2)ofsubdivision (c),as
determined by the city council.
(3)As an alternative to proViding notice as requested of specific proposed ordinances or
proposed amendments to ordinances,the city clerk,or other person designated by the
governing body,may place the requesting member ofthe public on a general mailing list
that gives timely notice of all governing body public meetings at which proposed
ordinances or proposed amendments to ordinances may be heard,as provided in Section
54954.1.If this alternative is selected,the requesting member of the public shall be so
advised.
(4)The city may charge a fee that is reasonably related to the costs ofproviding notice
pursuant to this subdivision.The city may require each request to be annually renewed.
(5)Failure ofthe requesting person to receive the information pursuant to this subdivision
shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate an otherwise properly adopted
ordinance or amendment to an ordinance.
WHEREAS,as California Government Code Section 36933 already recognizes electronic mail as
a form of communicating with the public when it comes to Ordinances,the Desert/Mountain Division of the
League of California Cities seeks other public noticing requirements in the Government Code reflect the
same;and
7
8-9
WHEREAS,the traditional means of noticing in local adjudicated newspapers is antiquated and
inefficient;and
WHEREAS,the DesertlMountain Division of the League of California Cities recognizes that in
recent decades,technology has vastly improved;and
WHEREAS,that technology includes the advent of the internet,electronic mail,social media,smart
phones and other smart devices (i.e.iphoneslipads);and
WHEREAS,the public is becoming increasing familiar with the use of new technology and using it
as a means to gain quick and up-to-date information;and
WHEREAS,the public has a preference for receiving information in an electronic format;and
WHEREAS,the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities is in support of cities
communicating with the public using innovative,enhanced methods of communication;now therefore be it
RESOLYED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual
Conference in San Francisco,September 23,2011,that the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of
California Cities:. .
.'.
1.Desires to enhance current public noticing requirements by communicating with the public using
innovative,technologically friendly methods of communication.
2.Request that the League,as a whole,support alternative methods of meeting public notice
requirements.
3.Request the League advocate for the State Legislature to adopt revisions to the California
Government Code recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice
requirements.
4.Support any legislation that would adopt reVISIOns to the California Government Code
recognizing alternative methods as a means to meeting public notice requirements.
1111111111
Backlround Information on Resolution No.1
Source:DesertlMountain Divisiom
Municipalities have a civic duty to conduct business in open,properly noticed public meetings.That same
duty calls for cities to engage their citizenry by noticing time and locale ofpublic meetings,public hearings,
introduction and adoption of Ordinances,bid opportunities and the like.The public has a right to know what
local elected officials are doing with public funds.The public has a right to know what decisions are being
made that will affect them.
In efforts to engage the public,encourage more participation at public meetings and enhance communication
with constituents,our division has discussed current public noticing requirements required by the State of
California.Current requirements include cities place notices in a general newspaper of circulation.
Annually,cities spend quite a bit on this task.For example,the City of Big Bear Lake,population 6,700,
spends $15,000 -$20,000 a year on noticing in their local weekly newspaper and on occasion,in a regional.
This is a substantial amount for a small city.
8
8-10
Noticing is typically done in the classified section,next to garage sale and help wanted ads.This system is
antiquated and inefficient.Can you remember the last time you read that section of the paper?In recent
decades,technology has vastly improved,given the advent ofthe internet,electronic mail,social media,
smart phones and other smart devices (iphones/ipads).The public is becoming increasing familiar with the
use ofnew technology,using it as a means to gain quick and up-to-date information.We see more and more
the public have a preference for receiving information in an electronic format.Technology allows us to be
more efficient and when it comes to business,much more economical.
Our division would like to see a change to State Law that allows cities more discretion based on their
community's distinct needs (i.e.residents can sign up for e-mail alerts ofpublic hearings,meetings,etc.);and
that would count towards meeting the public noticing requirements.We don't want to eliminate noticing in
newspapers,just enhance requirements by allowing cities to use alternate methods as a means of meeting the
law.
