Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Voting Delegate League of Cities CITY CLERK File # Dw@][Q]-~~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Voting Direction to the City's Designated Voting Delegate at the Upcoming Annual Business Meeting, September 8, 2007 Regarding the Issue of Continuing Support for the California Cities Grassroots Network Program Report Prepared by Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternatives 2) Special Report to the Cities of California - "Celebrating Five Years of Success with the League Grassroots Network Program RECOMMENDATION~ 1) 2) ~ Authorize Staff to send the League of California Cities notification of the City's Voting Delegate and Alternate. Supply direction to the City's Voting Delegate on the City's position regarding the upcoming vote on extending the Grassroots Network Program at the League's Annual Business Meeting on September 8, 2007. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: There will be no additional funds required to extend the Grassroots Network Program. The program is funded through dues approved in 2001 to pay for the addition of 15 new professional field staff members. No increase in dues will be necessary if the program is extended since its funding is now absorbed by the League's base dues. DESCRIPTION: The League of California Cities Annual Conference is scheduled to be held September 5-8, 2007, at the "Sacramento Convention Center. The League of California Cities is the cities' own organization through which city officials work together to further the common interest of their cities and citizens. At its December 19,2006 meeting, the City Council appointed Councilmember Tim Sbranti as the Voting Delegate and Councilmember Tony Oravetz as the Alternate Voting Delegate for the 2007 Annual Conference. It has been confirmed that Councilmember Sbranti will be in attendance at the 2007 Annual Conference and will be able to participate in the Annual Business Meeting that is schedule to occur on Saturday ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: League of California Cities ITEM NO. ~I I morning, September 8, 2007, at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. One ofthe issues that will be voted on by the Voting Delegates is extending the Grassroots Network Program. Background on the Grassroots Network Program In the Summer of 2001, the membership of the League of California Cities held an historic vote to consider amending the League bylaws to approve the establishment of a new program known as the "Grassroot Network," financed in total by a 50% increase in the dues of the League members cities. The vote was held by mail ballot and support for the proposition was overwhelming: (94%) among the 326 (or 68%) of the eligible cities that cast votes by mail ballot. The proposition to establish the Grassroots Network was approved and a sunset date was established. Article XVII ofthe League bylaws requires that the membership reauthorize the program by no later than December 31, 2007 or it shall be discontinued by December 31,2008. At its February 2007 meeting of the Board of Directors for the League of California Cities, the Board approved holding the election at the General Assembly of the Annual Conference. The League Board of Directors prepared a Special Report to the Cities of California about the accomplishments of the League Grassroots Network Program (Attachment 2). One of the more noteworthy accomplishments of the program was the passage of Proposition lA in 2004 with an 84% approval rating which represented a milestone for city governments because it stopped the continuing raids by the state on city revenues. One frequently asked question concerning the Grassroots Network Program is will this program be permanent. The upcoming vote will decide if this program continues. It will be reviewed on an annual basis by the League Board of Directors to gauge its effectiveness. RECOMMENDATION Authorize Staff to send the League of California Cities notification of the City's Voting Delegate and Alternate and supply direction to the City's Voting Delegate regarding the City's position on the upcoming vote whether to extend the Grassroots Network Program at the League's Annual Business Meeting on September 8, 2007. .' ~ 1400 K STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PH: (916) 658-8200 FX: (916) 658-8240 ~ b~~~~~ CITIES WWW.CACITIES.ORG Please review this memo carefully. New procedures were adopted in 2006 regarding designation of voting delegates and alternates and voting at the Annual Conference. REel I\lED CITY OF DUBLIN JUN 2 2 2007 June 8, 2007 OllY MANAGER'S OffiCE TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference - September 5-8, Sacramento The League's 2007 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5-8 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for Saturday morning, September 8, at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. In the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, your city may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. The ability to appoint up to two alternates is the result of approval last year of a League bylaws amendment that increased the number of voting delegate alternates from one to two. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no later than August 13, so that voting delegate/alternates records may be established prior to the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the conference registration area. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. . Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. . Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote. Voting delegates and alternates <O-;~07 ATTACHMENT 1 ~ 'b It '"" ~, .... are requested to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegates Desk. This will enable them to receive the special stamps on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. . Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. . New Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they should be sure to sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. The Voting Delegate desk in the conference registration area will be open September 5, 6 and 7, and prior to the Business Meeting on September 8. The conference registration area will open at 12:00 p.m., on September 5, at the Sacramento Convention Center. The Voting Delegate desk will also be open at the Business Meeting, but not during a roll call vote, should one be undertaken. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share it and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by August 13,2007. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough at (916) 658-8247. Attachments: . 2007 Annual Conference Voting Procedures . V oting Delegate/Alternate Farm .. 3ffblt' ~ LEAGUE . ~ OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1400 K Street, Suite 400 . Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2007 Annual Conference 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up totwo alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. We encourage voting delegates and alternates to sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk so that they may receive a special stamp on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates) and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is not either a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, all should sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. II CITY Llt1i ~ r 2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to the League office by AUl!ust 13.2007. Forms not sent by this deadline may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the counciL Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special stamp on their conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together at the Business Meeting, they are all encouraged to sign in at the Voting Desk in order to obtain the identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting area. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name: Title: Title: ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate.) Name: Phone: Title: Date: Please complete and return bv AU2ust 13 to: League of California Cities A TTN: Mary McCullough 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX: (916) 658-8240 A C2007V otingDelegateLetter. doc ~,- ,II (.( ~ I 1400 K STREET .. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PH: (916) 658-8200 FX: (916) 658-8240 RECEIVED CITY OF DUBLIN JUL 2 Ii 2007 ~V'~ ~ ~~ LEAGUE5"~'~ ~ OF CALIFORNIA . () CITIES - - - ---- - ----------- ---------------- CilY MANAl.:lcH'S OFFICE A SPECIAL REPORT TO THE CITIES OF CALIFORNIA From the League Board of Directors WWW.CACITIES.ORG "Celebrating Five Years of Success With The League Grassroots Network Program" Dear Colleagues: The passage of Proposition lA in 2004 with an 84 percent approval rating represented a milestone for city governments because it stopped the continuing raids by the state on city revenues. This was one of the highest rates of voter approval of any ballot measure in the history of California-a fact many observers attribute to the premium voters place on local public services and the fevered grassroots support that backed the ballot measure. The overwhelming level of grassroots support in passing Proposition 1 A marked a return on a very important investment made by California cities in 2001 to develop a strong and professionally staffed Grassroots Network Program. After five years, this program boasts an impressive track record and is unmatched by few organizations in the nation. The Grassroots Network Program was originally approved overwhelmingly in 2001. The resolution approved stipulated that the League membership would vote on its continuation following an initial five year pilot period. The League board of directors has scheduled that election for September 8, 2007 at the Annual Conference Business Meeting in Sacramento. This packet of information is designed to assist your city in making its decision on this question. Please feel free to contact the League staff, any board member or me if you have any questions. ,W~ look forward to discussing this issue with you and, if the membership agrees, continuing the excellence in protecting the cities of California that the Grassroots Network Program has helped us achieve. Sincerely, ~~ -;s~ · Maria Alegria, President Mayor, Pinole Jim Madaffer, 15t Vice President Council Member, San Diego ~~ ~N ~, L'1J./ Ron Loveridge, Immediate Past President Mayor, Riverside Heather Fargo, 2nd Vice President Mayor, Sacramento r:L N~ Christopher McKenzie Executive Director ATTACHMENT 2 1400 K STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PH: (916) 658-8200 FX: (916) 658-8240 UDf)'~ ~ ~ ~F~~9c,}d~ ~CITIES WWW.CACITIES.ORG Grassroots Network Reauthorization Background In the summer of 2001, the membership of the League held an historic vote to consider amending the League bylaws to approve the establishment of a new program known as the "Grassroots Network," fil1anced in total by a 50% increase in the dues of League member cities. The vote was held by mail ballot, and the support for the proposition was overwhelming: (94%) among the 326 (or 68%) of eligible cities that cast votes by mail ballot. The proposition approved also contained a sunset date, discussed below. 