The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - August 21, 1985 (51)Following discussion, Council, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Olson second, directed the City Clerk to check with FPPC to ascertain the mount of campaign contributions that were received by members of this Comanittee from the Trial Lawyers Association. Further, the City Attorney was directed to write a "scathing" letter, on behalf of the Council, to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee setting forth the facts set out in this newspaper article and urging their vote for justice. CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A. PETERSON C M Ly anager DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED'M. REdD CITY OF LODI ALICE M. REI CHE Mayor Pro Tempore.CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk EVELYN M. OLSON CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN - JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 City Attaey . JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209)`334-5634 - August 26, 1985 Senator Milton Marks Senate Judiciary ConTnittee State Capitol, Roan 2070 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Marks: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial :sawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involves: in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity .should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shams that public entities cannot expend the ironies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the Cali-fornia Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long pariod of tip from making an adequate living. Please support Af, 200 and show your camutment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINC124M MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED 94.-REID Mayor Pro Tempore EVELYN M. OLSQN JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr., JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER August 26, 1985 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 Assemblyman Elihu Harris Assembly Judiciary Cammittee State Capitol, Rcart 6005 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblyman Harris: THOMAS A. PETERSON - C i ry -Manager ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who shouY suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfor_tun�. ply in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very weir have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in oreer to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I behave this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature i.n order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter tc any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of tinge from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cam utment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc CITY COUNCIL E THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor CITY O F T ® I FRED M- REID ,L" ALICE M. RF.lMCHE Mayor Pro Tempore CI`'Y HALL, 221 WEST. PINE STREET. City Clerk EVELYN M. OLSON: CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LOD1, CALIFORNIA.95241-1910 City Attor_pey JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 - August 26, 1985 - Assemblyman Wayne Grisham Assembly Judiciary Cc nrLittee State Capitol, Roan 401-7 - Sacramento, CFS 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblyman Grisham: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or' private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expand the monies that the California Trial. Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters you: property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers .Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature riot to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accept.Lng the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good pecple of this State. Ve truly yours, DAVID M. HI iCE MAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED M.REID Mayor Pro Tempore EVELYN M.OLSON JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER August 26, 1985 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)334-5634 Ass-emblyman Lloyd G. Connelly Assembly Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Roan 2179 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblyman Connelly: THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers .Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute Outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaming access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wr-ongf-Llly enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain bit his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cmn-i.tment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, U DAVID M. HINCHMAN MPSOR, CITY OF LORI RMS : vc Yet again_, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you- are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should stili be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMLLN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A- PETERSON - DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor CITY OF LODI City Manager FRED M. REID 1 ALICE M. REIMCHE Mayor -Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk - EVELYN M.,OLSON CALL SOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN jAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr.' LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 City Attorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634' - .> August 26, 1985 - r L: F =� C Assemblywoman Jean Duffy F Assembly Judiciary Ccm-ittee _ State Capitol, Room 2176 Sacramento, CA 95814. Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblywcman Duffy: Yet again_, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you- are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should stili be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMLLN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI CITY COUNCIL DAVID M.,HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED h1^REID Mayor -Pro Tempore EVELYN M. OLSON JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER August 26, 1985 CITY OF LORI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STRECT CALL BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209).334-5634 Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando Assembly Judiciary Ccnynittee State Capitol, Rocn 2114 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 290 Dear Assemblyman Felando: THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager ALICE M. REJMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the- wealthy hewealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the ti.m the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Iegislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCENAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RtwIS: vc CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED W. REID i Mayor Pro Tempore t EVELYN M. OLSON JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER August 26, 1985 CITE' OF LORI CITY HALL, 221 WEST.PINE STREET CALL BOX Xk6 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)334-5634 Assemblyman. Pat Johnston Assembly Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Roan 4112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblyman Johnston: THOMAS A. PETERSON _ City Manager ALU -E M. REIMCHE City Clerk- RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may eery well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. TO argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public ent_ties cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in saccepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of ti -- from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your ccnTflitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, AVID 14. HIN MAYOR, CT.T� OF LODI RMS : vc CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor FRED M. REID Mayor Pro Tempore EVELYN M. OLSON JAMES W. PINKERTON Jr. JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER August 26, 1985 CITY OF LCT CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET CALL BOX 3006. LODI, CALIFORNJA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 Assemblywcanan Maxine Waters Assembly Judiciary Comni.ttee State Capitol, Room 5016 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly.Bill 200 Dear Assemblywoman Waters: THOMAS A. PETERSON City manage.- ALICE anage: ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attoirney - Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have b --en involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend �:he monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon Vhen the felon wrongfully enters your property. Mat possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature riot to speadily pass AB 200? To allug an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of. AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of tirne from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your ccnvdtrIent to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. Hll-��N MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RISS : vc Senator Art Torres Senate Judiciary Camuttee State Capitol, Roan 4058 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Torres: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private .entity should ' still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the j legislators ir. order. to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers j Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. j ' 1t is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon wher. the felon -wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale. could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's act.,? With th? number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time fran making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your ccmni.tment to the good people of this State, Very truly ?yours, DAVID M. E_NC'IRMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI ISMS : vc Assemblyman Phillip D. Wyman Assembly Judiciary Cam-ittee State Capitol, Roan 5135 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Assemblyman Wyman: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in thiF- case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who shoul(71 suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may verb- well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public of pri',rate property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in orde - for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain_ by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the nuTter of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate. living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, / DAVID M. IIINC��SAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc August 26, 1985 Assemblyman Richard Robinson