Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-125 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98-125 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OPPOSING PROPOSITION 226, AND INITIATIVE TO CHANGE THE WAY EMPLOYERS AND LABOR UNIONS 3 MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 4 WHEREAS, Proposition 226 would place expensive and cumbersome reporting and record 5 keeping requirements on employers mandated to track their employees' approved payroll deductions; 6 and 7 WHEREAS, Proposition 226 may require employees to approve payroll deductions relating 8 to benefits, investments, charitable contributions and others, and could unnecessarily open the 9 contract negotiation process; and 10 WHEREAS,Proposition 226 is a misguided and abusive use of the initiative process since 11 its primary goal is to debilitate the political efforts of labor organizations and not to craft sound, 12 meaningful policy reform; and 13 WHEREAS, State Controller Kathleen Connell has stated that the initiative". . . will impose 14 significant administrative burden and cost to all California taxpaying employers--both in the public 15 and private sector." 16 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL 17 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 18 SECTION 1. That the Mayor and Common Council of the City Of San Bernardino oppose 19 Proposition 226. 20 SECTION 2. That the City Administrator is directed to send copies of this Resolution to 21 the League of California Cities, area Legislative Representatives and other parties that may request 22 such copies. 23 I I I 24 I I I 25 I I I 26 I I I 27 III 28 III I-ITC/ea [Prop226.Res] May II, 1998 98-125 I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OPPOSING PROPOSITION 226, AND INITIATIVE TO CHANGE THE WAY EMPLOYERS AND LABOR UNIONS 2 MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. , -' 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a joint regul"fueeting thereof, held on the 5 18th day of May, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: 6 COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 7 x ESTRADA 8 x LIEN 9 x ARIAS 10 SCHNETZ x II x DEVLIN 12 ANDERSON x 13 MILLER x 14 IS ~h.~~ 16 ity erk 17 18 The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this fl.!!day of 19 20 21 Approved as to form 22 and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney 24 25 By: 26 27 28 HTC/ea [Prop226.Res] 2 Mayll.1998 '. 98-125 .;;; ..... ..~ I,.,,~ T"'. <'.' League of California Cities 1400 K Street. Suite 400 . Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 658.aZoo Fax: (916) 658-8240 WYvW.cacities.org ,~~! 1. 'If,l.! ,,~r.1;I" , -II" 11;.. - ""r. ""- 11,,:,;1:: ~{{.11d:llllj,: k~\'~; . April 13, 1998 Jessica Reynolds Californians to Protect Employee Rights ''NO on Proposition 226" 1510 J Street, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Jessica: As you know, at its March 27-28 meeting, the League of California Board of Directors voted to oppose Proposition 226. The League opposes Proposition 226 because: . Proposition 226 would place expensive and cumbersome reporting and record keeping requirements on employers mandated to track their employees' approved payroll deductions. . Proposition 226 may require employees to approve payroll deductions relating to benefits, investments, charitable contributions and others, and could unnecessarily open the contract negotiation process. . Proposition 226 is a misguided and abusive use of the initiative process since its primary goal is to debilitate the political efforts of labor orgllni7,e.tions and not to craft sound, meaningful policy reform. Good luck in your efforts to defeat Proposition 226. Please let us know how the League may assist you. Sincerely, Dwight Stenbakkcn Assistant Director, Legislation and Policy Development . , 98-125 PROPOSITION Limiting Congressional Tenns Background California's delegation to Congress consists of two senators and 52 representatives. Senators are elected for a tenn of six years and repre- sentatives for a tenn of two years. The V.s. Con- stitution sets the general Qualifications and duties of members of Congress. Federal law does not limit the number of terms a person may be elected to serve as a senator or representative in Congress. In 1992. California voters adopted Prop. 164. which es- tablished tenn limits for California's senators and representatives in Congress. However. Prop. 164 is not likely to ~into effect This is bet:ause the U.s. Supreme Court ruled.. in a case in'wIving similar limits established by other :;{a[es, that the Qualifications ot office for federal elective officials may be changed. only by amendment to the constitution. Congress l..