In recent years,this issue has come before the State Legislature,but newspaper publication groups have
lobbied against this.They receive revenue from classified ads.But noticing is not supposed to be about
generating revenue for private indus;try.It is supposed to be about inform.in,g the public,getting them more
involved in local gov~tn,ment and eJiliancing our methods of communication.Many times,we don't always
see the turnout we would.like at public meetings and hearings.Vje need to enhance our methods to change
this.
In addition,cities are supposed to be reimbursed by the State for a portion of the cost to notice meetings,but
these funds have been deferred for several years now due to the State Budget.If we are not receiving these
funds,why can't the legislature work with cities to modify the requirements?We want to work smarter,not
harder!
»»»»»
2.RESOLUTION RELATING TO TORT REFORM
Source:Mayor Charlie Goeken,City of Waterford
Referred To:Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS,frivolous lawsuits cost cities,counties,special districts,and school districts millions
dollars a year to defend;and
WHEREAS,the money that cities spend each year in legal fees fighting frivolous lawsuits is a waste
of taxpayers'money;and
WHEREAS,the money spent to defend frivolous lawsuits could be put to better public use;and
WHEREAS,cities or other government entities are easily sued without reasonable cause when there
is no requirement that the person or entity filing the lawsuit have any responsibility when the lawsuit is lost;
and
WHEREAS,the public good would be served ifthe law were changed to require the person or entity
who filed the lawsuit to pay for all fees and costs of the city,or other sued party,to defend the lawsuit if it
were unsuccessful;now,therefore,be it
9
8-11
REsaLVED,by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco,September 23,2011,that the League encourages the existing 482
California cities to adopt resolutions calling for tort reform;and,be it further
REsaLVED,that California cities be encouraged to ask their state legislators to pass a bill that
establishes loser-pays lawsuit and tort reform;and,be it further
REsaLVED,that California cities are encouraged to ask the League to sponsor and support a
statewide proposition that makes loser-pays lawsuit and tort reform a constitutional amendment.
11111/1111
Background Information on Resolution No.2
Source:City of Waterford
Every year cities must weigh the cost of fighting frivolous lawsuits against the amounts requested by the
plaintiffs.The frivolity ofthe lawsuits usually have little bearing on this balancing act,nor does the
likelihood that settling will only encourage more lawsuits.This perverse use ofthe court system penalizes
cities and other goveI'llDJent entities by allowing a person to file a lawsuit with no regard for the facts and no
exposure on their part.Attorneys accept these lawsuits,relying ~n getting paid by a city settling the lawsuit
as a purely business decision,often times receiving more money than the plaintiffs.
Scarce taxpayer dollars are squandered fighting frivolous lawsuits or paying settlements to avoid lengthy
trials and bad publicity.The passage of tort reform and a loser-pays constitutional amendment would enable
elected officials to govern fairly without the fear of frivolous lawsuits,while still allowing the public to file
suit when they have genuinely been wronged.The money saved through court costs,attorney's fees,payouts,
staff time,and insurance premiums would be put to better use by cities to serve their taxpayers.
»»»»»
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
3.RESOLUTION RELATED TO RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT THE
IMMINENT HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN'S FOR BULLIED CHILDREN
Source:City of Elk Grove
Referred To:Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS,cities throughout the State of California are becoming more aware of the growing trend
of bullying in schools and on the Internet that has become a serious nationwide problem,one with often
severe consequences;and
WHEREAS,surveys indicate that as many as half of all children are bullied at some time during
their school years,and at least 10 percent are bullied on a regular basis;and
WHEREAS,more than 25 percent of adolescents'and teens have been bullied repeatedly through
their cell phones or the Internet and more than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly,making it the
most popular form of technology and a common medium for cyberbullying;and
WHEREAS,the social media network has vastly increased the number of users online and young
people are eager to participate without understanding the consequences oftheir behavior;and
10
8-12
WHEREAS,general bullying and cyber bullying have both caused severe damage,heartache,and
even fatal tragedy to young people and their families and friends;and
WHEREAS,victims of bullying display a range ofresponses,even many years later,such as:low
self-esteem,difficulty in trusting others,lack of assertiveness,aggression,difficulty controlling anger,and
isolation;and
WHEREAS,bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S.;and
WHEREAS,cities providing an open forum to discuss bullying gives an opportunity for parents,
students,and communities to aCknowledge this issue,open up the conversation about the topic and raise
awareness of the issue;aud
WHEREAS,the League supports cities who take a stance against bullying by raising education and
awareness about anti-bullying efforts throughout the State of California to provide a better life and
foundation for young people;now,therefore,be it
RESOLVED,by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,assembled in Annual
Conference in San Francisco,September 23,2011,that the League encourages cities to promote anti-
bullying efforts across CMifornia as well as provide education and awareness to the general public about the
imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children;and,be it further
RESOLVED,by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,that the League will
forward this Resolution to the CCS (Cities,Counties,Schools)Partnership for consideration at their next
meeting to help promote anti-bullying efforts throughout California.