Assembly Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Rom 5155 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bili 200 Dear Assemblyman Robinson: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured cn public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the u oer of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LcODI PMS:vc CITY COUNCIL - THOMAS A. PETERSON. - DAVID M. HINCHMAN. Mayor T CIT City Manager FRED M: REID 1 ALICE M. REtMCHE Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221_WEST. PINE STREET City.Cle.rk EVELYN.M. OLSON CALL BOX 3006, RONALD M. STEIN JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA'.95241-1910 Cityilttorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 August 26, 1985 Assemblyman Richard Robinson Assembly Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Rom 5155 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bili 200 Dear Assemblyman Robinson: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured cn public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the u oer of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LcODI PMS:vc i i it CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A. PETERSON DAVID M. HINCHMAN. Mayor % �j CI TYLODI City Manager FRED M. MID 1 j, ALICE M. REIMCHE Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk EVELYN M_ OLSON ;CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN -JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI,"CALIFORNIA 95241-1910: City Attorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 August 26, 1985 Senator Bill Lockyer Senate Judiciary Ca[mittee State Capitol, Roan 2032 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Be Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Lockyer: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity a- the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that ,the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. + Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCIMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc Assemblyman Sunny Mojonnier Assembly Judiciary C_armittee State Capitol, Room 4005 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Asserrbl�,-.nan Mojonnier: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the. wealthy public entity? Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the ironies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Ve truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A. PETERSON DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor CITY O L ®D I City Manager FRED hL RE1D ��►�/// ALICE_ M.REIMCHE Mayor Tem ore Y P CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk Ea/ELYN M. OLSON CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN JAMES W.PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241 1910'. City Attorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 August 26, 1985 Assemblyman Sunny Mojonnier Assembly Judiciary C_armittee State Capitol, Room 4005 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Asserrbl�,-.nan Mojonnier: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the. wealthy public entity? Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the ironies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Ve truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc Senator Nick Petris Senate Judiciary Committee State Capitol, Roan 4058 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Petris: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private. entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult fox- the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the. Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of tim fr--Ta making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your ccxmitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, ow'f dtlt, . DAVID M. HINCEEAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI I*IS : vc Senator Barry Keene. Senate Judiciary Convattee State Capitol, Rocnn 313 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Keene: Yet again, another battle faces the publ4_c entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfort,3nately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitarent to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc Senator Robert Presley Senate Judiciary CCaTuattee State Capitol, Roan 4048 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Presley: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal F-ctivity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year aline, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial T:awyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cat'¢nitment to tie good people of this State. Very truly yours, CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. THOMAS A_ PETERSON DAVID M. HINCHMAN, MayorCITY � � � o � � � � T City ,Manager ERED'M. REID 1 ALICE M. REIMCHE Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HAIL, 221 WEST PINE :STREET City Clerk - EVELYN M. OLSON _CALL 60X"3006` RONALD M. STEIN JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. tODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 City Attorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634. August 26, 1985 Senator Robert Presley Senate Judiciary CCaTuattee State Capitol, Roan 4048 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Presley: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal F-ctivity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year aline, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial T:awyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cat'¢nitment to tie good people of this State. Very truly yours, RMS:vc DAVID M. HINCTEIIAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc Re: Re Assembly Bili 200 Dear Senator Richardson: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in- accepting naccepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this. State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, DAVID M. HII`IONAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS : vc �. . gg r�r CITY COUNCIL THOMAS A. PETERSON Senator Ed Davis Senate Judiciary C nni.ttee State Capitol, Room 2048 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Davis: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity? Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue '-hat the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plai.l-itiff is an absolute Outr,ige. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of AB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. 'Tease support AB 200 and show your commitment to the good people of this State. very truly yours, G DAVID M. HINCWIAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc Senator Diane Watson Senate Judiciary C mni.ttee State Capitol, Room 4040 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Watson: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dealing with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in criminal activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legl*slators i^. order to cont; - nue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Lodi City Council to understand the- need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully enters your property. What possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs coi:nter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the rnmber of attorneys in this State, I am sure that the passage of P.B 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate liv:-ig. Please support AB 200 and sho•, your commitment to the good people of this State. Very truly yours, G DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor C1 1 Y OF 6�i LUDI FRED M. REID 1 1. Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET" E,VELYN M. OLSON - CALL BOX 3006 , JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 August 26, 1985 Senator John Doolittle Senate Judiciary Ccm-aittee State Capitol, Rom 5082 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Re Assembly Bill 200 Dear Senator Doolittle: Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dea?i.ng with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in crimiral activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Loci City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully er crs ycLw property. what possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personai responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State,. I am sure that the passage of PB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cc mittnent to the good people of this State. very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager ALICE M. REIMCHE City Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City'Attorney '1K. s Yet again, another battle faces the public entities. The California Trial Lawyers Association in this case is holding up the "poor plaintiff" and says "Who should suffer, the poor plaintiff or the wealthy public entity?" Unfortunately in this case, you are dea?i.ng with a plaintiff who may very well have been involved in crimiral activity at the time the poor plaintiff was injured on public or private property. To argue that the public or private entity should still be liable for injury to said poor plaintiff is an absolute outrage. It is a public shame that public entities cannot expend the monies that the California Trial Attorneys do in gaining access to the legislators in order to continue the drain on public entities' coffers. I believe this year alone, the California Trial Lawyers Association spent over $600,000 gaining access to the Legislature. It is difficult for the Loci City Council to understand the need to protect a felon when the felon wrongfully er crs ycLw property. what possible rationale could the California Trial Lawyers Association be giving to the Legislature in order for the Legislature not to speadily pass AB 200? To allow an alleged felon to gain by his misdeeds, runs counter to any system of logic. Whatever happened to personai responsibility in accepting the logical consequences of one's acts? With the number of attorneys in this State,. I am sure that the passage of PB 200 will not deter the attorneys for a long period of time from making an adequate living. Please support AB 200 and show your cc mittnent to the good people of this State. very truly yours, DAVID M. HINCHMAN MAYOR, CITY OF LODI RMS:vc s -fir pct r^ o, •6 — x Mz S 1983-84 Contributions from California Trial Lawyers Association Senate Judiciary Committee Assembly Judiciary CTmittee Milton Marks $ 7,000.00 Elihu Harris $ 9,600.00 John Doolittle 10,750.00 Wayne Grisham Diane Watson 8,250.00 Lloyd G. Connelly 5,224.00 Ed Davis 5,000.00 Jean Duffy H. L. Richardson Gerald N. Felando 1,000.00 Robert Presley 1,500.00 Pat Johnston 13,400.00 Barry Keene 4,000.00 Sunny Mojonnier 5,600.00 Nick Petris 12,500.00 Richard Robinson 37,000.00 Art T(,rres 9,500.00 Maxine Waters 13,800.00 Bill Lockyer 4,000.00 Phillip D. Wyman i�.n� •, i � r -L.`{..-. - t �t `� �"� t f k�. �7 ,.�4�-...t ',.. ,..