Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.05 LeagueCitiesDuesGrassCITY CLERK FILE # 140-20 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2001 SUBJECT: League of California Cities Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Increase Dues to Implement Grassroots Coordinator Network Report Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: 1) League of Califomia Cities Ballot on Grassroots Network Grassroots Coordinator Network Information Packet RECOMMENDATION;4 b/~Authorize the Mayor to sign the Ballot approving the League of California Cities Bylaws Amendment. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: If the Grassroots Network is approved, the City' s dues would increase from $6,068 to $9,624 annually. DESCRIPTION: At the March 6, 2001 City Council Meeting, the Council authorized that a letter be sent to the League of California Cities supporting the proposed Grassroots Network. Upon receiving widespread support for the proposal from cities across the State, on April 28, 2001, the League of California Cities Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the Grassroots Network proposal. The Board is now requesting that each city vote on whether to approve the League's bylaws amendment relating to the establishment of a League Grassroots Network, and accompanying dues increase (Attachment 1 ). An amendment to the League bylaws must be approved by no less than 2/3 of the League membership. BACKGROUND: The League of California Cities provides cities with legislative lobbying services and acts as an advocate of city interests in Sacramento and throughout the State. Recently cities have experienced frustration as the State has amassed more resources and power at the expense of local government services. During this time, it has become evident that the League' s traditional lobbying methods are a poor match for grassroots campaigns and financial contributions by other competing interests. In order to compete with the efforts of other powerful special interests, the League' s City Manager' s Department suggested developing a Grassroots Coordinator Network to coordinate city officials' efforts locally to influence legislators, their staff, potentially helpful community groups, and the news media. The Network would consist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff. Three H/cc-forms/agdastmt. doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. would be located in the Bay Area. The coordinators would arrange meetings, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas. The Network would cost cities an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. The impact to the City of Dublin would be a dues increase of $3,556 annually from $6,068 to $9,624. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached ballot approving the League of California Cities bylaws amendment. League of California Cities Ballot on Grassroots Network // City of Does your city vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the League's bylaws relating to the establishment of a League Grassroots Network (attached as Attachment A and incorporated by reference in this ballot), along with the dues schedule (attached as Attachment B .and also incorporated by reference in this ballot)? ] Yes [] Ballot returned by: City Official Name City Official Title Ballots must be returned by First Class Mail and postmarked no later than July 6, 2001. Return ballots to: League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Counting Committee ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment A: Proposed Addition to League Bylaws Article XVI: Establishment and Financing of Grassroots Network Section 1: Enhancement of Advocacy Efforts. To enhance the League's advocacy efforts on behalf of cities, the League hereby establishes a Grassroots Network. The Grassroots Network consists of a series of field offices throughout California, responsible for coordinating city advocacy efforts and promoting statewide League policy priorities. Section 2: Dues Increase (a) Initial Financing. The dues increase approved concurrently with the addition of Article XVI shall finance the League's Grassroots Network for the second half of 2001 and for 2002. The increase shall be used exclusively to finance the Grassroots Network. (b) Continued Financing. Any subsequent dues increases shall occur in accordance with Article IV.~ Section 3: Accountability (a) Annual Goal-Setting and Performance Assessment.- The League Board shall set long-term goals and annual objectives for the League's Grassroots Network. The League Board shall periodically report to the League's Member Cities on the Grassroots Network's performance in meeting those goals and objectives. (b) Board Discontinuance. If at any time the League Board finds the Grassroots Network is not meeting its objectives on behalf of cities, the League Board may discontinue the Grassroots Network. (c) Membership Vote on Program Continuation'. On or before December 31, 2007, the Board shall ask Member Cities to vote on whether to continue the Grassroots Network beyond December 31,2008.2 ~ Explanatory Note: "Article IV" is the existing section of the League's bylaws, which provide for 1 ) a two-thirds vote of approval by the League board for all dues increases as well as 2) division ratification