2007 Membership Survey The League engaged APeD Insight, an independent research firm, to conduct a confidential opinion survey to help the League understand members' expectations and attitudes towards the League's legislative and ballot measure advocacy, especially grassroots activities. This is the third in a series of surveys conducted to evaluate the Grassroots Network. A baseline was established in 2001. A survey to measure progress was conducted in 2004. The most recent 2007 survey assesses how members view the contributions of the Grassroots Network before a decision is made about the future of the program at the upcoming Annual Conference. The survey also identifies areas where improvement can propel the program to greater effectiveness. Randomly selected mayors, council members and city managers were asked to complete the 2007 survey. Each participant had the option of completing the questionnaire in hard copy or online. The findings will allow for statistical comparison among various functional, city size and regional.categories. City officials not selected for the sample but who wished to participate were given an opportunity to provide input. Responses were received from 467 city officials, a strong 31 % response rate. The consultant received 257 mailed questionnaires and 210 responses were completed online. Some key findings: . City officials are more involved with the League than they were in 2004. . Nine in ten members rate the job the League is doing as excellent or good. . E-mail is the preferred communication vehicle for receiving information on grassroots action. . Seven in ten respondents are familiar with the Grassroots Network. . About three-quarters of respondents say they are familiar with their regional representative. . Compared to five years ago (prior to the Grassroots Network), 84% of respondents feel that their efforts on pending legislation and state budget issues have become more effective. -1 trb ,<is Vote to Reauthorize Program Set for September 8 Article XVII of the League bylaws requires that the membership reauthorize the program by no later than December 31, 2007 or it shall be discontinued by December 31, 2008. At its February meeting, the board approved holding that election at the General Assembly of the Annual Conference. This will happen on September 8, 2007. A resolution to be submitted by the board of directors to extend the program is attached for your consideration and approval. Also, attached is a packet of information for your review and approval that will be sent to each member city, including an overview of the results of the latest member satisfaction survey. -2- ~oi) lcf Grassroots Network Program Accomplishments Since its inception the League's Grassroots Network of 15 field staff have provided critical support on legislative issues as well as ballot measures. The following is a partial list of accomplishments of the Grassroots program during this period. . Increased Participation and Effectiveness. Participation by city officials at League events and activities has increased substantially as a result of grassroots activities and staff. This involvement has led to the League membership having increased effectiveness on city priorities at the state and federal levels. League Conferences and regional Division meetings have increased attendance significantly. . Stronger Partnerships. The League's Grassroots Network Program has strengthened partnerships with many other organizations including organized labor, chambers of commerce and the business community, environmental organizations and other community based organizations, increasing the League's credibility and clout on statewide issues. . Credible Threat to Go to Ballot. Greater participation and improved partnerships have supported fundraising activities for the League's political action committee, CITIPAC. This fundraising effort has strengthened the League's bargaining position and helped establish the organization and its members as "players" on statewide policy issues and ballot measures. . Prevented Cuts in City Funding. The program played a central role in the League's legislative efforts to prevent a state takeaway of local government revenues in the 2002 state budget process. Similar efforts in subsequent years have been successful as well. . Retained Local Land Use Authority. In 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the Grassroots staff organized opposition to help defeat a number of legislative proposals designed to curb local authority on affordable housing development and place into state law severe punitive penalties on local government . Protected the Local Sales Taxes. The program was a key factor in defeating legislation in 2002 to redistribute local. sales tax revenues. . Promoted Funding for Affordable Housing. The Grassroots Network staff helped support city efforts to pass Proposition 46 in 2002. This was a statewide bond measure for affordable housing. . Protected Transportation Funds. In 2002, the League Grassroots Network staff also served as a powerful part of the on-the-ground, organizing team for the passage of Proposition 42.on the statewide ballot. This proposition was the first step taken to protect and dedicate sales tax on motor fuels for transportation programs at both the state and local levels. -3- qut, Ii . Signature Gathering for Proposition 65. The League's Grassroots staff coordinated the gathering of over 100,000 signatures to place Proposition 65 on the 2004 state ballot. This measure would have protected local government revenues from further raids by the state legislature and governor. More