-'"�-'- �'`. f 1�, xa� � "�d.�*+. `:.....°+,.-t'q F . ..� 3� Met l _ 1 4,Walf r '. ... .., f ..,. ....�. ..... yt ;� S i�.n� •, i � r -L.`{..-. - t �t `� �"� t f k�. �7 ,.�4�-...t ',.. ,..-'"�-'- �'`. f 1�, xa� � "�d.�*+. `:.....°+,.-t'q F . ..� 3� l _ 1 erase a paint s ear than it pray oil , orbus.The f Criminal rLihi¢ s e desti'we'r; H"ll wild, the costs the rest tis to clean F A BURGL.-., invades your them home, beats ,,clu bloody and then breaks his leg on a loose stair step considerations aside, yjewels, while carrying off your family �•ou wonder at what all this he can site you for damages ut the state of civilization. In for not warning him about that step. times it was said in sorrow That's the law in California, barbarians were at the thanks to the feverish reasoning of our own time they're within the state Supreme Court. -s, I guess, and that much 'ficult to deal with. Two examples of how it works: 0, In San Benito County a thief stole ,a motorbike, went joyriding across a farmer's field, turned clown in group of distinguished cit- his private lane, hit a pothole and view salaries every four was thrown off the bike. The thief id make a recommendation sued the farmer and won $425,000 -esident. The president's pro- for back injuries- mless disapproved within 30 �...AI young burglar fell through eiiher hoose of Congress, the skylight of a high school in R�,cid- ien take effect. ing and hurt his spine. Ile.sued the school and the city, cnarging they result has been a series of "failed to warn him the skylight was iendations that were cut by unsafe". its and then, in most cases, I by Congress. On top of Because of the Supreme Court the primary mechanism of precedent, nlegisla- he was granted an out -of - ,vision, the so called court settlement for $260MOO plus for life. o,-,Wi s, quite properly, de.- $1,200 aiioath mconstitutional in -1983. Oil Tuesday 10 members of the state Senate will have a chance to clo first step toward'resolvingx their part toward endink such non - is, the present commissio sense. Incredibly, there is no assur- MY refrained from making ance they will do so unless voters put :endrtioai on salary levels. the pressure on thein. They passed it has proposed a simple btr up that chance Iasi month. is "fix" to both the political stitutional problems. The 10 senators make up the. Seri - ate Judiciary Committee, and what art, action by both houses of ,hey should do is to send Assembly s would be required to reject Bill 200 to the full Senate with a ent's pay recommendations. do -pass recommendation. AB 200 is a ection would then be subject simple, sensible bili by Assenibiyman lential veto, which could on- . Alister McAlister to stop the kind of erridden by the traditional suits I described.. ;is vote in both houses. McAlister says the main opposi- wesident is expected to re- tion comes from the California Trial i the commission's proposal Lawyers Association, which bristles he next weeks. fie would be when anything threatens the law. accept it and Congress vers' gravy bowl of personal injury lsed to support that decision. suits. appens we will have a new . er halting t he drift toward Last month its opposition was enough. At a hearing on July 9 only lent by the eh. three niembers of the Judiciary Committee voted for it -- Milton nechanisrns h} iheniseives ;harks; John Doolittle and Diane the job. By Jan. 1, 1985, the Watso4..Three were absent --- Ed ion will make a specific pro- Davis, 11. 1.- Richardson and Robert pay adjustment. And that is Presley. Four members sat on their :e rubber will nice! the road. hands'— Barrti 'eene Nick ems, president and the. Congress in Torres and Bill Lockyer. to decide whether to pay r public servants enough to A similar sorry performance 'ic; best Tuesday and AB 200 will die, just as Alliarl�c Of U'difornia'1'axpayersa?:d The injustice is compounded by Iliforn,ed Voters: the court's more recent "delpock ets" rule: ,lake some w- elect I')Jwlps hopes a siruilar effort wi!! sucker pay even though he was only persuade those 10 key senators to a lit lie bit to blame. shape up But lie concedes th Lawyers Association speaks ttukl_ McAlister has been working to guage�iE 5 unclersf hod tnth� Ia`" correct the Supreme Court's folly —tore—campaigtT'dRnai.ions.tcitaltt4 ' since 1979, when a bill denying tres- �TfofL tfian $(100,060 iii two years: passers the right to sue was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by In a sense the 10 senators will he - Gov. Jerry Brown. Two subsequent on trial. Will they vote for justice or... a hills were killed in committee. �, for juice? SATUR "If A-SiN4DAY LY . With the arrival of our most recent shipment, we are offering contemporary hand -knotted, highest quality Persian.&.Turidshl I . 'NRIENTAL CAR` "S "Z�ut W iw is 'ap , % the end"re "shipment. ALL SIZES SPY -11 -ES Geometric & floral ... tribal to court designs QAREMON' RUG CO. gine Oriental Rugs from the 191h CenMi)• to the 1'iz:sz iii 6087 Claremont Avenue ton the e�O crkc1c ;'ala;tnc' hc�rca x) three presirnis attempts at conec- r-1�3 Sun Fri. l 6, Ott 10 S �1 tri tit ` �' i Times Syndicate tiorl died before. it. r News Release: 85-21 For Further Information Contact: July 10, 1985 Lvnn Montgomery (916) 322-5901 INTEREST GROUPS SPEND $112.5 MILLION TO LOBBY STATE GOVERNMENT The Fair Political Practices Commission reported today that $112.5 million was spent over the past two years by private and punlic interest groups to lobby California legislative and administrative decisions. At the same time, most of the private organizations involved in lobbying provided an additional $19.5 million in campaign contributions to state politicians, primarily incumbent state officeholders, the FPPC said. The FPPC issued a lengthy report detailing lobbying activities during the 1983-84 legislative session which disclosed that lobbying expenditures nearly doubled since 1979-80, the last time the agency analyzed such spending. During that earlier period, total spending to influence state government was $59 million. N The FPPC's report identifies 1,425 organizations which ;pent sums ranging from a few thousand to millions of dollars in 1983-84 in an effort to influence the direction of state government. Of that total, 448 spent $50,000 or more. Participants in the lobbying process ranged from the largest corporations, banks, utilities, financial institutions, agricultural interests and labor organizations to cities, counties, school districts and public employees. "The report vividly details the vast array of interest groups that have a stake in California state government," FPPC Chairman Lean Stanford said. "The fact that those stakes may be quite high in economic terms is obvious judging by the huge amounts of money some of these organizations are willing to spend," Stanford added. Under the voter -approved Political Reform Act of 1974, lobbyists and their employers are required to file quarterly reports in Sacramento revealing their lobbying expenses and campaign contributions. That data was used to compile today's FPPC report. The disclosure statements are available for public and press inspection at the Secretary of State's office. The FPPC report classifies lobbying interests into 11 general categories. The business category was the largest, with corporatirns, banks and insurance companies spending more t?:an (more) IN $44 million, or nearly 40 percent of all lobbying payments during the two-year period. In 1979-80, the total for business was $21 million. Utilities ranked second, spending $26 million or approximately 23 percent of the total, compared to only $6 million in 1979-80. The FPPC pointed out, however, that most utility expenditures are related to legally required Public Utility Commission regulatory proceedings, and not to traditional state capitol lobbying efforts. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Company is listed as having reported the largest expenditure, $14,357,288, of any lobbyist employer. However, 97 percent of that total was related to public PUC hearings, and only 3 percent, or about $400,000, to Sacramento lribbying during the two years. Health care providers and health related organizations { accounted for 10.4 percent of the lobbying expenditures, or $11.7 million, followed by cities, counties and other local governmental entities with expenditures :.otaling $8.5 million, or 7.6 percent. Spending figures for the other seven categories of lobbying entities in rank order are as follows: 3 c 't Education $5,210,776 Miscellaneous $4,650,939 Public Employees $4,591,447 (more) Yr Agriculture $2,631,432 Legal $2,596,548 Labor $2,530,427 The amounts reported by the 1,425 lobbyist employers and others listed in the -report include payments for salaries for lobbyists and their support staffs, research and other overhead. (Begining on page C-1 of the report, the amounts paid to lobbyists, "other payments to influence" and campaign contributions are shown separately for each filer.) Excluding utility companies, the top ten spenders for lobbying activity were Western Oil and Gas Association, $1,879,119; the California Medical Association, „1,517,447; Chevron USA, $1,126,207; California State Employees Association, $1,060,179; the California Teachers Association, $807,108; Association of California Insurance Companies, $800,882; California Building Industry Association, $773,901; the California Railroad Association, $757,070; the County of Los Angeles, $729,390; and the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, $724,991. The Commission report also lists lobbyists and lobbying 90__' firms and the payments they received from clients beginning on page D-1. Of the firms providing lobbying services, A -K Associates received the most from clients with a total of _ $2,424,249 during 1983-84. The firm employed 11 lobbyists to provide services to its 44 clients. amore} � •` -�- � k � ,ry �.v..: �� C,_.._,u.'Yty .lam � �kl��n'vk,° ,� z _. �.y2t'9� -,v ii b* ,k /' M Advocation. Inc., another large lobbying firm, received the second largest amount, $1,954,454, from its 33 clients during the two year period. Advocation Inc. employs three lobbyists and shares some of its clients with another lobbying firm, Capital Advocates Inc. Carpenter-Zenovich and Associates ranked third among the loobying firms with total receipts of $1,069,376 during 1983-84. (The individual lobbyists employed by lobbying firms are listed in Appendix I at the back of the report.) The FPPC report also shows campaign contributions to state officials from lobbying entities or their affiliated political action committees. (See page E-1 for a list of contributors and recipients.) A total of $19,488,612 was contributed by these lobbying organizations from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1984. All of the top 50 lobbyist contributors gave contributions to legislative incumbents, and averaged 73 contributions to incumbents. The average number of contributions to non -incumbent candidates during the 1984 Primary and General election period from this same group was five. About half of the top 50 lobbying interest groups gave to competing candidates during the primary and general elections. The California Association. of Realtors contributed to competing (more) candidates in 13 races, the most of any in the top 50. (A list of incumbent legislators' committee assignments is in Appendix II at the back of the report.) Copies of the 1983-84 lobbying report are available from the Commission offices at 1100 K Street, Sacramento for $5 each or by calling the Commission':: Technical Assistance and Analysis Division at (916) 322-5652. AMENDED IN SENATE JULY £, _)85 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 3£l, 1885 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 16. 