11111111/1
Background Information on Resolution No.3
Source:City of Elk Grove
Cities throughout the State of California are becoming painfully aware of the growing trend of bullying and
its effects on children.Bullying has a potentially devastating effect on students and young adults,their
families,schools,and communities.A guiding principle of the League is that the children of California must
be recognized as our state's most valuable resource.Their development,education and well-being are key to
our state's future.
Many studies and statistics show the frequency and unfortunate effects that bullying has on children:
•Bullying is a common experience for many children and adolescents.Surveys indicate that as many as
half of all children are bullied at some time during their school years,and at least 10 percent are bullied
on a regular basis (The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry)
•More than 25 percent of adolescents and teens have been bullied repeatedly through their cell phones or
the Internet.More than 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly,making it the most popular form of
technology and a common medium for cyber bullying (bullyingstatistics.org)
•Victims of bullying display a range of responses,even many years later,such as:low self-esteem,
difficulty in trusting others,lack of assertiveness,aggression,difficulty controlling anger,and isolation
(bullyingstatistics.org)
11
8-13
•Research shows that bullying will stop when adults in authority and peers get involved (bullying.org)
•Bullying has been identified as a major concern by schools across the U.S.(NEA,2003)
The health and safety of the residents of Elk Grove is paramount to the members of the Elk Grove City
Council.On July 13,2011,the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution raising public awareness of
the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied children.This resolution is in conjunction with an
aggressive,yet economical,public outreach campaign the City held to educate its residents about the effects
of bullying on children.In conjunction with the Elk Grove City Council,Elk Grove Youth Commission,law
enforcement and nonprofit agencies,the City hosted three public workshops focused on the subject of
bullying that strengthened partnerships between youth and law enforcement,nonprofit agencies,parents and
teachers.Workshop topics included how to keep teens safe from cyber bullying and online harassment,safe
and responsible Internet use,social media and 'sexting'safety issues,dangers of bullying and strategies to
stop bullies and empow~r victims.The City infonned the community about the campaign through media
coverage on every television and radio news outlet in the Sacramento region,the City's newsletter which
reaches every Elk Grove household,and the City's social media outlets Facebook and Twitter.
Other cities in California are encouraged to raise the awareness of bullying in their community by educating
residents about the dangers and effects of bullying on children.Educational outreach will benefit children,
parents,teachers,and 'the community.Local governments have the ability to implement wide-spread cost-
effective educational toolk to communicate with residents about this important public safety issue.
All local government officials and parents in California want to protect their children,families,themselves,
and others.Please help raise public awareness of the imminent health and safety concerns for bullied
children.