importantly, it became the critical leverage needed to negotiate Proposition 1 A that was ultimately passed by the voters of California. . Passed Proposition lA on the 2004 State Ballot - Saving $1 Billion Annually. Almost 85 percent of California voters approved a measure to protect local government sales tax, property tax and VLF revenues on the 2004 state ballot. The Grassroots Network staff played a pivotal role in producing overwhelming editorial support for Proposition 1 A across California, building a strong coalition of supporting organizations and community groups, and organizing press opportunities in support of the measure. If Proposition 1 A had not been enacted and the legislature continued along its predictable path, we estimate that the cities of California would be losing just over $1 billion annually, growing over time. . ASAE Award of Excellence. In 2005 the League's Grassroots Network Program received the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) Award of Excellence for its grassroots campaign on Proposition lA. . Focus on Redevelopment. The League has established a formal partnership with the California Redevelopment Association designed to build community-based and media support for redevelopment activities in local communities. This partnership relies heavily on the League grassroots network and staff to execute its mission. . 2004 Infrastructure Bond Measures. The League's grassroots organization worked on both the legislative passage of the largest infrastructure bond packages ever passed in the nation, as well as the campaign to secure voter approval of Proposition lA - E and Proposition 84. Proposition 1 B alone will pump a minimum of $1 billion into city street and road repairs over the next few years. . NO on Proposition 90 Campaign. The League's Grassroots Network Program led the field operations against Proposition 90 on the November 2006 ballot. This measure was an extremely destructive proposal that would have dramatically crippled local government land use authority and squandered tax payer money on uncontrolled development. The measure was defeated after a very targeted and strategic campaign effort. . Fundraising for CITIP AC. The Grassroots staff heads regional efforts to raise money for CITIP AC, the political action committee for California's cities. This PAC is used to fund campaigns to pass or oppose ballot measures affecting city priorities. -4- lDD(, t't" Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) Q: What is the League's Grassroots Network Program? A: It is a program that was approved in 2001 to better focus the League's lobbying efforts on behalf of cities through a statewide, professional field staff. In concert with city officials, grassroots staff utilizes strategic contacts with key legislators on priority city issues, delivers League messages to. appropriate media outlets and organize community-based'organizations in support of city priorities. Q: Why Did the League Start a Grassroots.Program? A: A strong grassroots. program is one of three essential elements needed to achieve success in an organization's lobbying effort. This is especially true 'in California. The grassroots program was started to strengthen the League's lobbying effort"primarily aimed at stopping the state from taking local government revenues to meet state general fund shortfalls. Q: Is the League Grassroots Program Permanent? A: No. When the League first adopted the grassroots program, the conditions of approval required a review of the program after, five years and a subsequent vote of the League membership to approve the program permanently. A membership vote on the progr8l)1 is scheduled for the 2007 League Annual Conference in Sacramento. Each year the board of directors reviews the program to determine if it remains successful. Q: Do Other Statewide Associations Have Grassroots Programs? A: While other associations use grassroots strategies in their organization's lobbying efforts, the investment in the League's grassroots program is unique in its scope and effectiveness in California as well as across the nation. Many other associations contact the League.to req~est information on the Grassroots Network. Q: Has the League Grassroots NetWork Program Been .successful? A: Three surveys of the League's membership have confirmed a very high rate of satisfaction among the membership for the program. Beyond this, the program was instrumental in the successful passage of Proposition lA in 2004. This measure prevents the state from taking local government revenues; the program has been successful in other ballot measures including one to protect local government transportation revenues (Prop 42), another to pass a housing bond for affordable-housing projects (Prop 46) and the program was a key factor in the defeat of a recent ballot measure (prop 90) that was a serious threat to local government land use authority. In addition, the program has been successful in numerous battles over legislation in the California state legislature. Q: Will A Dues Increase Be Necessary to Extend the Grassroots NetworkProgram?