RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_09_20_09_League_CA_Cities_Reso_AB109_AB117CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGE~
SEPTEMBER 20,2011
PROPOSED LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING OF ASSEMBLY
BILLS 109 AND 117.
REVIEWED BY:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER c:f:L
Staff Coordinator:Matt Waters,Senior Administrative AnaIYS~
RECOMMENDATION
1)Provide direction to the City's League of California Cities delegate regarding the signing
of a proposed petition calling for the consideration of a new resolution by the League of
California Cities General Assembly concerning the implementation and funding of
Assembly Bills 109 and 117;and,
2)Provide direction to the City's League of California Cities delegate regarding the
adoption of the proposed resolution.
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 resolutions at the annual business
meeting on September 23,2011.At its September 6,2011 meeting,the City Council
provided the Voting Delegate with direction on three resolutions and continued action on
three other resolutions to this evening's meeting.
In the meantime,Glendora Council Member Joe Santoro,a former police chief,circulated a
letter to all Los Angeles County Mayors dated September 13,2011,calling for the addition
of a new resolution to be voted on by the League of California Cities General Assembly.
Councilmember Santoro is Glendora's League of California Cities voting delegate.
9-1
Proposed League of California Cities Resolution For Funding of AS 109 and 117
September 20,2011
Page 2
Councilmember Santoro states in his letter that in order for the General Assembly to
consider a resolution at this time,47 conference delegates-ten percent of the voting
delegates-need to sign a petition asking that the new resolution be considered.The timing
of this matter is very tight,because,according to Councilmember Santoro,the League will
not release the petition until Wednesday,September 21,2011,two days before the
General Assembly Meeting on Friday,September 23.The petition would have to be
signed by the requisite 47 voting delegates by Thursday in order to be voted upon by the
General Assembly on Friday.
DISCUSSION
The Glendora City Council and its staff received a briefing from Los Angeles County on
September 8,2011 about the impending implementation of Assembly Bills 109 and 117
which shifts a substantial portion of the burden for low-level inmate and parolee care from
the state to the counties.Council Member Santoro states in his letter that it was a "scary
presentation"and he goes on to assert the following:
•AB 109 and AB ,117 shift the responsibility for inmate and parolee care from the
States to local governments,yet the State will retain both the fiscal and policy
strings;
•County officials admit they don't have the promised resources that the Governor
said he would provide when he signed AB 109 and AB 117;
•Probation officers workloads will increase from 170-1 to 300-1;
•Cities and Counties are already stretched thin and have limited budgets;
•LA County is 4 to 5,000 beds short of what is needed to house State prisoners;and,
•Funding proposed by Governor Brown will only provide for 50-60%of the estimated
costs for incarceration,monitoring,staffing,health services and administrative
oversight
Council Member Santoro notes in his letter that "the League's Committee on Public safety
issued an 'opposed unless amended'recommendation but the full League Board has yet to
act upon that recommendation and concerns raised by the Committee."Council Member
Santoro would like the League of California General Assembly to consider a resolution
calling upon the "Governor and State Legislature to immediately fully fund the
implementation of the Corrections Realignment AB 109 and AB 117,including local
municipal police department needs,with Constitutional protection of that funding".The
resolution also calls for greater representation on the local Community Corrections
Partnerships which currently provides for only one city official on its thirteen member body.
Staff contacted the Los Angles County Sheriff's Department Legislative Advocate,
Lieutenant Wayne Bilowit,regarding this matter.While Lieutenant Bilowit was unaware of
the particulars of Council Member Santoro's letter,he opined that the essential concerns
regarding adequate and protected funding were shared by the Sheriff's Department.He
provided a letter from Sheriff Lee Baca of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to
California Sate Assembly Speaker John Perez on June 28,2011 regarding this issue.
9-2
Proposed League of California Cities Resolution For Funding of AS 109 and 117
September 20,2011
Page 3
Sheriff Baca's letter states that:
"Realignment cannot be successful without guaranteed funding.It is impossible for
counties to create and put into action a program for housing low level offenders and
conducting community supervision of released offenders if we are uncertain every
year as to how much we will receive from the state for the program,and it is
possible that we may end up with no funding from the state.That prospect would
leave counties in a much worse financial position than the state is currently
experiencing.Additionally,and more importantly,public safety would be terribly
compromised with an enormous number of early releases and unsupervised
offenders."
Lieutenant Wilowit also provided a recent letter from the California State Sheriff's
Association to Governor Brown dated September 14,2011 that also expresses concern
regarding appropriate,constitutionally protected and sustained funding.The letter states
that realignment will work if those funding protections are in place.The letter points out
that Counties will be accepting former State prison inmates and parolees beginning on
October 1,2011.