of dues increases in excess of the Consumer Price Index. Article IV also caps individual city dues increases at $5,000 per year. 2 The League's bylaws provide that a majority of votes cast is necessary for decision on League votes. See Article XII, § 4. Attachment B: Proposed Dues to Establish the Grassroots Network /I For cities having a population of: 1 to 500 501 to 600 601 to 700 701 to 800 801 to 900 901 to 1,000 1,001 to 1.250 1,251 to 1.500 1,501 to 1,750 1,751 to 2.000 2,001 to 2,250 2,251 to 2.550 2,501 to 2,750 2,751 to 3,000 3,001 to 4,000 4,001 to 5.000 5,001 to 7,500 7,501 to 10,000 10,001 to 15,000 15,001 to 20.000 20,001 to 25.000 25,001 to 30.000 30,001 to 40.000 40,001 to 50.000 50,001 to 60.000 60,001 to 70,000 70,001 to 80,000 80,001 to 90.000 90,001 to 100.000 100,001 to 125,000 125,001 to 150.000 150,001 to 200,000 (A) (S) (C) (D) (E) Annual Total Dues Additional Base Dues ~or Including Base Duesfor Dues for Grassroots Grassroots Dues Grassroots. 2002 Network Network Paid in Last half (Est.) 2002 (Est.): 2002 (Est.) 2001 of 2001 [A + 4%] [B x 2 + 4%]. [C + D] $37 $10 $39 $20 $59 99 ' 26 103 54 157 197 52 205 108 312 216 57 225 118 342 259 .68 ' 269 141" 410 317 83 330 173 503 494 130 514 270 784 611 160 635 334 969 727 191 756 . 397 1,152 865 227 900 473 1.373 921 242 958 503 1,461 1,020 268 1.061 .557 1,618 1.078 283 1,122 589 1,710 1,176 309 1,223 642 1,865 1,316 346 1.369 719 2,088 1.570 412 1,633 857 2.490 2,044 535 2.125 1,116 3.241 2.359 619 2.453 1,288 3.741 2,848 747 2,961 1,555 4.516 3,279 861 3.411 1,791 5.201 4,105 1,078 4.269 2,241 6,511 4,930 1,294 5.127 2,692 7,818 6,068 1,593 6.311 3,313 9.624 7,382 1,938 7,677 4.031 11,708 8,504 2,232 8.844 4,643 13,487 9,346 2,453 9.720 5.103 14,823 9.817 2,577 10.210 5,360 15,570 10,464 2,747 10.883 5,714 16,597 11,464 3,009 11.923 6,260 18.182 13.075 3,432 13.598 7.139 20,737 14.392 3,778 14,968 7,858 22,826 16.357 4,294 17,011 8,931 25.942 200,001 to 500.000 500,001 to 640,000 Over 640,000 17.176 4,509 17,863 9,378 27.241 Plus 819 215 852 .447 1,299 per each full lO, O00 of population over 200,00~ 41,693 ] 43,361 ~!:!: ~'!~i' 66,125 Plus 757 !!i~ ~'~ 787 i!7!~ } 1,201 per each full ~0,000 of population over 500, 001 51,950 ~iii%!~?i~Fi"~'::~'~'~'~;I 54,028 lii 82,393 For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article IV, section 2, is suspended for the years 2001 and 2002. The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will apply to total dues in year 2003 and years following. The League board will consider in September whether a cost-of-living adjustment for dues will be needed in 2002. This table shows 2002 dues with a cost-of-living adjustment of 4%. Grassroots Network PurpoSe City officials have experienced deep frustration in recent years as the state govemment has amassed more resources and power at the expense of local government services. The League has a solid reputation as an advocate of city interests,- but in the new era of term limits, traditional lobbying methods are often a poor match for grassroots campaigns and financial contributions by other competing interests. Many organizations have already responded to the new political reality in Sacra- mento by investing in a stronger grassroots organization, including the powerful education lobby, which recently launched a new, high profile and well-funded grassroots organization called EdVoice. The League now has to respond in kind to this new climate by building a solid grassroots network to coordinate city officials' efforts locally to influence legislators, their staff, potentially helpful community groups, and the news media. // Major Elements The Network would consist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff (15 coordinators/2 support). The coordinators would work with city officials and the regional divisions of the League to promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and other supporting community groups. They would arrange meetings, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas. In short, they would increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions and the already busy city officials in each division on the state legislature's and govemor's decisions affecting cities. Cost The Network would cost cities an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. This is the equivalent of four one hundredths of one percent (0.04%) of the $3.8 billion cities collect each year in sales and use taxes, and about one tenth of one percent of the $1.57 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Most observers believe both revenue sources could become victims of legislative raids in the next recession. Individual city costs for the Network will vary depending on city population. For example, a city of 50,001 to 60,000 population would pay an additional $4,643. Such a dues increase will require amendment of the League bylaws approved by no less than 2/3 of the voting League membership. Membership Review The idea of the Grassroots Network originated with the City Managers Department and was more fully developed by a special Task Force appointed by the League board of directors. Information on the program was developed and disseminated to the full League leadership ( board, divisions, departments, policy committees and caucuses), as