<U1 propose amendments to the constitution with the approval of twMhirds of the membt:-rs of both houses. All amendments must ultimately be ratified by t:hree--tourths of the >tates before they can become part of the ("onstitution. Proposal This proposition declares that it is the official position of the people of California iliat its elected offidals should vote to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit a person to no more than two terms (or a total of 12 years) as a senator and no more than three terms (or six years) as a representative. The measure instructs the California State Legislature to ask Congress to enact such an amendment If an amendment is proposed by Congress. the measure in- structs the members of the legislature to vote to ratify it ~ The measure requires that voters be in- fonned if a candidate for Congress or the state senate or assembly has failed to support the cnngressional term limit amendment Specifi- cally, all election ballots for a candidate for Congress or the state legislature shall include the statement "Disregarded voters' instruction on tenn limits" if the candidate. as an office- holder in Congress or the state legislature, voted against or failed to support the request for the constitutional amendment or failed to vote for the amendment ifit is sent to the states to be ratified. ThUs. the proposition essentially requires that the votes of a member of Con- gress or the legislature, including procedural vntes taken during hearings, be evaluated to determine whethef-the member supported the term limits proposed in this measure. A person who is a candidate seeking e1ec. tion to Congress. the state senate or assembly and is not an incumbent would be allowed to sign a tenn limits pledge to support the pro- posed limits on congressional terms. If the can- didate does not sign this pledge. the statement "Declined to pledge to support tenn limits" would be placed next to the candidate's name on the ballot The proposition requires that the California Secretary of State. who oversees the state's elections. determine whether one of the two statements should be placed next to a candidate.s name on the ballot Fiscal impact The proposition would result in additional costs to the '5t:'1.Tetary of state to track and review the voting records of members of Congress and the legislature regarding tenn limits. and to make the determinations described above regarding ballot ':>tatements. In addition. the measure would result in additional costs to counties to add me statements to me ballots. Souret: LegisJatir:t AJUl/YSt's Offia r League of cali.fornia Cities IIrIIIlIIIIII Position: Oppose For r.lore Informat'on Far - - ... JnID.~~ .. .. viii: ..-...... "'-..-.... hIIp:~- --111'.(( - Ie.. WESTER." enY, MAY 1998 PROPOSITION Political Contributions From Employers, Labor Unions and Foreign Entities Background This proposition would change the way em- ployers and labor unions make campaign con- tributions. It would also prohibit contributions by foreign entities. Employers make a variety of payroll deduc. tions from their employees' wages, such as de- ductions for Social Security, income taxes, medical plans and charitable contributions. The deductions are sent to various organizations, businesses and governments. Existing law does not require employers to identify how the organizations will use the monies. ~fany workers in California belong to labor unions. In addition, many workers \\110 do not belong to a union work for a business or organi- zation in which a union provides conet1ive bar- gaining and representation for all of the employ- ees. both union members and nonmembers. Workers who are represented. by unions pay dues or fees to the unions. In most cases, such dues or fees are automatically deducted by the employer from the workers' wages and sent to the union. The union may use some of me dues or fees for political activities. A union member may request that his or her dues or fees not be used for political activities, although there is no legal requirement that the union honor the requesllf a non-union member requests that the fees not be used for political activities, the union must comply with the request. Currently, federal law prohibits a foreign national from making a contribution to or ex- penditure for a federal, state or local election campaign for a candidate for public office. A C01ftinued 29 .. . , 98-125 ju.. Ballot Mwsum. COIInllJUd ~ Propositiqu 226. COIIn.ued foreign national is defined as a foreign gtl\'- ernmen!. certain foreign businesses and or- gaoizaliODS, and any person who is not a citi- zen or lawful permanent residentof!he United States. Federal law also prohibits a person from accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign national In addition. stale law prohibits a foreign gtl\'- ernment or business. or a person outside of the U.S. who is not a US. citizen. from making a contribution or expenditure in connection with a campaign for a slate or local ballot mea- sure. StIle law also prohibits a person or a l>> litical campaign CODlIIIitlee from solicitiug or accepting a contribution for a ballot measure fronra1oreign gUYOC LLlAK.nl business or per- son outside the U.S. Proposal This proposition makes two primary changes to California's Political Reform Act of 1974. an initiative adopted by the voter.; that established guidelines and requirements for political can- didates and campaigns. rlTSl. itestab6shes new requirements with regard to payroO deductioos for political activities. Second. it establishes in state law a provision similar to federnllaw pro- hibiting a candidate for public office from so- liriting or accepting campaign contributions from a foreign national. C nder this proposition. if an employer de- ducts money from an employee's waJ{t'S that the employer knows. or has reason to know. will be u:;ed for politil..-aI campaili:rl1 xtivities, the employer must annually obtain the employee's signed authorization to make the deduction. These requirements apply to both private and government employers. Similarly. in order for a labor union to use a portion of the dues or fees it collects for p0- litical campaign activities. the measure re- quires the union to obtain the worker's signed authorization each year to use the money for those activities. The proposition requires that employe~ and labor unions keep certain records. including a copy of the authorization form. Similar to existing tederaJ law. this measure would make it illegal under slate law for any per.;oo or political campaign committee to s0- licit or accept a campaign conmbution for a can- didate for public office from a foreign national. 30 A violation of the provisions of the measure would be punishable by !he existing criminal and civil penalties established in the Political Reform Act of 1974. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) would be responSIble for enforcement Fiscal Impact The pn:lpl)9tion would result in additional oosIs to the slate and locaJ governments in two areas. First, the measure would result in state costs to the FPPC to enforce its provisions. The costs could be offset in part by lines im- posed by the FPPC for violatioDs of the mea- sure, The net costs are unknown but prob- ably are not major. Second, !he proposition could result in addi- tional administrative oosIs to the slate and ~ cal governments to review payroU deductioDS of their employees and to keep additional records. The extent of these costs would prob- ably depend on the regulations developed by the FPPC The state controller's office esti- mates that its annual administrative costs would be up to approximately 51 million. with one-time costs in the raIllI" of 51-55 million. LocaJ governments could incur the same type of administrative costs. Sou",,, LtgisIative Auai)<st"s Office r League of California Cities IiILlII Position: Oppose ALL ABOUT TOWN I !CANDIDATEs' NIGHT ~ 1'rust is my pbdorm. .. lEAcCE OF C\llFOR:'<1A Crrn:s PROPOSITION English as Required Language for Public School Instruction Background California's public schools serve 5.6 million stu- dents in kindergarten throogh 12th grades (K- 12). In 199&-97. schools identified 1.4 million. or 25 perceDt of these SlUdents as limited En- glish proficient (LEp). These are SlUdents who cannot understand English weD enough to keep up in school Eighty-eight pen:ent of the state's schools had at least ODe LEP SlUden!. and 71 percent had at least 20 LEP SlUdents. Undercurrent law. schools must make their lessons understandable to LEP students. To help schools address the needs of these stu- dents. the California State Department of Edu- cation crealed guidelines for the development o!l(X,aI LEPprograms_ l"nder these guidelines: . The main goal of all programs is to make LEP students fluent in English: . Programs must allow LEP students to do well in all school work. In some cases, this means teaching some subjects to LE? stu- dents in their home languages: . Schools must allow alll.EP students the op- tion of being in bilingual programs. A bilin- gual program is one in which students are taught both in their home language and in English: and . Schools must allow parents to choose whether or not their children are in bilingual programs. Schools currently use a range of services to help LEP students learn how to speak. read and write English; and learn academic sub- jects such as math. reading, writing, history and science.