Paul Mcintosh,the Executive Director of the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC),sent a memo to CSAC's Board of Directors on September 7,2011 entitled "2011
Realignment:Constitutional Protections and Fiscal Structure.'The memo details the
profound budget impact of the 2011-12 state budget on California's counties.The memo
references a $6.3 billion realignment of public safety and social service program from the
state to the counties.The memo further states,"Regrettably,this budget plan did not
include the proposed constitutional amendment previously negotiated between the
Administration and counties,leaving counties with a commitment from the Governor to
pursue the constitutional protections,but no mechanism by which to achieve them."
In deciding whether to authorize the City's voting delegate to sign the petition and then
approve the resolution,Council may wish to consider the following factors.
•The League of California Cities did not select this issue to be voted on by its
members.
•The six League resolutions considered by the Council this year were analyzed by
League staff;this proposed resolution has not been subject to the same level of
scrutiny.
•The potential impact on the City is unknown at this time.
•Law enforcement opinions echo the basic statements of Council Member Santoro's
resolution.
• A memo from CSAC reiterates the proposed resolution's emphasis on establishing
constitutionally protected funding.
9-3
Proposed League of California Cities Resolution For Funding of AB 109 and 117
September 20,2011
Page 4
Attachments:
•2011 Letter From Glendora Council Member Joe Santoro
•Fact Sheet for Proposed Resolution
•Proposed Resolution
•June 28,2011 Letter from Sheriff Lee Saca
•September 14,2011 Letter from the California State Sheriff's Association
•Memo from Paul Mcintosh,Executive Director of the California State Association of
Counties
9-4
116 East Foothill Blvd.,Glendora,California 91741
www.d.glendora.ca.us
CITY OF GLENDORA CITY HALL (626)914-8200
September 13,2011
TO:Mayors of Los Angeles County
RE:League of California Cities Resol ution for the General Assembly Consideration-
URGENTI
The City of Glendora has recently received a briefing from Los Angeles County about
their plans relating to the implementation of "Public Safety Realignment".Frankly,it
was a scary presentation with County Officials admitting they don't have the promised
resources that the Governor said he would be providing when he signed AB 109 and AS
117.These same problems are existing in every county and thus the negative Impacts
will flow down to every city and town.
The Plan,which officials admit will only provide funding for about 50%of the estimated
costs,still has not been fully vetted as to issues of where the County will come up with
the estimated 4,000 to 5,000 beds it will need to house State prisoners.How will
probation officials,who already have caseload ratios of 170 to 1,handle caseloads
possibly doubling to 300 to 1 ratio on average?
Clearly A8 109 and AS 117 are only historic in that it now relieves the State from
responsibility and shifts that to local government to handle these inmates and parolees
who will be hitting our streets in the next few months.Yet,the State will retain both the
fiscal and policy strings under these and the numerous trailer bills that further define the
program.
The League's Committee on Public Safety Issued an "opposed unless amended"
recommendation but the full Board has yet to act upon that recommendation and
concerns raised by the Committee.We believe this needs to change-and quickly.
Governor Brown said in the signing message for AB 109 and AB 117,that he would not
sign any legislation that would seek to implement this measure with the necessary
funding.Clearly this has not occurred as promised.
In order for the General Assembly to consider a resolution at this late date,at
least 47 conference delegates -10 percent of the voting delegates-need to sign
a petition asking that it be considered.Attached Is a brief background sheet on
the issue and the current draft resolution that would be considered.
PRIDE OF THE FOOTHILLS
9-5
Los Angeles County Mayors
league of California Cities Resolution -September 13,2011 Page Two
Unfortunately,the League will not release the petition that requests the Item be
considered by the General Assembly until Wednesday,September 21,2011.We
need to obtain those petition signatures from the official voting delegates by
Thursday morning prior to Friday's General Assembly meeting.So time is very
short.
We are asking that you please pass this along to your City's voting delegate and
request that he/she sign the petition when they arrive and obtain their voting
credentials.
As a former Police Chief,I can tell you that this is not just a Los Angeles County issue
but a State-wide issue which is going to negatively impact us because this was not well
thought out.and as usual carried out in typical Sacramento fashion -we'll worry about
the impact and funding later,maybe.
The City of Glendora is desirous to see the League's General Assembly consider and
take action at the upcoming Annual Conference.We have limited budgets and our local
police are already stretched thinly.Ultimately.about 30,000 to 40.000 State offenders
will be in a local jurisdiction control program under the Realignment Program-the
stakes are too high to have a Band-Aid plan started.