_ A: No. The program is funded through dues approved in2001 to pay for the addition of 15 new professional field staff members. No dues increase will be '. necessary if the, program is extended since its funding is now absorbed by the base League dues. -5- Il Vb V6 Q: Now that Proposition lA Passed, Do We Need this Program Anymore? A: Yes. Despite the passage of Proposition 1A in 2004, the legislature has endless avenues to threaten local government authority and revenues. To terminate this program would essentially return the League and the cities of this state back to a position of extreme vulnerability. It would be a big step backward in the development of political clout for the cities of California. Q: Has the Grassroots Program Improved the Political Standing of Cities? A: Yes. When combined with a strong lobbying team and the "credible threat. to go to the statewide ballot" on key citY issues, the Grassroots Program has improved the capacity of the League to partner with the legislature, governor and other key organizations around the state. These new and stronger relationships have been productive in other arenas, the most important being the League's ability to affect legislation threatening local government authority . Q. How Does the League Get City Officials' Feedback on the Program? A: Since 2001, the League has conducted three membership satisfaction surveys~ focused on the perceptions of city officials about the League's programs,. particularly the Grassroots Program. The survey completed in spring of 2007 revealed strong support for the program and the League's services. Some highlights are: . City officials are more involved with the League than they were in 2004. . Nine in ten members rate the job the League is doing as excellent or good. . Seven in ten respondents are familiar with the Grassroots Network. v . About three-quarters of respondents say they are familiar with their regional representative. . Compared to five years ago (prior to the Grassroots Network), 84% of respondents feel that their efforts on pending legislation and state budget issues have become more effective. -6- 1'2. fJlJ{( RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROGRAM Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: WHEREAS, until 2004 the cities of California were faced with continual actions by the legislature and the administration to take city revenues and use those revenues to counter deficits in the state general fund; and WHEREAS, this repeated action by the legislature and the administration seriously threatened the ability of local government to deliver essential public services to local communities; and WHEREAS, in 2001 the Board of Directors and membership of the League of California Cities took actions to strengthen the effectiveness of the League and to prevent the year-after-year erosion of local public services; and WHEREAS, he membership of the League overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the League's Grassroots network program and the accompanying dues increase to hire and support 15 new, professional grassroots staff positions in the organization; and WHEREAS, the Grassroots network program in the League has been a key factor in the League's efforts to secure passage of Proposition 1 A in 2004 that placed an effective constitutional restraint against the state continuing to take local government revenues to help meet state fiscal problems; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has been effective in other statewide ballot measures battles including Proposition 42 in 2002, protecting transportation money for transportation purposes; and Proposition 46 in 2002, enacting a statewide bond measure for affordable housing; and the most recent defeat in 2006 of Proposition 90 that threatened to squander taxpayer money and negate local land use decision-making authority; and WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has proven to be an effective . tool in support of the League's legislative program; and WHEREAS, the League's grassroots network program is known as one of the preeminent grassroots programs in the country; and WHEREAS, Article XVII, Section 3 (c) of the League bylaws provides that the membership of the League shall be asked to vote before December 31, 2007 on the continuation of the Grassroots program beyond December 31, 2008; and -7- I pan It WHEREAS, the League Board of Directors desires to hold this election at the Annual Business Meeting of the League scheduled to be held in on September 8, 2007 in conjunction with the 2007 Annual Conference in Sacramento; and WHEREAS, the League Board of Directors respectfully urges each city to support continuation of the grassroots network program because of its proven effectiveness; and " WHEREAS, the extension of the grassroots network program will not cause a dues increase for cities since support for the program is now part of the base budget of the League of California Cities; and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in annual Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007, that the Grassroots Network Program, first established by the member cities of the League of California Cities in 2001, be continued and operated in accordance with the bylaws of the League of California Cities. \ -8- \% ,1)' Third and Final Member Satisfaction Survey Results Show High Ratings for the League and the Grassroots Network Background: In just five years, the Grassroots Network has become an integral part of the League's effort to restore and protect local control for California cities. This innovative program put 15 Regional Representatives on the ground across the statein 2002 to bring tQe presence and impact of citie~ to bear on the legislative process and statewide ballot measures. The Regional Network is designed to serve as a liaison strengthening the connection between city officials and the League to accomplish common objectives. The League has a collaborative relationship with city officials working to help them focus their message and ensuring an effective role for city officials in the shaping of public policy affecting cities at the state and national level. Some of the many accomplishments made possible