1985 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -13&545 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 200 Introduced by Assembly Member McAlister (Principal coauthor: Senator Presley) January 8, 1985 An act to add Section 847 to the 'Civil Code, relating to liability. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 200, as amended, McAlister. Liability. Existing law does not provide immunity from liability for a person who has an interest in real property for an injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any felony, or any attempt to commit a felony, by the injured or deceased person. This bill would provide that an owner, including a public entity, as defined, having an interest in real property shall not be liable for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any of specified felonies, or any attempt to commit any of those felonies, by the injured or deceased person, if the injured person's conduct in furtherance of the felony was a proximate or legal cause of the injury, as specified. However, this bill would not limit the liability of an owner er the owner's agent which otherwise exists for willful, wanton, or feleniette criminal conduct or for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition., use, structure, or activity. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. 9S 40 i AB 200 State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECT ION 1. Section 847 is added to the Civil Code, 2 to read: 3 847. (a) An owner, including, but not limited to, a 4 public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 of the 5 Government Code, of any estate or any other interest in 6 real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, shall 7 not be liable to any person for any injury or death that 8 occurs upon that property during the course of or after 9 the commission of any of the felonies set forth in 10 subdivision (b) by the injured or deceased person. 11 (b) The felonies to which the provisions of this section 12 apply are the following: (1) Murder or velurtar y 13 manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by 14 force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily 15 harm; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, 16 menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (6) lewd acts on 17 a child under the age of 14 years; (7) any felony 18 punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison 19 for life; (8) any other felony in which the defendant 20 inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an 21 accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant uses a 22 firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent 23 to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly 24 weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by ' 25 a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly 26 weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a 27 destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; 28 (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive 29 causing great bodily injury; (17) exploding a destructive 30 device or any explosive with intent to murder, (18) 31 burglary; (19) robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) taking of a 32 hostage by an inmate of a state prison; (22) ate to 33 eem-w4 ft €elen-y pufti� 1e de&t,h er as e �r 34 the state prises Arte; +2,-Y any felony in which the 35 defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly 36 weapon; {-24} (2.3) selling, 1'uraishing, administering, or 96 60 b -3— AB 200 1 providing heroin, cocaine, or phencyclidine (PCP) to a 2 minor; +25� (24) grand theft as defined in Sections 487 3 and 487a of the Penal Code; and +26} (25) any attempt 4 to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an 5 assault. 6 (c) The Limitation on liability conferred by this section 7 arises at the moment the injured or deceased person ID 8 commences the felony or attempted felony and extends 9 to the moment the injured or deceased person is no 10 longer upon the property. 11 (d) The limitation on liability conferred by this 12 section applies only when the injured person's conduct in 13 furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in 14 subdivision (b) proximately or legally causes the .injury or 15 death. 16 (e) The limitation on liability conferred by this 17 section arises only upon the charge of a felony listed in 18 subdivision (b) and the subsequent conviction of that 19 felony or a lesser included felony or misdemeanor arising 20 from a charge of a felony listed in subdivision (b) . During 21 the pendency of any such criminal action, a civil action 22 alleging this liability shall be abated and the statute of 23 limitations on the civil cause of action shall be tolled. .24 ie+ 25 (f) This section does not limit the liability of an owner 26 or an owner's agent which otherwise exists for willful, 27 wanton, or fekwtietts criminal conduct, or for willful or 28 malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous 29 condition, use, structure, or activity. 30 31 (g) The limitation on liability provided by this section 32 shall be in addition to any other avai'able defense. H Q X 9s 90 `= isxA _. Q X 9s 90 `= 0 P LEGISLATER-8 ------ - League of Cal iforn ifilGifies milo: 1,5 1400 K Street a Sacramento 95614 a (916) 444-5790 r , r ALICE K. RDI, G�ii935 ciT Y CLE - MAYORS AND COUNCIL P':BIBERS LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE SACRAMENTO COMMUNI'T'Y CENTER MAY 20-21 All city officials are urged to attend this important and extremely useful lobbying conference. Up to date briefing sessions will be devoted to gas tax, tort reform, over -sized truck access, absentee ballots, partisan involvement in local elections, the Governor's hazardous waste reorganization plan, infrastructure financing, implementation of the F.L.S.A., and the FPPC's newly focused attention on local electec officials. Registration opens at 8:30 a.m. and the program begins at 10:30 on Monday, May 20. May 10, 1985 *****************************LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIFS********;r****************** 1. SENATE BUDGET ACTION: GENERAL REVENUE SHARING. 2. Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Peace Officer and Firefighter Labor Negotiations. SB 1398 (Dills). Oppose. 3. State Public Employment Relations Board. Unfair Labor Practices. Public Employees Strikes. SB 1254 (Dills). Passes Senate Governmental Or- ganization Committee - Next Hearing: Senate Appropriations. Oppose. 4. Property Tax Allocation. Voted Pension Overrides. AB 13 (Roos). Hear- ing: Senate Local.C1vernment Committee, Wednesday, May 15. Support. 5. Tort Reform. Some Progress Being Made. 6. Rent Control Bill Reported Out of Assembly Housinq and Community Develop- ment Committee. AB 483 (Costa). Oppose. 7. Restriction on Local Taxing Authority. Hearing: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, Monday, May 13. ACA 26 and AB 1366 (Johnson). Oppose. 8. Brown Act. Attorneys' Fees. AB 112.3 (Chacon). Oppose 9. Brown Act Bill Advances to Senate. A3 1001 (McAlister). Oppose. 10. Naylor Act Repeal. AB 2198 (Felando). Hearing: Assembly Education Com- mittee, Tuesday, May 21. Oppose. 11. Vehicle Registration Fee Amnesty Program— AB 2)00 'Davis). Pas:=o-s, A::-- setrbly Transp<jrtatlon Cccii,ittee. Supporu. r orn2 Cities Viork Together 0 P LEGISLATER-8 ------ - League of Cal iforn ifilGifies milo: 1,5 1400 K Street a Sacramento 95614 a (916) 444-5790 r , r ALICE K. RDI, G�ii935 ciT Y CLE - MAYORS AND COUNCIL P':BIBERS LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE SACRAMENTO COMMUNI'T'Y CENTER MAY 20-21 All city officials are urged to attend this important and extremely useful lobbying conference. Up to date briefing sessions will be devoted to gas tax, tort reform, over -sized truck access, absentee ballots, partisan involvement in local elections, the Governor's hazardous waste reorganization plan, infrastructure financing, implementation of the F.L.S.A., and the FPPC's newly focused attention on local electec officials. Registration opens at 8:30 a.m. and the program begins at 10:30 on Monday, May 20. May 10, 1985 *****************************LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIFS********;r****************** 1. SENATE BUDGET ACTION: GENERAL REVENUE SHARING. 2. Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Peace Officer and Firefighter Labor Negotiations. SB 1398 (Dills). Oppose. 3. State Public Employment Relations Board. Unfair Labor Practices. Public Employees Strikes. SB 1254 (Dills). Passes Senate Governmental Or- ganization Committee - Next Hearing: Senate Appropriations. Oppose. 4. Property Tax Allocation. Voted Pension Overrides. AB 13 (Roos). Hear- ing: Senate Local.C1vernment Committee, Wednesday, May 15. Support. 5. Tort Reform. Some Progress Being Made. 6. Rent Control Bill Reported Out of Assembly Housinq and Community Develop- ment Committee. AB 483 (Costa). Oppose. 7. Restriction on Local Taxing Authority. Hearing: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, Monday, May 13. ACA 26 and AB 1366 (Johnson). Oppose. 8. Brown Act. Attorneys' Fees. AB 112.3 (Chacon). Oppose 9. Brown Act Bill Advances to Senate. A3 1001 (McAlister). Oppose. 10. Naylor Act Repeal. AB 2198 (Felando). Hearing: Assembly Education Com- mittee, Tuesday, May 21. Oppose. 11. Vehicle Registration Fee Amnesty Program— AB 2)00 'Davis). Pas:=o-s, A::-- setrbly Transp<jrtatlon Cccii,ittee. Supporu. r FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 19. Mandatory Retirement/Age Discrimination. H.R. 1435 (Hughes, D-iU ). 20. IRS Recordkeeping Rules. H.R. 1869. 21. Minimum Corporate Tax. 22. Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA). 