We realize there are critical issues the State faces with its prison population,however
just opening the doors and dumping back the inmates'into our communities with
Inadequate supervision,special needs funding.and lack of liability protection against
frivolous lawsuits is not the answer.
.This issue,if not promptly and fully addressed,will impact every city in California.We
have enjoyed record low crime levels because we have a criminal justice system that
properly incarcerates,punishes,monitors and dissuades persons from being involved.
That will very likely change-and quickly,as 30.000 to 40,000 individuals will be hitting
local jails and communities in the next few weeks.
I can be contacted at (626)914-8201 (office);626-824-2429 (cell);or via email at
jsantoro@ci.glendora.ca.us.
q;
Joe Santoro.Council Member
City of Glendora
C:City Council
City Manager
League of California Cities
9-6
Fact Sheet
Resolution for the General Assembly Consideration Regarding Public Safety Realignment
On September 8,2011 the Glendora City Council and City Staff received a briefing from Los Angeles
County about their plans and issues relating to the implementation of the "Public Safety Realignment"
program.Frankly,it was a very disturbing presentation for a program that is scheduled to be
implemented on October 1,2011.These same obstacles are being faced by every County in our State.
County officials admitted and had serious concerns about the lack of appropriate planning to successfully
implement the program.They also admitted they don't have the promised financial resources the
Governor said he would provide when he signed AB 109 and AB 117.
•Funding being proposed by the Governor will only provide about 50%to 60%of the estimated
costs for incarceration,monitoring,staffing,housing,medical services,mental health services and
administrative oversight for the program.If not corrected the additional costs will land on the
shoulders of the Counties and Cities throughout California who will be receiving these inmates.
•Providing sufficient beds for the prisoners has not been fully vetted.In Los Angeles County,they
estimated we are about 4,000 to 5,000 beds short to house State Prisoners.We have heard from
similar counties tnat they,too,are short bed space for what they expect to need.So what happens
to individuals we arrest in local cities?Will they be part of a "catch and release"scenario?
•Probation officials stated they do not have the appropriate number of probation officers to
properly manage the additional parolees they will receive from this program.
•Clearly AB 109 and AB 117 are only historic in that it now relieves the State from the
responsibility of managing State prisoners,and shifts that responsibility to local government
without proper funding and planning.
•There is also no protection or funding for Counties and Cities against grievances and lawsuits that
will be brought by prisoners and parolees by their support groups.Are Counties and Cities
expected to pay for this type of litigation,grievance procedures,hearings and appeals?
•At this time,the League's Committee on Public Safety issued an "opposed unless amended"
recommendation but the full Board has yet to act upon that recommendation and concerns raised
by the Committee.Because of the numerous issues that need to be addressed and the funding
shortfall this position needs to change to an "oppose"quickly.Governor Brown said in the
signing message for AB 109 and AB 117,that he would not sign any legislation that would seek
to implement this measure without the necessary funding.Clearly this has not occurred as
promised.
As a former Police Chief,I can tell you that Glendora and every other community in the State is going to
be negatively impacted because this program was not well thought out,and as usual has not been properly
planned in typical Sacramento fashion -we'll worry about the impact and funding later.Is there anyone
who believes this program as proposed will benefit any city?Remember the Redevelopment scheme and
the VLF's takeaway in the middle of the night?
1
9-7
The City of Glendora is desirous to see the League's General Assembly consider and take action at the
upcoming Annual Conference.We have limited budgets and our local police and probation departments
are already thinly stretched.With an estimated 33,000 offenders in this program statewide,the stakes are
too high to have a band aid plan started.
We realize there are critical issues the State faces with its prison population,however just opening the
doors and dumping the prisoners back into our communities with inadequate funding for supervision,
housing,mental health services,job placement and lack of liability protection for Counties and Cities
against frivolous grievances and lawsuits is not the answer.
The City of Glendora has enclosed a draft Resolution for the General Assembly to consider.The purpose
of the Resolution is to direct our legislative efforts to get the Governor and Legislature to ensure that a
"full"and constitutionally protected funding source is provided if the State is going to shift its
responsibility for public safety to local government.The Resolution also states that local municipal
entities have to be better represented in oversight bodies recognizing that we are the starting point for
these individuals entering this realignment and will be the ending point for their activities in most cases.
This issue,if not promptly and fully addressed,will negatively impact every city in California.We
have enjoyed record low crime levels in recent years.That will very likely change,and very quickly
as 33,000 prisoners will pe hitting local jails and communities in the next few months without
proper funding and planning in place.