»»»»»
4.RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2003
Source:Council Member Tony Cardenas,City of Los Angeles
Referred To:Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS,according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,I 0,000 children are held in adult jails and
prisons on any given day;and
WHEREAS,the annual number of youth exposed to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is
significantly higher because ofthe "flow"ofyouth entering and exiting facilities;and
WHEREAS,studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk profile of
those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault;and
WHEREAS,studies also show that the overwhelming majority of youth tried as adults are
nonviolent offenders,with a considerable proportion being fIrst-time offenders;and
WHEREAS,according to the prison rape literature,the persons with the highest likelihood of being
sexually assaulted are young people;and
WHEREAS,according to studies from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,youth who are tried in the adult criminal justice system
are 34%more likely to recidivate than youth in the juvenile justice system;and
12
8-14
WHEREAS,70%of prisoners in adult prisons were once juvenile offenders,so the long-term effect
of preventing harm to youth will decrease recidivism and substantially reduce the adult prison population and
the associated economic,social and human cost;and
WHEREAS,the U.S.Department of Justice has an opportunity to ban the placement of youth (under
18)in adult jails and prisons as part of the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA);and
WHEREAS,PREA was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual violence behind
bars;and
WHEREAS,a key component of the law was the development ofnational standards addressing
prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities,including federal and state prisons,
jails,police lock-ups,private facilities,and immigration detention centers;now,therefore,be it
RESOLYEO,by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Francisco,September 23,2011,that the League includes in its 2011-12 Federal
Legislative Program support for standards implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 which
would ban the placement ofyoung people under the age of 18 in adult jails and prisons.
//1///1///
Background Information on Resolution No.4
Source:City of Los Angeles
What is the Prison Rape Elimination Act?
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)of 2003 is a Federal law established to address the elimination and
prevention of sexual assault and rape in correctional systems.PREA applies to all federal,state,and local
prisons,jails,police lock-ups,private facilities,and community settings such as residential facilities.The
major provisions of PREA are to:
•Develop standards for detection,prevention,reduction and punishment of prison rape
•Collect and disseminate information on the incidence of prison rape
•Award grants and technical assistance to help state govemments implement the Act
Youth in adult facilities are at the greatest risk of prison rape.According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics,10,000 children are held in adult jails and prisons daily,and the annual number ofyouth exposed
to the dangers of sexual assault in adult facilities is significantly higher because ofthe "flow"of youth
entering and exiting facilities.Studies from across the nation confirm that youth tried as adults fit the risk
profile of those persons at the highest risk of sexual assault.Studies also show that the overwhelming
majority ofyouth tried as adults are nonviolent offenders.and a considerable proportion are first-time
offenders.In more than half ofthe states,there is no lower age limit on who can be prosecuted as an adult,so
even young children can be prosecuted as adults and sent to adult jails and prisons.
How Does PREA Apply to JaBs?
PREA seeks to insure that jails and other correctional settings protect inmates from sexual assault,sexual
harassment,"consensual sex"with employees and inmate-inmate sexual assault.These violations affect
security and staff safety,and pose long-term risks to inmates and staff inside jails,and to the public when
victimized inmates are released into the community.
Where is PREA at?
The U.S.Department of Justice is currently considering banning the placement of youth (under 18)in adult
jails and prisons as part of the implementation ofPREA.As such,this resolution seeks to raise awareness of
13
8-15
youth spending time in adult facilities so elected and appointed officials could develop more effective
juvenile justice policies and support the passage of the bill.
The Prison Rape Elimination Act was originally signed into law by President Bush in 2003 to address sexual
violence behind bars.A key component of the law was the creation of the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission (NPREC),a bipartisan federal commission charged with developing national standards
addressing prisoner rape and the requirements would apply to all detention facilities,including federal and
state prisons,jails,police lock-ups,private facilities,and immigration detention centers.The NPREC held
public hearings,had expert committees to draft the standards and released their final recommendations by
issuing a report and set of standards (available online at http://www.nc;rs.gov/pdffilesJl226680.pdf.)
Who supports PREA?
American Probation and Parole Association
Correctional Education Association
International Community Corrections Association
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
Missouri Youth Services Institute
**This is only a partial Jist ofnational supporters.
Campaign for Youth Justice
American Jail Association
National Juvenile Detention Association
Center for Children's Law and Policy
Family Violence Prevention Fund
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
»»»»»
5.RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY WITH
THE SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE
Source:Council Member Joseph Lyons,City of Claremont
Referred To:Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS the administration of the death penalty costs California taxpayers hundreds ofmillions
of dollars more to administer than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS death penalty cases cost County taxpayers millions of dollars more to prosecute than
cases that seek life imprisonment without the possibility of parole;
WHEREAS the non-partisan California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice Senate
Commission concluded that California's death penalty system is systemically dysfunctional and will require
hundreds of millions of dollars to reform;
WHEREAS the death penalty is not a deterrent and does not make our Cities or the State of
California a safer place to live;
WHEREAS California's Cities face severe cuts to the services needed to keep their neighborhoods
safe and have had to resort to layoffs and furloughs because ofreductions in revenues from State and County
sources;
WHEREAS the millions of dollars in savings realized by replacing the death penalty with life
without the possibility of parole could be spent on:education,roads,police officers and public safety
programs,after-school programs,drug and alcohol treatment,child abuse prevention programs,mental health
services,and services for crime victims and their families.