1. Senate Budget P_ction: General Revenue Sharing. The Senate Republican leadership successfully engineered the passage of the "Dole II" deficit reduc- tion package on Thursday night, May 9. Final action came at 2 a.m. on a 50 to 49 vote with Vice President Bush casting the tie breaking vote. Senator Pete Wilson, (R -CA) was brought in by ambulance to vote for the plan. The major provisions of the bill which affect cities are as follows: General Revenue Sharing - Funding at FY 85 14vel, ($4.6 billion) for FY 86. Required termination thereafter. Community Development Block Grants, (CDBG) - 10% cut from the program beginning October 1, 1986. Mass Transit Funding - Operating Assistance would be cut by 20% in FY 86. Urban Development Action Grants, (UDAG) - Cut 20%. The "Dole II" package will reduce the deficit by an estimated $56 billion. This Budget Resolution now goes to the House where swift action is expected. Markup hearings will begin Tuesday, the 14th, in the House Budget Committee on their version of the budget. Substantial portions of the House budget are rumored to be already decided. However, the fate of General Revenue Sharin- is still unclear. It is yet to be determined whether GRS will be retained or how much of a cut the program will suffer in the House. � :r - 2 - %111 12. Local Sales X Records Under Control of 3rd of E.qua lizati; Availability to City officials and Consultants Under Contract to cities_ AB 1611 (Cortese). Support. 13. Compensation for Downzoning. SB 615 (Seymour). Sent to Interim Study_ 14. Cable Television. Cities Mandated to Support Foundation for Public Ser- vice Television. AB 1372 (Moore), SB 683 (Montoya). Postponed Until 1986. 15. Hazardous Materials Transportation. AB 1861 (Campbell). Review and Comment. 16. Shift of Lien Date from March 1 to January 1. SB 917 (Vuich). Review and Comment. 17. Alcoholic Beverages. Service Station Mini -Marts. AB 1433 (Duffy). Information. 18. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. (a) SB 1454 (B. Greene), (b) AB 1091 (Campbell) FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 19. Mandatory Retirement/Age Discrimination. H.R. 1435 (Hughes, D-iU ). 20. IRS Recordkeeping Rules. H.R. 1869. 21. Minimum Corporate Tax. 22. Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA). 1. Senate Budget P_ction: General Revenue Sharing. The Senate Republican leadership successfully engineered the passage of the "Dole II" deficit reduc- tion package on Thursday night, May 9. Final action came at 2 a.m. on a 50 to 49 vote with Vice President Bush casting the tie breaking vote. Senator Pete Wilson, (R -CA) was brought in by ambulance to vote for the plan. The major provisions of the bill which affect cities are as follows: General Revenue Sharing - Funding at FY 85 14vel, ($4.6 billion) for FY 86. Required termination thereafter. Community Development Block Grants, (CDBG) - 10% cut from the program beginning October 1, 1986. Mass Transit Funding - Operating Assistance would be cut by 20% in FY 86. Urban Development Action Grants, (UDAG) - Cut 20%. The "Dole II" package will reduce the deficit by an estimated $56 billion. This Budget Resolution now goes to the House where swift action is expected. Markup hearings will begin Tuesday, the 14th, in the House Budget Committee on their version of the budget. Substantial portions of the House budget are rumored to be already decided. However, the fate of General Revenue Sharin- is still unclear. It is yet to be determined whether GRS will be retained or how much of a cut the program will suffer in the House. � :r - 2 - . ntact your kepresentati eCom• m3essential that yo,i3r.,i f to ur'?e them to retain General Revenue Sharing in the House Buc' et Package. ------------------------------------------------------ 2. --------------2. APPOSE Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Peace Officer aria Firefighter Labor Negotiations. SB 1398 (Dills). Reported out of Senate Governmental Organization Ca74nittee. Next Hearing: Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Governmental Organization Committee easily passed SB 398 on Tuesday. The vote on the bill was: Ayes (7) Alquist, Carpenter_, Dills, B. Greene, Keene, Robbins, Rosenthal. Noes (2) Beverly and Maddy; Not voting (2) Campbell and Foran. SB 1398 will be heard next in the Serrate Appropriations Committee. The bill is definitely alive and city officials must once again lobV;y forcefully the members on the Senate Appropriations Committee. SB 1398 imposes compulsory and binding arbitration for the settlement of "economic issues." The proponents argue that the tradeoff for compulsory and binding arbitration is the prohibition against strikes and other job actions on economic issues. In short, this authorizes strikes on "non -economic" issues. The irony of SB 1398 is that it institutes a system of compulsory and binding arbitration and legalizes public employee strikes in California. There are many arguments against a system of compulsory and binding arbitration (see Legislative Bulletin #14-1985). The Senate Appropriations C —mittee will focus on the fiscal aspects of the bill which are the most detriii-ental aspects of compulsory and binding arbitration. When discussing SB 139E with members of the Appropriations Committee, point out the following: 49 1. State action to mandate compulsory and binding arbitration is a major fiscal cost for which the state is responsible. The Legislative Counsel has ruled the state is fiscally responsible for the costs of the arbitration process plus the amount of an arbitration award -above the employer's last best offer. Also, given recent Supreme Court rulings, a compulsory and binding arbi, -ation bill. mandated on local government has no force and effect if the s..-te does not reimburse local government for the cost. 2. Compulsory and binding arbitration removes over 50% of the city budget I rom the control of the city council and gives it to an outside, nor. -elected; unaccountable third party. Contact the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and ask for a "NU" vote on SB 1398. The members of the Committee are: Alquist, Chair; Beverly, Vice Chair; Ayala, Boatwright, Campbell, Deddeh, Dills, Foran,and Maddy. 3. OPPOSE State Public Employment Relations Board, Unfair Labor_ Practices. Public Employee Strikes. SB 1254 (Dills). Passes Senate Governmental Organization Committee - Next Hearing: Senate Appropriations. The Senate Governmental Organization Committee, composed of union -oriented members w=ho are inclined to support bills such as SB 1254, did just that on Tuesday of this week. The vote on the bill was: Ayes (7)-Alquist, C.arrenter, Bill ' Greene, Keene, Robbins, Rosenthal, and Dills-, Noes (2) -Beverly, and Maddy; Not doting (2) -Foran, and Campbell. SB 1254 places local governia-ants under. tie J urisdiction of the State Public Employment Relations Board for determination of unfair labor practices. SB 1254 defines unfair- i Our primary oblection to extending State Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over local governments is the legalization of public employee strikes. The PERB has already ruled under the collective bargaining law for schools that a public employee strike in response to an unfair labor practice, as defined in this bill, is a protected activity (i.e., legal). This PERB ruling runs counter to every appellate court decision on this issue, each of which has indicated that employees do not have the right to strike unless expressly permitted to do so by the Legislature. The Legislature has never adopted a policy or. this issue but has indicated its intent in all the collective bargaining laws to prohibit public employee strikes. In addition, SB 1254 is a major state -mandated cost on cities. The state is now reimbursing school districts for all of the additional collective bargaining requirements which have been mandated on schools, including the defense of unfair labor practice charges by employer organizations. There is no difference between the requirements in. SB 1254 and these costs of school district collective bargaining now paid by the state. SB 1254 is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California and is clearly priority legislation for that Association. Because PORAC members will demand that Legislators support SB 1254 to prove their loyalty 'to law enforcement, city officials must not take this serious threat lightly. The bill will be heard next in the Sedate Appropriations Committee. Please contact the members of that Con-snittee and ask for a "NO" vote on SB 1254. The members of that Committee are: Alquist (Chair), Beverly (Vice -Chair), Ayala, Boatwright, Campbell, Deddeh, Dills, Foran, and Maddy. 4. SUPPORT Property Tax Allocation. Voted Pension Overrides. AB 13 (Root,). Hearing: Senate Local Government Committee, Wednesday, May 15. Senator Milton Marks and Assemblyman Mike Roos have now decided to proceed with just a single bill, which will be AB 13 (Roos), to extend the current moratorium an any property tax reallocation, to prevent any new property tax levy for a voted pension system and to permit current levies to remain in place without any increase in the tax rate. SB 143, therefore, will not move ahead unless amended to address another subject. ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 5. Tort Reform. Some progress being made. Numerous tort reform bills were heard this week. Some passed, some failed, and some were held in committee for further amendment and vote in the next few weeks. At the request of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, League -sponsored AB 1256 (Campbell) was taken off calendar to be included in a comprehensive study this fall of governmental tort liability problems. AB 1256 authorizes large judgments to be paid in installments. League -sponsored AB 230 (McAlister) limits liability to persons who were injured as a result of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It has ix e - en held in the committee for two weeks for further amndment and vote. `'he 4 May 10, 1985 practices in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and permits the party bringin3 t.h._ unfair labor practice charge to choose either the Siperior Court or the Stat- tagPublic Public h�iployment Relations Board to resolve the charge. Since virtually ail unfair- labor practice charges are brought by public employee organizations, cities can expect to find themselves appearing often before the state P�IuB , under the provisions of this bill. Our primary oblection to extending State Public Employment Relations Board jurisdiction over local governments is the legalization of public employee strikes. The PERB has already ruled under the collective bargaining law for schools that a public employee strike in response to an unfair labor practice, as defined in this bill, is a protected activity (i.e., legal). This PERB ruling runs counter to every appellate court decision on this issue, each of which has indicated that employees do not have the right to strike unless expressly permitted to do so by the Legislature. The Legislature has never adopted a policy or. this issue but has indicated its intent in all the collective bargaining laws to prohibit public employee strikes. In addition, SB 1254 is a major state -mandated cost on cities. The state is now reimbursing school districts for all of the additional collective bargaining requirements which have been mandated on schools, including the defense of unfair labor practice charges by employer organizations. There is no difference between the requirements in. SB 1254 and these costs of school district collective bargaining now paid by the state. SB 1254 is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California and is clearly priority legislation for that Association. Because PORAC members will demand that Legislators support SB 1254 to prove their loyalty 'to law enforcement, city officials must not take this serious threat lightly. The bill will be heard next in the Sedate Appropriations Committee. Please contact the members of that Con-snittee and ask for a "NO" vote on SB 1254. The members of that Committee are: Alquist (Chair), Beverly (Vice -Chair), Ayala, Boatwright, Campbell, Deddeh, Dills, Foran, and Maddy. 