2
9-8
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING
UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO FULLY FUND AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT THOSE FUNDS RELATED TO THE
2011 CORRECTIONS REALIGNMENT,ALSO KNOWN AS AB 109 AND
AB117
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS,The Governor proposed a realignment of public safety tasks to local
government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding
and reduce State expenditures:and
WHEREAS,The Governor stated that such a realignment needed to be fully funded
with Constitutionally protected source of funds if it were to succeed;and
WHEREAS,The Legislature passed AB 109 and AB 117 and the Governor signed into
law the realignment of corrections responsibility without full funds,Constitutional protections,
without sufficient liability protections to local agencies,and with an inadequate definition of
crimes handled under the mandatory local housing program;and
WHEREAS,The Corrections Realignment Statutes AB 109 (Chapter 15,Statutes of
2011)and AB 117 (Chapter 16,Statutes of 2011)were reviewed by the League's Committee on
Public Safety in July which issued an "opposed unless amended"recommendation if these issues
and others were not properly addressed;and
WHEREAS,Los Angeles County officials,for example,have indicated that State
funding at this time is approximately 50%of what is needed;that they have inadequate personnel
to properly supervise parolee's;they have inadequate bed space to house convicted persons
which wi1l1ead to a large number of these persons being early released,non-supervised and
involved in additional crimes in our local cities;and there are inadequate data bases to share
critical public safety information on parolees and persons on probation with local police
departments;and
WHEREAS,Los Angeles County is symbolic of the same problems that other counties
are facing in implementing AB 109 and AB 117 by October 1,2011;that this is critical public
safety issue for all cities within California;and
WHEREAS,the criminal justice system has seen a "60-year"low in crime rates that
have protected our residents,saved millions to our economy in loss property,damaged property,
lower insured losses and lost productivity.The Corrections Realignment threatens to severely
erode those gains and further impact our fragile California economy.
9-9
RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the League of California Cities calls upon
the Governor and State Legislature to immediately fully fund the implementation of the
Corrections Realignment AB 109 and AB 117,including local municipal police department
needs,with Constitutional protection of that funding;
RESOLVED that the General Assembly of the League of California Cities calls upon the
State Legislature to provide for greater representation of city officials on the local Community
Corrections Partnerships.Currently,AB 109 provides for one city official (a police chief)on the
13 member body.
//1////111
Resolution No.Page 2 of2
9-10
Qtnunfg nf 11nz l\ng:elez
~h:eriff 5 :ID.:epttrlm:enf 1fi:ett~.qum:e:r5
4 7nn3Rmttlttttt 1inu:l:elnt:r~
JJlltonf.e:r.et!Jttrlt,(lLttIifnnrict S17.54-215S
LEROY D.SACA.SHERIFF
June 28,2011
The Honorable John Perez
Speaker,California State Assembly
State Capitol,Room 219
Sacrament,"alifornia 95814
CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2011·12
REALIGNMENT -CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
I am pleased that the Legislature and Governor have reached agreement on a budget for Fiscal
Year 2011-12.This budget includes the change of responsibilities through realignment of low
level offenders and community supervised release to the county level.
I understand that there is funding for the realignment in this budget;however,my grave concern
is that there is no guarantee of ongoing funding for this program.This is the largest realignment
of responsibilities from the state to the counties in the history ofthe State of California.It is
critical that the funding is constitutionally guaranteed to the counties.
The realignment cannot be successful without guaranteed funding.It is impossible for counties
to create and put into action a program for housing low level offenders and conducting
community supervision of released offenders if we are uncertain every year as to how much we
will receive from the state for the program,and it is possible that we may end up with no funding
from the state.That prospect would leave counties in a much worse financial position than the
state is currently experiencing.Additionally,and more importantly,public safety would be
terribly compromised with an enormous number of early releases and unsupervised offenders.
The solution to this problem is simple.It is critical the Legislature pass a constitutional
amendment,which will be voted on by the people,guaranteeing funding for the realignment.
This will assure these programs are successful,our communities are safe,and that we can
implement a new era of enforcement and rehabilitation that will reduce recidivism and create a
positive path for these offenders.
!71 Jradifion oj cSeroice
9-11
Speaker Perez -2-June 28,2011
I applaud and thank you for all of your work on this budget and for your friendship and
commitment to public safety.Should you have any questions,do not hesitate to calLme directly
at (323)526-5000 or my Legislative Advocate,Lieutenant Wayne Bilowit,at (323)240-5696.