14
8-16
Staff Research on Death Penalty Questions from Mayor Tom Long
Questions are related to League of California Cities Resolution on the
Death Penalty:9-6-11 CC Mtg continued to 9-20-11
(1)What has been the cost of the death penalty in California since its
restoration?In particular to what degree does that cost exceed life
imprisonment costs?I have heard figures of as much as $4 billion in the
press.
A recent study titled "Executing the Will of the Voters:A Roadmap to Mend or
End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion-Dollar Death Penalty Debacle"
conducted by U.S.9th Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon and Loyola Law School
Professor Paula Mitchell concluded that the death penalty costs California
taxpayers an additional $184 million per year;that California has spent a total of
more than $4 billion 'since 1978 and is expected to spend over $1 billion over the
next five years;and that the actual average cost of an execution is $308 million
for the thirteen executions carried out in California since the death penalty was
reinstated.Judge Alarcon is a death penalty supporter and Ms.Mitchell is a
death penalty opponent.
Alarcon and Mitchell forecast that the expense to California taxpayers will rise to
a total of $9 billion by 2030 with a death row population of over 1,000 inmates.
Alarcon and Mitchell contend that replacing the death penalty with a sentence of
"life imprisonment without possibility of parole"could save almost $1 billion
dollars over a five or six year period.
Related California Death Row Information from the Alarcon/Mitchell report:
• A death penalty prosecution costs up to twenty times as much as a Iife-
without-parole case
•Heightened security practices adds over $100,000 in yearly costs per
death row inmate
•The least expensive death penalty trial costs $1.1 million more than the
most expensive life-without-parole case
The Death Penalty Information Center reports that California has the highest
number of death row inmates in the Country at 714.Florida is second with 398.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the Alarcon/Mitchell findings were
consistent with those made by the bi-partisan California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice.
8-17
(2)How many people on death row die of natural causes and suicide
versus execution?I have heard the figure is about 75%for natural causes
and suicide versus execution.
Only one-fourth of inmates "leave"death row by execution.The most common
other reason for inmates being officially removed from death row is neither
suicide nor death by natural causes,but the legal process.For each prisoner
who has been executed,approximately three have been removed from death row
via the appeal process or through a sentence commutation.
According to Department of Justice Statistics,8,115 people have been on death
row in the United States between 1973-2009.
8,155
1,188
416
3,338
3,173
total
executed
died,not by execution
remov~d from death row by appeal or commutation
still on Death Row
In the United States in 2009,149 inmates left death row.52 were executed;27
died of other causes;and 70 left death row due to appeal or commutation.
In California in 2009,13 inmates left death row;no prisoners were executed,9
died of other causes,and 4 had their sentences overturned or commuted and
(3)What is the average time to execution after sentencing?And how
effective do studies show the death penalty has been as a d,eterrent?
Time between sentencing and execution
The average time between sentencing and execution has been steadily rising in
the United States since the death penalty was reinstated.
1984 70 months
1990 95 months
2000 137 months
2009 169 months
By comparison,California's average time between sentence and execution is
twenty-five years,almost twice the national average.There have been no
executions in California since 2006 and none planned for the impending future
due to ongoing legal challenges to lethal injection procedures.