4. SUPPORT Property Tax Allocation. Voted Pension Overrides. AB 13 (Root,). Hearing: Senate Local Government Committee, Wednesday, May 15. Senator Milton Marks and Assemblyman Mike Roos have now decided to proceed with just a single bill, which will be AB 13 (Roos), to extend the current moratorium an any property tax reallocation, to prevent any new property tax levy for a voted pension system and to permit current levies to remain in place without any increase in the tax rate. SB 143, therefore, will not move ahead unless amended to address another subject. ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 5. Tort Reform. Some progress being made. Numerous tort reform bills were heard this week. Some passed, some failed, and some were held in committee for further amendment and vote in the next few weeks. At the request of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, League -sponsored AB 1256 (Campbell) was taken off calendar to be included in a comprehensive study this fall of governmental tort liability problems. AB 1256 authorizes large judgments to be paid in installments. League -sponsored AB 230 (McAlister) limits liability to persons who were injured as a result of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It has ix e - en held in the committee for two weeks for further amndment and vote. `'he 4 May 10, 1985 committee asked that the bill be limited solely to persins who were driving { under the influence of alcohol or drugs. and those amendments are beirrg r red. it is ex cted that AB 230 will PjF pe pass the corrsnittee in that worm. League -supported AB 200 (McAlister) was also held in the committee for a vote in one to two weeks. This bill protects Land owners against liability to criminals who trespass on their property. As introduced, the bill was limited to felons, but the felony could be proved in the civil trial. As the bill will be amended, it will require that the plaintiff be convicted of a crime, but the crime could be a felony or misdemeanor as long as it was included within the classifications created by the bill. The crimes covered by the bill are generally violent crimes. SB 885 (Madam) has passed the Senate- Judiciary Committee on a 5-0 vote_ Voting Aye were: Doolittle, Keene, Presley, Watson, and Davis. Absent or riot voting were: Lockyer Torres, Marks, and Petris. As amended in the committee,' SB 885 gives public entities, who perform rescues in the water, protection from liability for the rescue operations unless the rescuers were grossly negligent. The bill is supported by the League. SB 969 (Robbins) has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 8-0 vote. As introduced, SB 969 would have authorized government entities to buy insurance for themselves and their employees against punitive damages. The portion of the bill authorizing the purchase of insurance was stricken. instead, the bill authorizes public entities to pay punitive damages for a public employee if the city council makes the following findings: (1) That the payment of the damages would be in the best interest of the public; ' (2) That the public employee was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment when the activity occurred which gave rise to the punitive damages claim; (3) That the public employee was acting in good faith and without malice at the time of the occurrence; (4) That payment of the claim or judgment is in the best interest of the public entity. These findings could only be made after the governing body has reviewed the facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim or judgment. The League has not yet taken a position on the bill in its current form. Although the solutions which, SB 433 (Bergeson) failed to pass the committee and was held in committee to be R heard again next year. it would partially reverse a recent court decision which has eroded cities' immunities from liability for injuries caused by the natural condition of unimproved public property. v As previously reported, SB 75 (Foran), which limits joint liability, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid April. We expect Senator Foran to bring the bill before the full Senate for a vote within the next two weeks. Finally, we are attaching to this Bulletin the President's Message from the latest edition of the California Trial Lawyer Magazine. The columi is of -04 interest because for the first time the plaintiffs' attorneys are acknowledging the problems of public entities. Although the solutions which, they propose may be different from the ones we propose, it is encouirag4.rig th_:r_ the Problem is at last being ecogn .zed. This acknowledgment ,... occur _.,{ because of the fine message to the public. work ---------------------------------------------------- 6. OPPOSE --- na an, Ren — t Control Bill Reported Out of Assembly i3ouare'A decision and would require cities to submit general purpose tax increases to a Community Development C(Xmittee. AB 483 (Costa). r)� majority vote of the people. In addition, all city tax increases which have May 6, AB 433, which preempts local rent control taken effect since 1978, and which were not approved by at least a majority ordinances, passed out of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Ccxrdnittee on a 6 to 3 vote. Voting A e were: Ferguson, Bader, Chacon, Costa, Grisham, and Lewis. Voting No were: Davis, Eaves, and Bates. Not voting was: Elder. AB 483 now goes to the Assenf7ly floor where it is alio expected to pass. It will probably be taken up within the next few days, and int -rested city officials should J.mmediately contact their Assembly 'embers urging them to vote no on AB 483. The bill prohibits all rent control ordinances, including those that apply only to mobilehome parks. ---•-------------------- 7. OPPOSE - Restriction on Local Taxing Authority. P.-earin -. Monday, May 13, Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. ACA 26 and AB 1866 (Johnson). These twc measures are identical to SCA 27 and SB 730, which were= described in the May 3 regislative Bulletin (#16-1985`. They would reverse the 1982 San Francisco v. Farrell California Supreme Court decision and would require cities to submit general purpose tax increases to a majority vote of the people. In addition, all city tax increases which have taken effect since 1978, and which were not approved by at least a majority vote, would have to be submitted to the voters and be approved within four years of the effective date of. the Constitutional Amendment. If such tax increases failed to receive voter approval, collection of the tax increase must cease. Refunds are not required. ACA 26 and AB 1866 will be considered by the, Assembly Revenue on -and -Taxation -Committee -Monday, -May -13. 8. OPPOSE Brown _Act. Attorney Fees. AB 1129 (Chacon). Under current law, a court ma award attcrneys' fees to a plaintiff who prevails in Brown Act litigation, but may only award attorneys' fees to the public entity if the case were frivolous. This week, AB 1129 (Chacon) was amended to require the court to award attorneys' fees to a plaintiff who successfully suers a city for, a Brown Act violation. It is unfair and an inappropriate drain on city budgets to further unbalance that already unbalanced standard to mandate the award of court costs and attorneys fees even in very close cases where there is not legal precedent. The hill is set for hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May ''1, and city officials should contact the members of that Cormni.ttee to oppose the bill. The members of that Commitee are: Barris, Chair; Grisham, Vice -Chair; Connelly, Duffy, Felando, Johnston; Mojonriier, Robinson, Maxine Waters, and Wyman. 9. OPPOSE Brown Act Bill- Advances To Senate. AB .1001 (McAlister). AB 1001, which we described fully in the April 12 Bulletin, has passed the Assembly and hac- been assigned to the Senate Gcvern;tental Organization, Ccxrnittee. The bill has riot yet been assigned a hearing date. City officials should contact the members of the Senate Governmental organization Cormitte,> in opposition to the bill. The meibers are: Dilas, Chair; Camp,x,ll Vice -Chair; Alquist, Beverly, Carpenter, Foran, Bill Greene, Keene, Maddy, Robbins, and Rosenthal. sNa 10. OPPOSENaylor Act Repeal. A!3 2198 trelando). Hearing= Assembly Education Committee, Tuesday Ma Y 21. AB 2198 (Felando) would repeal the "Naylor Act," which ua� requires school districts to offer a percentage of their playing fields to cities and park districts for purchase at prices that are sometimes below market value. The bill has been set for hearing in the Assembly Education Committee on May 21. city Officials should contact the members of that committee urging them to vote No on the bill when it comes before the Committee. The Committee members are: Hughes, Chair; Bader Vice -Chair; Allen, Bradley, Campbell, Clute, Farr, Hayden, Johnston, Leonard, McClintock, O'Connell, and Vasconcellos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. SUPPORT Vehicle Registration Fee Amnesty Program. AB 2000 Davis) Passes A:-3.semb1y transportation Committee. This bill is modeled after the state tax amnesty program enacted last session. It establishes a i vehicle registration amnesty program to be administered by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The amnesty period is from March 1, 1986 through May 31., 1986. During this period any motor vehicle owner paying the full amount of delinquent registration fees owed on or prior to February 28, 1985 may register the vehicle without the payment of any fines or penalties. In addition, the bill contains the following provisions: 1. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles, in coordination with the California Highway Patrol, to conduct a publicity program from January 1, 1986 to May 31, 1986. 2. Appropriates an unspecified amount from the general fund to the DMV for implementing and publicizing the amnesty program and requires the Dit-W, from registration payments received, to repay the general fund for the ' amount of the appropriation plus a specified interest rate. 3. The bill also revises the penalties for delinquent registration starting June 1, 1986 to be as follows: a. 20% of the vehicle registration fee for a delinquency period of one year or less; b. 40`k of the fee for a delinquency period of more than one year up to two years; C. 80% of the fee for a delinquency period of more than two years. 