Sincerely,
9-12
Officers
President
Mark N.pazin
Sherif[.Merced County
1st Vice President
Keith Royal
Sherif[.Nevada County
2nd Vice President
Greg Ahern
Sherif[.Alameda County
Secretary
Adam Christianson
Sherif[.Stanislaus County
Treasurer
Martin Ryan
Sherif[.Amador County
Sergeant-at-Arms
Donny Youngblood
Sherif[.Kern County
AI Cooper
Sergeant-at-Arms,Emeritus
1mmediate Past President
Ed Bonner
Sherif[.Placer County
Directors
Tom Bosenko
Sherif[.Shasta County
BiUBrown
Sherif[.Santa Barbara County
John Crawford
Sherif[.Alpine County
Steve Durfor
Sherif[.Yuba County
Sandra Hutchens
Sheriff,'Orange County
Margaret Mims
Sherif[.Fresno County
Steve Moore
Sherif[.San Joaqutn County
Ed Prieto
Sherif[.Yolo County
Gary Stanton
Sherif[.Solano County
BmWittman
Sherif[.Tulare County
Presidents'Counsel
Robert Doyle
Sherif[.Marin County
La4rie Smith
Sherif[.Santa Clara County
M.Carmen Green
Acting Executive Director
NickWamer
Legislative Director
Martin J.Mayer
General Counsel
'!California g,tate g,beriffs'~ssotiation
Organtzation Founded by the Sherifft in 1894
September 14,2011
The Honorable Jerry Brown,Govemor
State of California
First Floor,Capitol Building
Sacramento,CA 95814
SUbject:Corrections Realignment Implementation and Concerns Regarding Stability of Funding
Oear Governor Brown:
On behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association (CSSA),we write with a status update and to
share our concerns regarding ongoing funding and the need for constitutional protections for
realignment.On October 1,2011 -two short weeks from today -counties will begin accepting former
state prison inmates and parolees into our county jails and on to probation supervision caseloads.This
system change is historic and will be challenging to manage.CSSA stands with you and legislative
leaders in our ongoing commitment to the concept that local government can and will do a better job
managing these offender populations.
CSSA has been consistent in our statements that if properly funded and constitutionally protected,
realignment can and will work.However,without a sustained and protected funding source,
realignment will be an intractable public safety problem for local jurisdictions.With a common
understanding and unwavering commitment from you personally and after months of discussion with
you,CSSA,CSAC and many of our local law enforcement partr:lers,ultimately embraced the
realignment concept as a complete package of reforms,funding and constitutional protections.
In our evaluation of realignment,CSSA recognized the importance of working with you and COCR in
light of the prison overcrowding situation and the US Supreme Court decision.We,along with you,
were very concerned with protecting the public from what could have been wholesale releases of
serious and violent state prison inmates into our communities.It was also important to consider the
financial impact to the state should COCR incur fines for not meeting the Court's mandate.
We appreciate and recognize your personal and ongoing commitment to protect realignment funding
and that you remain committed to necessary constitutional protections.Toward that end,CSSA is
working diligently with our local government and law enforcement partners to craft the necessary
constitutional protections we must have if your corrections realignment is going to be successful in
reducing COCR's population,protecting public safety and in reducing recidivism.
A change of this magnitude does not and should not happen overnight and it does require
extraordinary planning and training.CSSA has both led and participated in multijurisdictional trainings
throughout the State.Last week alone,CSSA,CPOC,AOC and COCR presented training in Los
Angeles,Fresno and San Joaquin counties.Hundreds of law enforcement personnel attended in order
to prepare for the planned implementation of realignment on October 1.
CSSARealignmentLelierreCoostitulionalProtectionstol
1231 I Street,Ste 200 *Sacramento,Calitornia 958141 POBox 958 *Sacramento,California 95812
Telephone 916/375-8000 *Fax 916/375-8017 *Website www.calsheriffs.org *Email cssa@calsheriffs.org
9-13
September 14,2011
Page 2 ---
CSSA leadership and individual sheriffs continue to work daily and very closely with you and key members of
your Administration.CDCR Secretary Matt Cate continues to be an outstanding partner and leader.We also
appreciate the ongoing commitment from Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos,Diane Cummins and
Aaron Maguire as they all have been great to work with.We have directed our legislative staff led by Nick
Warner and Curtis Hill to continue to work collaboratively and regularly with your key staff as we know tweaks and
changes will likely be needed as the realignment process moves forward.
In closing,CSSA remains firm in its belief and resolve that locals can improve the current state of affairs.We
remain equally focused on the need to complete this realignment of key public safety responsibilities to local
governments:appropriate,constitutionally protected,and sustained funding.If properly funded and
constitutionally protected,realignment can and will work.There is very important work still to do and we stand
ready to continue this important effort.Thank you for your ongoing partnership with CSSA and to public safety in
California.Please don't hesitate to contact us or our staff noted above directly at any time.