Source:Death Penalty Information Center
8-18
Deterrence
Not surprisingly,there is a divergence of opinion on the deterrent value of the
death penalty.Quantifying the death penalty's relative effectiveness as a
deterrent is also problematic.University of Colorado Professor Michael Radelet
surveyed seventy-seven leading criminologists in a 2009 study to determine if
there was a professional consensus on the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
The results showed the following:
No deterrent:88%
Deterrent:5%
No opinion:7%
Other studies have supported both sides of the argument on the death penalty
with mixed results.One common methodology is to compare states that have
the death penalty with those that either do not or use it sparingly.Results are
often difficult to interpret and defining the impact of a single variable such as the
death penalty in a b~oad-based study of crime and punishment with all its
complex and inter-connected sociological factors is challenging at best.For
example,studies show that Texas,for example,had a murder rate of 5.1 per
100,000 people in 2007 and has put 439 people to death since 1976,while
Colorado had a 3.9 murder rate in the same year and has put just one person to
death since 1976.
(Sources:Death Penalty Information Center and Boulder Daily Camera)
(4)What is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on the death
penalty?Is support of it a sin?A mortal sin?How does one redeem
one's self?Please provide any official pronouncements of the Church on
the death penalty.What about other major religions in our society?
Islam?Protestant?Jewish?What are their positions on the death
penalty?
Official Position
Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church sanctions the use of the death
penalty as a last recourse,the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops has
repeatedly called for the abolition of capital punishment in all circumstances.
Pope John Paul II in a 1995 encyclical called the Gospel of Life (Evangelium
Vitae)said that the Death Penalty should only be considered if all other options
are not viable to protect other human life.Pope John Paul II said in that
encyclical that "Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity."This position has
been widely interpreted as a declaration against the death penalty and put the
"Catholic Church in the forefront of the worldwide abolitionist movement."
("American Catholics and the Death Penalty",James Megivern).
8-19
The following is a direct quotation from the Catholic Catechism on the Death
Penalty which concludes that circumstances that merit execution are "very rare,if
not practically non-existent":
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully
determined,the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to
the death penalty,if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human
lives against the unjust aggressor.
If,however,non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety
from the aggressor,authority will limit itself to such means,as these are more in
keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in
conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today,in fact,as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for
effectively preventing crime,by rendering one who has committed an offense
incapable of doing harm -without definitely taking away from him the possibility
of redeeming himsel.f -the cases in which the execution of the offender is an
absolute necessity "are very rare,if not practically non-existent."(Section 2267)
Is Support of the Death Penalty a Sin?
It is not clear if support for the death penalty is a sin,because of the Church's
nuanced stance of opposing the death penalty generally,but not completely
condemning it.A Catholic who supported the death penalty fervently and in a
wide range of circumstances would not be aligned with current Roman Catholic
guidance but it is unclear whether that qualifies as a sin.There is no
comprehensive list of sins listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.A scan
of recent Catholic theological articles failed to answer the question;the articles
tend to focus on the need to oppose the death penalty,but don't address whether
support is a sin.A majority of Catholics and members of other Christian
churches in this country support the death penalty.
Sin is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an "offense against
reason,truth,and right conscience."(Part 3,article 8,section 1849)
Mortal sins are more serious sins that require full knowledge and complete
consent.Mortal sin "destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of
God's law;it turns man away from God,who is his ultimate end and his beatitude
by preferring an inferior good to him."Venial sins are less serious,they "allow
charity to subsist,even though it offends and wounds it."(Part 3,Article 8 section
1855).A Catholic is not supposed to receive holy communion while in a state of
mortal sin.
Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI)wrote in 2004 of the Catholic
Church's acceptance of differing opinions regarding certain acts that lead to
8-20
death-such as war and the death penalty as opposed to other acts that do not
permit for moral ambiguity:
"If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of
capital punishment or on the decision to wage war,he would not for that
reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive holy
communion ....There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among
Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty,but not
however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
(Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick 2004)
How does one redeem one's self?
While it is not clear that a Catholic supporter of the death penalty needs to
redeem himself,the Sacrament of Reconciliation,commonly referred to as
Confession,is the mechanism to absolve oneself of sins,both mortal and venial.
A priest has the authority to act as God's surrogate to absolve Catholics of sins,
as long as their contrition is genuine and appropriate steps,known as penance,
are taken.Penance,can range from simply saying prayers for minor sins to
turning one's self in to the authorities in the case of major mortal sins such as
murder.The Catechism repeatedly mentions God's limitless mercy and capacity
for forgiveness.