well as to every city manager. Dozens of presentations on the proposal were made to each League division, many departments, and to most of the area city manager groups throughout the state. Accountability to the Membership Based upon membership input, the Task Force recommended, and the board adopted, significant changes to the original proposal. These include: establishing long-term goals, annual program objectives, and regular reports to the membership; an unbiased, professional evaluation three times during the first five years; and a vote of the membership after five years to continue the program. Under the League's current bylaws, the board may also vote to discontinue the Grassroots Network at any time. Next Steps Cities are now asked to vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the League's bylaws relating to the establishment of the Grassroots Network, along with a new increased dues schedule to pay for the program. A ballot will be sent to each city. Ballots returned to the League must be postmarked no later than July 6, 2001. ATTACHMENT 2 * ii""Grassroots Network Actio l PZ lg The following dates constitute the time frame and action steps to implement, operate, evaluate and manage the grassroots network if approved by the League membership. DATES March, 2001 - On-going July, 2001 August 2001 September, 2001 October, 2001 November, 2001 December, 2001 - On-going December, 2003 December, 2006 December, 2007 December, 2008 ACTION Develop data base for political action. Implement recruitment program for grassroots coordinators - advertise positions. Send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to cities to solicit interest in providing office space/equipment. Initiate professional survey of membership perceptions of involvement with League legislative advocacy. Deadline for coordinator candidates' resumes. Deadline for RFPs on office space. Interviews for grassroots coordinator candidates. Make job offers to grassroots coordinators. Site Selection Committee chooses office locations. Complete membership survey Grassroots Coordinators report to work. Training Workshops for grassroots coordinators to cover: 1 ) League organization, history, goals and key issues; and, 2) Operating a grassroots program. Board of Directors sets long-term goals/short-term objectives and distributes to League membership. Program begins with introductions to membership and involvement in city official meetings. Complete mid-program survey of membership perceptions of involvement with League legislative advocacy. Program completes five years of operation. Third survey of membership is initiated to evaluate success. League membership votes to continue program. Grassroots program terminates, if membership turns down program. Program continues if membership votes to retain it. Grassroots Network Proposed Distributio~i of Staff mo e 12:~SIOYl£ D1 Legislative Coordinator ~2 Legislative Coordinators 3 Legislative Coordinators Regional Divisions 1. Redwood Empire 2. Sacramento Valley 3. Central Valley 4. South San Joaquin Valley 5. Desert-Mountain 6. Inland Empire 7. Riverside County 8. Imperial County 9. San Diego County 10. Orange County 11. Los Angeles County 12. Channel Counties 13. Monterey Bay 14. Peninsula 15. East Bay 16. North Bay ¸12 5 9 7 I Grassroots Coordinator Network Prop osed Staff Assign men ts: Cities and Legislative Districts DIVISION # STAFF. # CITIES #LEG. DIST. North Bay & Redwood Empire Sacramento Valley South San 3oaquin Central Valley Riverside, Inland Empire, Desert Mtn. Orange County Los Angeles County Channel Counties Peninsula, East Bay, Monterey Bay San Diego, Imperial County 1 46 6 1 58 8 1 37 7 1 26 4 2 54 13 1 34 10 '3 86 33 1 24 6 3 86 23 1 25 10 Grassroots Network Frequently Asked What is the Grassroots Coordinator Network? The Grassroots Coordinator Network would consist of 10 field offices staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff who would serve as grassroots coordinators. Their job would be to work with city officials and the regional divisions of the League to aggressively promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and other supporting community groups. Why do we need a Grassroots Network? The Network proposal was developed by a task force (see page 4 for a list of task force members) authorized by the League Board of Directors as part of its strategic planning process. It responds to the deep frustration of many local officials about the cities' loss of political clout, compared with other, better-positioned interest groups that . contribute millions of dollars to campaigns. The concept of establishing local field offices is used very successfully by political campaigns, as well as by teach- ers, labor and other statewide membership organizations. These groups find that a network of field offices is a well- tested means to communicate with a dispersed membership, and to mobilize local support for the organization's causes. A recent survey by researchers at Wake Forest University found. that key congressional staff, as well as government and public affairs executives, ranked grassroots activities as more effective in influencing the outcome of legislation than corporate or contract lobbying, campaign contributions or advocacy advertising. California's powerful education lobby must