Respectfully,
~tI.f~
Mark N.Pazin,CSSA President
Sheriff,Merced County
MNP/RTD/cmc
UM.e.~(e
Robert T.Doyle,CSSA Legislative Committee Chair
Sheriff,Marin County
cc:The Honorable Darrell Steinberg,Senate President pro Tem
The Honorable John Perez,Assembly Speaker
The Honorable Connie Conway Assembly Minority Leader
The Honorable Bob Dutton Senate Minority Leader
CSSARealignmenlLeUerreConsfi!ulionalProleclionsloGovernorlJ91411
9-14
11 00 KStreet
Suite 101
Sacramento
California
95814
California State Association of Counties
MEMORANDUM
September 7,2011
To:Board of Directors
California State Association of Counties
From:Paul Mcintosh
Executive Director
Telephone
916.327·7500 Re:2011 Realignnent:Constitutional Protections and Fiscal Structure
Facsimile
916.441.5507
The passage of the 2011-12 state budget was one for the history books.Under threat of
losing legislative pay (Proposition 25),Assembly and Senate Democrats approved a
state spending plan by a majority vote and Governor Jerry Brown signed that budget in
advance of the end of the fiscal year.That budget includes considerable impacts on
counties,primarily through realignment of significant responsibilities between the state
and California counties.The 2011-12 state budget includes a $6.3 billion realignment of
responsibilities and revenues to counties for the operation of a variety of public safety
and social services.programs.Regrettably,this budget plan did not include the
proposed constitutional amendment previously negotiated between the Administration
and counties,leaving counties with a commitment from the Governor to pursue the
constitutional protections,but no mechanism by which to achieve them.Absent a
constitutional amendment,counties remain vulnerable to potential diversion of revenues
dedicated to realignment,as well as the fiscal consequences of changes to program
requirements and parameters.Without constitutional protections,the success or failure
of realignment remains in the hands of the Legislature and the Governor.
At its meeting on August 11,2011,the CSAC Executive Committee,after hearing an
update on the realignment components of the 2011-12 state budget,directed staff to
begin to explore all viable options for counties to achieve the constitutional protections
promised by the Governor and necessary for counties to make realignment successful.
Staff endeavored to accomplish the Executive Committee's direction and met with a
variety of campaign professionals to ascertain the options for a path forward.
Considerations for the board are summarized below with additional background
information following.
SUMMARY:CONSIDERATIONS
The bottom line:Constitutional protections and dedication of revenues are
fundamentally necessary to make realignment work.To achieve this outcome,
voters must approve a constitutional amendment at the ballot at the earliest
opportunity.
State Interest.The Governor's 2011-12 budget anticipates a November 2012 ballot
measure that includes a funding mechanism for education,as well as the realignment
protections and dedication of revenues that counties had agreed to in SCAX1 1 earlier
this year.The Governor has repeatedly reiterated his commitment to support
constitutional protections for realignment,as have the Speaker and Senate President
Pro Tern.Further,the state has a significant fiscal interest in ensuring that schools
9-15
receive additional funding and that counties do not make billions of dollars in mandate
claims for realigned programs.
Coalitions.The Governor has not yet convened the "broad coalition"he has referenced
in the press to determine what this ballot measure should include,in terms of both
concept and actual language.The broad coalition,according to comments made by the
Governor,would not just include local governments and public safety,but education,
business,labor,agriculture,and others.
Timing.Time is running short.Consultants recommend filing language with the
Attorney General for title and summary in early October.The longer the delay,the more
costly signature-gathering becomes.
Campaign Finance.Counties alone do not have the financial wherewithal to raise the
$1-2 million to qualify a measure for the ballot alone,not to mention the additional $2-3
million.required to finance a campaign.Coalition-building is essential to ensure
appropriate campaign funding and broad support.
Mood of the Electorate.Pollsters'outlook on November 2012 is not positive.With the
bleak economic situation and general frustration with the state of affairs in Sacramento
and in Washington [;)C,voters are not inclined to support much of anything.Potential
funders of any initiative will be very aware of voters'attitudes and will be reluctant to
spend their money on a losing campaign.This is where polling becomes an essential
component of a successful ballot measure campaign.
SUMMARY:OPTIONS
While our options to achieve constitutional protections are relatively limited at this point,
they are not mutually exclusive.