Death Penalty Views of Other Religions:
Buddhism:There is no common position among Buddhists on capital
punishment,but many emphasize nonviolence and appreciation for life.As a
result,in countries with large Buddhist populations,such as Thailand,capital
punishment is rare.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints has no official position on the issue and considers the death
penalty to be a matter of the state and civil law.
Episcopal Church:Since the 1958 General Convention,U.S.Episcopal bishops
have maintained a position against the death penalty.
Hinduism:There is no official position on capital punishment among Hindus with
Hindu theologians aligned on both sides of the issue.
Islam:In the United State,where Shariah law is not legally enforced,there is no
official Muslim position on the issue of death penalty.In Islamic countries,
however,capital punishment is sanctioned in limited circumstances:cases
involving intentional murder or physical harm of another,and intentional harm or
threat against the state,including terror.
8-21
Judaism:All of the major Jewish movements in the United States either
advocated for the outright abolition of the death penalty or have called for at least
a temporary moratorium on its use.
Lutheran Church:In 1976,the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod asserted that
"Capital punishment is in accord with the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions."
National Association of Evangelicals:Supports capital punishments for crimes
such as premeditated murder,hijacking,and kidnapping with aggravating
circumstances.
National Council of Churches:The National Council of Churches which
represents 35 mainstream Protestant and Orthodox churches has advocated for
the abolition of the death penalty since 1968.
Presbyterian Church:Opposed to the death penalty.
Southern Baptist Convention:Supports the "fair and equitable use of capital
punishment.".
Source:Pew Research Center's Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
8-22
QJ:uuutt!uf 1lns:1\ng.eks:
~h:eriff's Lpctrlnt1mf Lab~
4111113Rmttnmt ml1uUhanr
~'urIt.«[alif:ami~g:L154-Z1lig
l.EROY C.BACA.SHERIFF
July 31,2008
The Honorable Judge Reggie B.Walton
Chairman,National Prison Rape Elimination Commission
1440 New York Avenue,NW,Suite 200
Washin~on D.C.20005-2111
NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION
NDARDS FOR THE PREVENTION,DETECTION,RESPONSE,AND
MONITORING OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN LOCKUPS
I would like to take this opportunity to commend you and the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission for the wonderful work you have done on this very important issue.The Prison
Rape Elimination Act (PREA)of2003 requires both correctional and law enforcement
authorities responsible for the operation ofjails and lockups to comply with the national
standards and regulations that you have set forth to take a zero-tolerance stance toward the
sexual abuse or"people in confinement..
I would also like to thank you for allowing public comment.Although I fully support the
Conimission's recommendations and its objectives,I do find that some of the implementation
methods are somewhat problematic and·!request a:furth,er rt::view of them.I have included in
this letter one possible suggestion that might help streamline your procedures and eliminate
costly duplicate functions and responsibilities.
As you may be aware,the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is the largest Sheriffs
Department in the world.As such,we operate the largest municipal jail system in the nation,
with a daily jail population of approximately 20,000 inmates.Our facilities currently undergo
inspections by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,the County Health
Department and the Los Angeles County Grand Jury.Under the Commission's proposed
regulations,you would be adding an additional inspection process that is,quite frankly,a
duplicate of the inspections which already take place.
!71 :Jrachrion 0/0eroice
8-23
The Honorable Reggie B.Walton -2-July 31,2008
I strongly recommend that the Commission place these requirements concerning the operation of
a local jail facility upon the state,and that compliance inspections be conducted as part of the
existing state inspection process.In my case,this duty would fall upon the California State
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations who inspect and regulate every county and city
jail lockup within California.
I realize that not every state may have the same structuring as California,but in those situations
where states do have such a structure,and if it meets your requirements,then I believe it would
be in the best interest of everyone to combine your regulations with those imposed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation when they regularly inspect our
facilities.
If you should have questions about this issue,or if you or any memb~!of the Commission would
like to discuss this with me in more detail,please feel free to contact me directly at (323)
526-5000..
Sincerely,
8-24