by the Network include the passage of Proposition lA in 2004 to protect local revenues and the defeat of Proposition 90, a ballot measure that would have seriously eroded land use powers, in 2006. From the outset, city leaders understood the sizable impact the Network would have in executing the League's mission. However, the League also committed to an independent assessment every few years to measure how well the new program served the organization's members. APCO Insight has just conducted the third and final survey of membership satisfaction with the League and the Network. We had a phenomenal response to the survey and found the results very positive. Results Provide Key Insights into League's Effectiveness: APCO's research method included a mixed mode survey with mailings to 1500 randomly selected League members with a sizable response rate. The results show over the course of the three surveys a steady progress in terms of level of awareness of the Grassroots Regional Network and its impact. This is significant because it reflects the thorough approach the League took to develop and implement the Network. The survey results provide a number of very important and interesting findings. Responders say that the League is accomplishing its mission of advocating on behalf of California cities and protecting city revenues. The percentage of members rating the League's job as excellent has more than doubled since the first survey in 2001. The three surveys also show that our members have become more involved with the League over the years. Two of the most important functions of Regional Representatives serve is forming coalitions and organizing rapid response teams to address legislation. A majority of responders reported the Network plays a critical role in defeating challenges to local control and imposing unfunded mandates on local government. Almost 70% were familiar with the Network and of those responders 95% had a favorable impression of the program. And on a scale of one-to-l 0, the -9- ISIf) (~ program was given a score of 8.4 for effectiveness of forming coalitions that support legislation that benefits all cities. Testimonials Show Satisfaction with Network's Impact: " Multiple responders mentioned that the Network gives cities a unified voice in Sacramento. Here is a selection of a few things the responders had to say about how their cities have benefited from the Grassroots Network Program. "We're a tiny city and therefore must have partners in whatever programs/ideas we want to see move forward. The League provides a forum for us to accomplish this. Without the League and its activities we would have little if any impact on the state." "Legislature awareness and clarification has been most beneficial. lA campaign was the most significant contribution to our town's vitality." "Keeping us current, involved, and tuned in." "Interaction with our League representative has always been of tremendous value. She's always available and gets us the info quickly and always keeps us informed." "Our city and our region have benefited greatly due to increased projections for local revenues. Also, the increased relationships which have developed, further our goals." "Yes, the city's awareness and the response to the legislature has been dramatically improved with the Grassroots Network. I don't know how we could exist without it." "Proposition lA was awesome and would not have happened without the Network." How this Report will be Used in the Future: Now that the third and final APCO survey is complete city officials should be impressed with the assessment of the Network. The accomplishments of the Network as communicated by a majority of survey responders, suggests that it is making a substantial difference. In addition to the overwhelming responses and satisfaction, there were some comments on how our organization can improve. This information is valuable and will help us make the program even stronger, ensuring that the needs of all of our members are met. We are committed to continuing to improve the Network and wish to thank everyone who participated in this process. -10- 53% o APeO l n s ,g h to Very' somewhat - 560/0 20()4- 62% 2007 720/0 6% 5% 1% Very Involved Somewhat Involved Not Very Involved Not At All Involved Q3. In general, how involved are you, personally, with the League of California Cities? 2004 73% familiar Somewhat Familiar 27% Not At All Famliar 13% Q15, How famliar are you with your Regional R9pfa8Elnlative? -11- 200i 1200412007 APCO lns,ght' 2007 73% familiar Somewhat Famliar 23% Not asked in 2001 I~~l~ Not M. All Farriliar 10% 013, How fammar are you with 100 Grassroots Network? 014 From whal you know, whal is your impression of 100 Grassroots Network? Legislative advocacy that benefits all California cities Protecting city revenues Protecting city land use authority Grassroots activity by League merriJers Providing friend-of-the-court assistance to California cities APCO ,nslght' Very Favorable Somell\A1at Favorable Somell\A1at Unfavorable Very Unfavorable No Opinion APCO J n S , it Ii t' 87% 87% I. F ai rlPoor . ExrellenllGood I 02, How do you rate 100 jdl thai California Cities and the League are doing in working with California cities? -12- 11rJb l'b 38% APCO ,nSlght' Excellent d 2001 75%~ 2004 - 0 2007 ~ 1% 0% Excellent Good Fair Poor 20011200412007 01, Generally speaking. how do you rate lite job lite League 01 Cal~amia Cities is doing in working willt Cafifomia cmes? APCO 'nslght' Excellent 59% Good Fair Poor 0% No opinion , 0% 01, Generally speaking, how do you ,ale lite job lite League 01 Cafilamia C~ies is doing in working willt Calilamia cities? -13- 1 <6fr{; tZ'