OPTION 1:Rely on the Legislature.CSAC and stakeholders pushed hard for a
legislative solution right up until the drop-dead date of scheduling a special election in
2011.However,negotiations with the Governor to secure the necessary Republican
votes for SCAX1 1 (Steinberg)did not bear fruit.The subsequent passage of a majority
vote budget plan further alienated Republicans.The atmosphere in the Legislature,after
several events unfolded over the summer months,is about as partisan as anyone can
recall.
Complicating matters is that 2012 is an election year for every member of the Assembly
and one-third of the Senate (not to mention those who are seeking congressional or
local offices).With so many members running for office,the environment in the
Legislature may be no more conducive to an agreement on constitutional protections for
counties than was experienced this year.However,there is significant time to work to
build a coalition and secure legislative support for a county measure,a realignment-only
measure.The Legislature could put something on the November ballot as late as
summer 2012,but it is important to emphasize that a 2/3 vote is required to do so.
If successful in achieving legislative approval of a constitutional amendment,counties
must also be prepared for the campaign that must follow,including raising the necessary
funds to be successful.
9-16
OPTION 2:The ballot initiative route.There are several means to placing a matter on
the ballot (see Option 1 above).If we must qualify a ballot measure with paid signature-
gatherers,there are two primary options to consider.First,seeking a realignment-only
measure with the support of the county family and stakeholders who share county
principles.Second,forming a "broad coalition"with other public sector stakeholders that
would maximize the strength of the coalition.It should be noted that both options will
require the building of a coalition and that,in doing so,compromises on language of the
ballot measure may need to be made to include items of importance to other members
of the coalition.
OPTION 2A:A realignment-only ballot measure would focus on the reliability of
funding and protections sought in SCAX 1 1.It would not seek to raise additional
revenues,but would provide that it is a constitutional obligation of the state to
adequately fund the realigned programs.It is estimated that qualifying such a
measure for the November 2012 election would cost about $1-2 million in consultant
(polling,messaging),legal (drafting),and professional signature-gathering costs.
The longer into the fall counties wait to receive title and summary from the Attorney
General,the higher the cost.To keep costs as low as possible,CSAC would need to
submit title and summary to the Attorney General by early October,·ensuring that
signature-gathering could begin around the holiday season and be certified by April
2012.The cost of running a successful campaign is significantly more expensive,
with total campaign costs dependent on voter outreach,funded opposition,and other
measures on the ballot.To ensure this is truly a viable option,CSAC must be
prepared to raise significant revenues -potentially $2-3 million in addition to the $1-2
million for qualifying the measure.CSAC should begin polling immediately to
determine ballot measure content and message.
CSAC itself does not have the financial resources to successfully finance a ballot
measure campaign.Please recall that CSAC dues are public funds that cannot be
used for any aspect of a political campaign.CSAC's non-public funds are currently
budgeted for programs and services that support our core mission of advocacy on
behalf of California's counties.
There is opportunity to build a coalition around this effort that could ensure some
funding from other interests,including the public safety community and labor1•The
challenge is to balance the needs of those other interests with the promise of
financial support.
OPTION 28:Governor Brown continues to push for a "broad coalition"to support
new revenues and constitutional protections for counties.As late as August 30,the
Governor specifically mentioned business,agriculture,and labor as members of this
broad coalition,"that means no significant body to jump up and down and stigmatize
it."Recall that AB 114,the education trailer bill to the budget,expressly calls for a
November 2012 ballot measure to provide additional dedicated funding to schools.
1 At the August 11 Executive Committee meeting,reviving the coalition around Proposition 1A (2004)was
discussed.We do not anticipate that this coalition will actively support this measure.Cities are fully
engaged in a legal battle with the state over redevelopment and city police have in fact advocated for
additional resources from realignment to fund city impacts of AS 109.
9-17
The education community has been actively researching ballot measure strategies,
as have other interests looking for new state revenue sources.It is not clear,yet,
how various approaches fare with voters.Except to say,that is,that pollsters tell us
that voters remain skeptical about new revenues without appropriate reforms 2 •They
do not view education as a problem that can be fixed solely with more money.
The obvious risk is that by joining a broad coalition that is focused on seeking new
revenues for education,in addition to the constitutional protections counties need,in
this uncertain and difficult economic climate,the success of a county protection
measure would be tied to the success of a new revenue measure.