4. Imposes a mandatory fine not to exceed $250 or; every person convicted of violating registration requirements starting June 1, 1986. 5. States legislative intent that local government should enact parking violation. amnesties. One of the reasons many people do not re -register vehicles is because of outstanding parking tickets. Before registration, the person is required to pay any outstanding parking tickets. The Department of Motor Vehicles has estimated approximately $16.8 million more in revenue from the program. Cities and counties of course will benefit because the proceeds from the amnesty program will return to cities and counties through the vehicle license fee. Ir. addition, there is the potential for increased revenues to cities and counties from the maximum $250 fine established on June 1, 1986. The bill will be heard next in the Assembly `lays and Means Committee. To date there is no opposition to this protx>sai.. May :1, 7 - 12. SUPPORT Local Sales Ta.- Records Under Control of Board �* E ivali.zatio ;, N Mailability to City Off icial33 4 Consultants Under Contract to Cities. AB 1611 (Cortese). This measure, which was approved by t� he Assembly Local Government Committee this week, would expressly authorize h persons under contract to a city, in addition to a city employee or officer, to have access to Board of Equalization local sales tax information. The Board is permitted to protect the confidentiality of these records by imposing conditions on such access. AB 1611 will next be heard by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. To date there is no opposition to this proposal. 13. INTERIM STUDY Compensationfor Down Zoning of SB 615 (Seymour)sent to Interim Study. SB 615 would require cities and counties to pay property owners compensation when a zoning action resulted in a taking of property. It has been referred tv interim studv, and will not be heard again this year, although it could resurface next year. The bill is sponsored by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Although the sponsors indicated that their intent was to require compensation only when a downzdning resulted in a complete and permanent taking of property, the League and CSAC were unsuccessful in getting amendments to the bill which would limit it to that purpose. Following intense lobbying, the Senate Judiciary Coffmittee chair and the author agreed that the bill would be referred to interim study for further. work. 14. FURTHER Cable Television, Cities Mandated to Support_ STUD' Foundation for Public Service Television. Postponed until 1986. AB 1372 (Moore) and SB 683 (Montoya). Two bills which would require cities to transfer a portion of their cable television franchise fees to a state -created foundation formed to promote community service cable programming will not be heard this year. The authors of both of the measures, AB 1372 (Moore) and SB 683 (Montoya), do not intend to have the bills heard until 1986. By waiting until next year, the authors are allowing time for the parties involved in cable television (the cable industry, cities, and the organizations representing programmers) to seek mutually -satisfactory methods of funding the foundation established on a state level to encourage the development of community cable programming. 15. REVIEW Hazardous Materials Transportation. AB 1861 AND (Campbell). The Assembly Transportation Committee COMMENT last week passed AB 1861 which governs the transportation of hazardous materials. The bill revises current law relating to the transport of hazardous materials in the following manner: 1. Allows vehicles carrying hazardous materials to travel up to 1/2 mile off designated routes for local pickup or delivery, reasonable access to fuel, repairs, rest, or food facilities when it is consistent with safe vehicle operation. 2. Allows use of highways restricted or prohibited by the California Eiighwa}; Patrol (CHF) when no other lawful alternative exists. 3. Authorizes the CHP to piohiblt the use of specified highways in consultation with the State Department of Transportation; ar E consultation with the city or county agency having traffic control jurisdiction over the highway, after the concurrence of the apf�ropria.t= regional transportation planning agency. The bill further provides tat: 8 May 10, i985 a. Written concurrence must be obtained from affected surroundinq jurisdictions that the prohibition is not incompa`ible with :y "through'' transportation. If such written concurrence is not forthcornin from one of the affected Y g jurisdictions, this may be appealed to the appropriate regional transportation planning agency for resolution. b. The CHP may preempt any local restriction or prohibition that in its opinion is not compatible with "through" transportation. C. Requires the CHP to hold a hearing upon written petition from a local jurisdiction or motor carrier adversely affected by a CHP decision to preempt a local restriction or prohibition. There is, at this time, no organized opposition to the provisions of AB 1861. The bill will be hear) next in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. 16. REVIEW Shift of Lien Date from March 1 to January 1. SB 917 AND (Vuich). Approved by the Senate Revenue and Taxation COMMENT Committee, SB 917 would move the lien date for purposes of property tax assessments from March 1, 1987 to January 1, 1987, and to January 1 every year thereafter. Because FY 1986-87 would be only 10/12 (33.3%) of a normal year for purposes of assessment growth, revenues could be significantly less in that fiscal year. obviously FY 1986-87 expenditures will be based upon a full 12 -month year. SB 917 is sponsored by the County Assessors Association and is strongly supported by the business community because it more nearly coincides with the corporate fiscal year. 17. INFORMATION Alcoholic Beverages. Service Station Mini -Marts. AB 1433 (Duffy). tinder existing law, the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department is not authorized to prohibit the issuance of an off -sale alcoholic beverage license for premises where motor vehicle fuel is also sold. AB 1433 would prohibit the Department from issuing or renewing an off -sale retail license for such service station mini -marts. Several city officials have expressed concern over the growing number of combined convenience store/service station uses in their communities, including the partial conversion of gas stations to mini -marts. If you are interested in commenting on AB 1433, we urge you to contact the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, whose members are: Alatorre, Chair; Hill, Vice Clair; Bane, Condit, Felando, Floyd, Frizzelle, Harris, Killea, Konnyu, Mojonnier, Statham, Stirling, Tanner, Tucker, Vicencia, and M. Waters. 18. Changed Status of Bills Previously Reported. (a) Restrictions on Development Fees. SB 1454 (B. G eene). This measure - which has become a two-year bill and will probably ncc be considered again until January 1986, as introduced would have restricted development and growth-irnpact fees, exactions, dedications and reservations to an amount which represents the developers' estimated percentage burden on or use of a public improvement facility. At the Senate Local Government hearing this week, the proponents of SB 1415 amended the bili to :modify the same test as contained in case law: the existence of a reasonable relationship between the fee, the t�,e nef its conferred on the developer and the burdens of the developr,7ent whicln are imposed on the cor(nmuni ty. 9 May 10, 1985 (b) No Property Tax Cities. AB 1091 (Campbell). This !,,easure was appro.; x' by the Senate Appropriations Committee this week and sent to the Senate c -1-30r As amended, AB 1091 now provides an equivalent 10 cent property tax rate to all cities whose property tax revenue is less than an amount that would be generated by a 10 cent rate. In addition, AB 1091 is "double -joined" to :3 1415 (Campbell), which increases vehicle license fee revenue by more than $200; million for counties. This means that neither bi"l can become effective with- out the Legislature approving and the Governor signing the other. FEDERAL AFFAIRS 19. Mandatory Retirement/Age Discrimination. H.R. 1435, (Hughes D -NJ), would allow state and local governments to maintain mandatory retirement practices at an age below 65 for police and fire employees. This bill has been referred to the Employment Opportunities Subcommittee of the House Education and Laoor Committee. No hearirs has been scheduled foc H.R. 1435. California co- sponsors of this measure are: Stark, Matsui, Badham, Lagomarsino, Lungren, Fiedler and Fazio. 20, IRS Recordkeeping Rules. The House voted 426-1 to repeal the much maligned law which required "contemporaneous" recordkeeping requirements for cars on which a business use was claimed. The compromise bill, H.R. 1869, repeals the recordkeeping requirements retroactively, to January 1, 1985. H.R. 1.869 also allows employers the option of not withholding income taxes from the value of non-cash employee fringe benefits ,such as the general use of a city car. However, the value must be reported on the employee's W-2 form as wages at the end of the year. Social Security must be withheld from such benefits retroactive to January 1, 1985. The measure exempts any substantiation requirement on vehicles that by reason of their nature are not likely to be used for personal purposes. In addition, marked police and fire vehicles will be exempt from any substantiation requirement. Unmarked police cars will also be exempt and officers who commute in them will not have to pay tax on that benefit. The bill is now before the Senate for approval. 21. Minimum Corporate Tax. A resolution was passed in the Senate by an overwhelming majority to include a minimum corporate tax as part of the tax simplification package. This vote is seen as an effort to prevent a minimum tax from being incorporated into the budget package. Supporters of tax simplification are concerned that a minimum corporate tax will be passed in place of a more comprehensive reform Treasure. 22. Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA). Cities should be assessing the fiscal impact of implementing FLSA immediately. Including an itemized cost estimate (if possible). This information is needed for Senator Wilson, who has volunteered to carry legislation on this matter. He will be needing the support information from cities as soon as possible. In addition, cities should be contacting their [louse and Senate members, expressing their concern about the issue. Congressional offices are saying that they have heard very little about this issue. Please send FLSA cost estimates to Senator Wilson's office immediately: Senator Pete Wilson 720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Attention: Steve Clark (v1(•sse send a copy to the LeagLxa as well.) 10 may Lci; 1` MI The Sacramento Bee • Thursday, April 25, 1985 Aa SMA or the mos; part, George IDeukmejian's political ideolo- ,,,} is as predictat-le as the daisy sunrise in the east. He is a moderately conservative Republican who believes in limited government, limited taxes and pro- business po!icies. But there are a S.)uple of issues on which Deukmejian breaks stride and one of the more intriguing deals with the complicated issue called "hinding arbitration.