agree: they recently launched a new, high profile and well-funded grassroots organization called EdVoice. These are the interests against which the League must compete in Sacramento: How will cities benefit from this proposal? The goal of the Grassroots Network is to focus on major issues of concern to all cities, such as fiscal reform, increased funding for transportation and local control. Cities will benefit from the increased visibility of city issues in local and statewide media, and by holding legislators accountable back home for the votes they cast in Sacramento. The potential payback for this investment is enormous. For example, on a statewide basis the proposed $1.6 million dues increase needed to pay for the network is equivalent to only four one hundredths of one percent (0.04%) of the annual $3.8 million cities receive in sales and use taxes. It is one tenth of one percent of the $1.57 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Portions of both VLF and sales and use tax revenues are at risk from legislative raids if the state suffers another recession. The costs are also relatively small when compared to the expenditures made by organizations that compete with cities and the League for the allocation of dollars in Sacramento. For example, the 1999-2000 legislative session just two of the statewide public employee unions~ that sponsored or lobbied for SB 402 (the binding arbitration bill) reported spending about $3.1 million in campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide office or Page 2 of 4 current statewide office holders, in addition to their expenditures for in-house or contract lobbying. During the same period, 'the California Teachers Association, which competes very effectively for funding in Sacramento, reported spending approximately $2.7 million on lobbying expenses on education issues. In the same period, the CTA also spent approximately $6.3 million on campaign contributions to legislatorS, candidates for statewide office and current statewide office holders, and $35.2 million on initiative campaigns to further advance their policy agenda. What would the grassroots coordinators do? The coordinators role is to increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions, by helping busy city officials focus strategic attention on state legislators' and the governor's decisions affecting cities. The coordinators will work to build relationships with local elected and appointed officials, local media, and other individuals and organizations in the region who might be called upon to be part of a local coalition on a particular League initiative or pending legislation. The coordinators' would: · Arrange meetings for city officials with legislators, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas. · Support mayors, council members and city managers in drafting sample letters from cities; and train city staff on understanding and accessing the legislative process. · Provide regular presentations on legislative developments and insight into the political dynamics influencing legislative developmen!s. · Meet regularly with legislative staff, media representatives 'and community groups about the Leagu e's legislative priorities. What kind of person will be hired to staff the Network? Everyone associated with this project has concluded that the best way to make this Network effective is to hire seasoned, professional, political organizers, not policy analysts or technical people right out of college. The budget provides an attractive salary and benefit package to do this. In addition to reassigning some League staff, we expect to recruit savvy political people who have worked on legislative or local elections, staffed legislative offices, or worked in public affairs or campaign consulting firms. Where will the field offices be located? The 10 field offices would be located around the state to'ensure that coordinators are available to serve each of the League's 16 geographic divisions, while still balancing the need to maintain close contact with legislative districts and to be accessible to all cities. A map of the distribution by region is available in the information packet developed by the League. The League will send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to solicit interest by cities in hosting a coordinator. The goal will be to achieve the highest impact on League lobbying and greatest visibility among mem- bers, while still keeping expenses as low as possible. How does the Network relate to the ABC effort? Page 3 of 4 AP ~'// Action for Better Cities was created to make expenditures and engage in "political" activities such as statewide initiative campaigns. Recently, through in-kind contributions of staff time and strategic counsel, ABC was able to play a major role in helping to defeat Proposition 37, the initiative that would have severely lin3ited cities' abilities to impose fees to support local regulatory activities and provide services. While both the proposed Network and ABC share a similar objective, namely to gain' more political clout for cities, thi~ Network coordinators will focus on organizing local activities in support of League legislative positions. ABC will lead any initiative effort in support of fiscal stability and similar objectives. Our city already pays