OPTION 3:The Nuclear Option.CSAC has built a strong reputation over the past few
years,as the state struggled with annual historic deficits,as a partner with the state
willing to work to find solutions to budget problems that were mutually acceptable.That
said,if realignment cannot be fortified with the constitutional protections counties need
for success,counties CQuid aggressively resist this transfer.This is particularly relevant
with the social services side of realignment,where the increased shares of costs for
programs would most likely be viewed as a violation of the mandate protections
contained in 2004's Proposition 1A.Counties would be required to litigate the transfer
after keeping careful data about new program costs.Such a case could take many
years to complete,leaving counties with significant costs until a final dedsion is reached.
Further,there is a question as to whether the new responsibilities associated with
managing the new offender population are in fact a cost shift under the same provisions
of Proposition 1A.This issue would have to be litigated,as well,and is further
complicated by the federal three-judge panel order to reduce the state's prison
population.It cannot be overstated that litigation is fraught with risks while at the same
time counties would incur the costs associated with the litigation.Taking an adversarial
position with the Governor and the majority party is also a significant risk.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
At this point,with such significant uncertainty about the Governor's broad coalition,the
ability of the Legislature to place a measure on the ballot that protects counties,and
voters'generally foul moods,it is strongly recommended that all options be kept open.
This would require the following actions:
1.Continue to urge the Governor to build a coalition around a single measure that
includes appropriate protections and dedication of revenue for counties.
2.Conduct polling and voter research to get a better understanding of voter
priorities,the strength of the county position on a realignment-only measure,
willingness to pass a revenue protection measure,and their acceptance of new
revenues.
2 Two reform issues appear to dominate voters'moods -education and public pensions.Polling will be
critical to gauge how to manage a successful campaign in the face of desire for reforms in those two areas.
9-18
3.Drafting and submitting a realignment-only measure with the Attorney General for
title and summary.We have begun discussions with county counsels regarding
drafting such a measure.
4.Develop a strategy for building a legislative coalition prior to the 2012 session,
relying on former county supervisors currently in the Assembly and Senate.
Steps should be taken to strengthen relationships with the Assembly Speaker
and Senate President Pro Tempore and their willingness to move a realignment-
only measure through the Legislature early next year.Steps should also be
taken to strategically identify Republican votes for a realignment-only measure
and strengthen those relationships.
5.Begin building a coalition around constitutional protections for counties.In
particular,CSAC should reach out immediately to the education community (Le.
California Teachers Association,CA School Boards Association,CA School
Employees Association),the public safety community,healthcare and social
services advocates,and others to discuss areas of mutual interest.CSAC must
attempt to bui.ld relationships with these various interests in the hope of building a
coalition-led effort that addresses the individual needs of each constituency.
6.Engage in a public awareness campaign.Regardless of the path to
constitutional protections,counties must mount a more aggressive public
grassroots campaign to elevate the issue in Sacramento and in the districts of
targeted legislators.Counties have the benefit of a powerful message and
powerful messengers,namely the ability of sheriffs,chief probation officers,
district attorneys and other public safety messengers who can credibly warn the
public of the public safety risks of failure to act to secure realignment revenues.
Following are a few options counties should consider to elevate public
awareness:
o Regional press conferences.
o Regional coalition meetings with legislators (including county,public
safety,healthcare,district attorneys and others).
o Direct mail campaign to voters in targeted districts.Mail could include
"call to action"asking voters to call their legislators.
o Print,radio or television advertising,with hard-hitting message and call-
to-action to drive voter calls to legislators.
CSAC staff continue to engage with the county family,including the California State
Sheriffs Association,the Chief Probation Officers of California,the County Welfare
Directors Association,the County Mental Health Directors Association,the County
Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California,and other key
stakeholders on this important issue to ensure that we move forward together.
Below are key benchmarks in the process to qualify a measure via signature-gathering:
9-19
September 30,2011:Secretary of State's recommended deadline for submitting
measures to the Attorney General for November 2012 ballot.Based on our experience,
CSAC could submit a measure by mid-October and still have adequate time to safely
collect signatures to quality.NOTE:Once a measure is submitted,it cannot be amended
without filing an entirely new measure (thus restarting the "clock"to collect signatures).
CSAC must conduct all voter and political research and draft and finalize the measure in
the next 6 weeks to meet the deadline.
End of November/Early December:Proponents allowed to begin signature gathering
upon issuance of official "Title and Summary"prepared by Attorney General and LAO.
NOTE:Once Title and Summary issued,proponents have 150 days to collect
signatures.At this point CSAC must be prepared to begin spending resources to begin
paid signature gathering to keep this a viable option.
April 20,2012:Secretary of State's recommended deadline to submit signatures to
counties to qualify for November 2012 ballot
June 28,2012:Last day for Secretary of State to validate measures for November 2012
ballot.
November 6,2012:Election Day.
9-20