a lobbyist. Why do we need this network too? The Network doesn't replace the ongoing need to have a strong lobbying presence in Sacramento. (In fact, part of the task force recommendation which has been approved by the League Board of Directors is to set aside at least $50,000/year in the budget to hire contract lobbyists in Sacramento to assist League staff at strategic times on some key issues.) Cities that currently have their own contract or in-house lobbyist will probably continue to find that having their own representation makes sense, for two reasons. First, the League's lobbying program represents the interests of all 476 cities. It lobbies the legislature on matters of statewide importance to cities, and cannot provide the representation needed to address the individual needs of cities or even a single region. Second, the grassroots coordinators will be networking'and organizing people, not lobbyists. This work will support and enhance the efforts of all city lobbyists, regardless of whether they are con- tractors or in-house staff. Several prominent contract lobbyists who represent individual cities have commented that they see the network proposal as complementary to their ability to represent their clients. What criteria will be used to measure the Network's effectiveness? The League board specified that, if the Network were approved by the membership, the board would set both long- term goals and annualized objectives for the program and report them to the membership. The board also required that the League engage the services of a consultant to conduct a professional membership survey that establishes a base line of information about city officials' perceptions of the effectiveness of the League's legislative advocacy efforts and the relative level of involvement of city officials in support of that advocacy work. The board's intention is to repeat that survey at the end of year three and following year five, comparing changing attitudes and levels of efforts. How will the League be held accountable for the Network's success or failure? In addition to the survey to assess members' perceptions and actual involvement in grassroots activities, the board also directed the staff to (1) establish a separate Grassroots Network account in the League budget, so that mem- bers can track Network expenses; (2) publish an annual legislative voting records report, including a ranking of legislators and the Governor on key city issues; (3) report board goals and annual legislative and policy objectives to the membership; (4) provide regular reports at the Executive Forum, Annual Conference and League department and division meetings; and (5) provide periodic reports to the membership. Will this new program have a sunset date? On or before the end of the sixth year of the program (December 31,2007), the board will ask the membership to vote on the question of continuing the program. If the membership votes against the program continuation, the Network would be shut down, and cease operations by no later than the end of the seventh year (December 31, 2008). Page 4 of 4 What will it cost? The estimated annualized cost is $1 .6 million, spread among all member cities. This estimate is based upon the following assumptions: · Several current League staff members will be reassigned. Approximately 14 new staff will be hired. · Much of the cost for the individual offices will be subsidized by the cities where the office is located, for ex- ample, by making office space and support staff available within a city facility. How will costs be distributed? Costs would be distributed among all cities based upon the League's dues structure, which is based on population. Some small cities pay only a few hundred dollars, while the largest cities pay tens of thousands of dollars. The median dues statewide are currently about $4,930. The Network would increase median dues by approximately $2,588.2 When would a dues increase start? If the membership votes to approve the bylaw amendment the proposed dues increase would be effective on July 1, 2001. // Grassroots Lobbying Task Force Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara - Chair John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville, and President of the City Managers' Department - Vice Chair Eileen Ansari, Council Member, Diamond Bar Harry Armstrong, Council Member, Clovis Lee Ann Garcia, Council Member, Grand Terrace Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek Jim Marshall, City Manager, Merced Patsy Marshall, Council Member, Buena Park Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas Kevin O'Rourke, City Manager, Fairfield Susan Peppier, Council Member, Redlands Greg Pettis, Council Member, Cathedral City Mike Siminski, Council Member, Lompoc Armour Smith, Vice Mayor, Modesto Anne Solem, Council Member, Mill Valley Richard Tefank, Former Chief of Police, Buena Park Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey Endnote ~ The California Professional Firefighters Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California. 2 For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article IV, section 2, is would be suspended for the years 2001 and 2002. The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will apply to total dues in year 2003 and years following.