•" For years. the Unions that repre- sent police officers and firefighters have been tryir,;; to enact legislation under .,hich their salary disputes with local governments could be submitted to ;arbitration. The arbi- trator's decision would be imposed on both parties. The police and fire unions want bindin-,,, arbitration because as pub- lic employees they are denied the lega! right to tri!_e. Overall, the unions reason, they would be better off taking their chances with arbitra- tion than in trusting to the wishes of city and county elected officials, who now ha%v , the final authority over salary matters if negotiations fail to achieve agreement. Binding arbitration. however, is nnazine•rna to local officials. They contend that they, and neither the unions nor an outside arbitrator, were elected to govern. Binding arbitrttior.. by compelling them to accept salary ; greementy they don't support, would u;adercut their elec- tive pow.,rs, they �'ontend. And since in many citi,,s police and fire sala- ries consume more than half the budgets, such a shift of power is not inconsiderable hat sells local officials is that Deukmejian, nominal- ly a conservative Republi- can and an elected official himself, ha> backed the police and fire anions in their years -long quest for binding arbitration legislation, the latest version of which will be heard in a Senate committee next week. Even before he was elected in 1982, Deukmejian had signaled that support to such organizations as the Police Officers Research Associa- tion of California (PORAC), the leading police lobby. He would sign binding arbitration legislation if it reached his desk. Deukmejian told representatives of both sides on the issue, but would not lobby actively for it. That promise of a gubernatorial signature has spurred continual ef- forts by the unions to gain enact- ment — and created a serous rup- ture between the governor and the otherwise supportive and mostly conservative local officials. "I don't understand Duke," one county supervisor said recently in a private conversation. "He'd scream and yell if anyone wanted to take his power away. And yet he's willing to sell us down the river." he issue also drives a wedge between Deukmejian and local sheriffs and police chiefs. Occasionally, delegations of local officials have tried to dissuade Deukmejian from his position, know- ing a change at that Ievel would doom the legislation. They have, however, failed. Asked about the issue Wednesday during a Capitol news conference, Deukmejian said he remains willing to sign a binding arbitration bili. "I know, I know," Deukmejian replied when reminded that local government officials were upset. But he offered this rationale for his position: M "When you get to ... police and fire services, they are so absolutely essential to the well-being of the people of the community that if the employer and the employee cannot reacts an agreement on those issues, I drn't feel that the citizens in the community should be the ones who are penalized. "And therefore, if there's an impasse, then there should be some means available — binding arbitra- tion is one — to resolve those differ- ences." n effect, Deukmejian is arguing that the only alternative to bind- ing arbitration is the right to strike, which would leave communi- ties unprotected from fire or crime — an argument that iocal official dismiss as sophistry. There is, however. a political element to the binding arbitration matter. Rod Blonien, the governor's one-time lobbyist, had forged strong political links between Deukmejian and PORAC, the mot :militantly polit- ical of the public safety organiza- tions, that dated back prior to the 1982 election. Blonien himself had been a lobbyist for the California Police Officers Association. Among the fruits of this relation- ship was Deukmejian's support for binding arbitration, a strange ar- rangement by which one of PO- RAC's own lobbyists, Joseph Farber. was placed on the state payroll as a consultant while continuing to repre- sent the organization and PORAC influence over selection of a State Police chief. Y From Weed and Napa to Coronado and Lemon Grove, Hanford to South Gate, Grass Valley, Placerville, Lodi, Santa Ana, the major metropolitan dailies in San Francisco, Los Ange- les and San Diego, all have in recent months unleashed a blizzard of news releases ano editorials about the "deep pocket" crisis. invariably they call for a change in our present laws relating to the liability of joint tortfea- sors in order to prevent the proverbi- al "two drunks going down the street and crashing into each other from suing the city because they couldn't see the center line." The press just hasn't let up par- ticularly since the first of the year. The San Mateo Times called for the Foran Bill to be enacted "without delay." The Santa Rosa Press Demo- crat while acknowledging the argu- ments of plaintiffs' lawyers "who share handsomely in the rewards" that joint and several liability serves as a deterrent compelling public and private agencies t aintain safe fa- cilities and that it old be unfair for innocent victims to suffer concludes that these arguments although hav- ing some validity are "not enough to convince us that fundamental re- forms are not necessary." The theme being repeated in this most recent press barrage is that local puhlic entities are going broke in their role as the ultimate "deep - pocket," having to pick-up the tab for every seriously injured victim of Cali- fornia's many uninsured and/or un- der -insured drunk and disoriented drivers. San Jose cannot afford its reported jump in municipal liability premiums from $157,000.00 in 1984 to $373,000.00 in 1985; Saratoga from $48,000.00 to $118,215.00; Mil - 74 pitas from $24,800.00 to $82,262.00 and so on. Does this all sound familiar? Ech- oes out of the past when doctors complained about their inability to afford escalating medical malprac- tice insurance premiums? That "cri- sis" brought us the Medical injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA). In 1985, we are confronted with SB 75 (Foran) which would es- sentially limit a joint tortfeasor's share of the liability for noneconomic damages to his proportionate share of total fault. While CTLA for at least the past six years has been success- fully resisting this change, that task is getting tougher with the publica- tion of each new editorial in support of the Foran Bill and each fresh multi- million dollar verdict in a road defect case against a marginally at fault public entity. Unlike 1975 when trial lawyers were seen as a rag tag bunch of undermanned advocates in behalf of consumer causes, today with our higher political visibility and substan- tial reportable contributions to some of the mightiest movers and shaken in the Capitol, we have become con- venient fat cat press targets depicted as standing in the way of progress and resisting rational change. Nevertheless, I have to give the Cities and Counties their due. They have effectively carried their mes- sage to the public through an inces- sant media campaign since SB 575, the Foran Bi!I of the last legislative session, was defeated in the Assem- bly Judiciary Committee in August, 1984. Their pitch has been effective as can be seen, from the substantial editorial support they have garnered for their position from a variety of 0 ROBERT B. STEINBERG newspapers around the state. Our position has been and contin- ues to be that the public entities as the parties responsible for the design and maintenance of streets and high- ways, must foresee that some of society's less fastidious will use them in a variety of ways and there- fore they must be designed and maintained so as to anticipate ;hat accidents will happen,. The public en- tities already enjoy sufficient immuni- ties to adequately protect them from frivolous (:;aims. The public -entities counter that they are doing the best they can with meager post -Prop. !'I funds to pro- vide roads adequate to accommo- date the demands of auto crazy Cali- fornians. That unlike doctors who have some say over whom they scrub with, hospitals which have some control over whom they allow to scrub on their premises and man- ufacturers who have some ability to choose who participates in thair pro- ducts' chain of distribution or tha manner in which their products are to 1,e used, public entities on the other hand have precious little ability to exercise control over the many who have the unlimited freedom and elect to use the streets and highways of our State as outlandishly as they please. In short.. they _=rgue that the State and the Cities and Counties have in fact be('Ofne. t1,e `deep -pock- et" of last resort, a charge which is sometimes difficult to deny when 3s a matter of everyday p actice, plain- tiffs in serir us . ry . sto c, _es are conlf7loi'.iV ;i' iC' _ ;rel{ ou, allege o (j.a cause oi how ma, v a�o,ui•^;air: ;:-.,,.�,,, y;:._.?,�,.,;ao ,fin r�+_;� 0 highways carry an -,where near the amount of coverage that v.ould com- pensate for quadriplegic injures? If as in most cases there is insufficient motor vehicle coverac;e that can be tapped to compensate for the injur- ies involved, there is always the pub- lic treasury. As trial lawyers. e respond to those seeking change; in the existing rules on joint and ..uverai liability by urging continue;; +dhereilce to our fault system of co inOensation. That the responsibility for making the in- jured whole snoiild rest upon the parties at fault. In the event two ur more are so adjudged nd one or more unable to financaally respond, fairness and equitt: dictate that the injured victim's interest should pre- vail over the concern of the extra financial burden to be assumed by a well -insured and/or (financially sound joint tortteasor even if only marginal- ly at fault. This principle should hold even if the p!-iitiff is substantially at fault since he or she ;s already penal- ized by a reduction e( their damages based upon their' :_:wn t.C)W.ributory fault. The merits of the i`;<su"✓ aside. po- litical imperatives appear to be win- ning over legal arguments. The pub- ic entities' plea chat they cannot afford to be the deep -pocket' of last resort is ga!n!ng acceptance among a budget conscious public, most of whom are constantly reminded of the Cost of government an d their respon- sibility for their share of it, but few of whom have ever met an honest to goodness severely inJured road de- fect victim. The arquir.en,ts advanced by the public ennties are not only catching or: with the press and pub- lic, but they risk poisoning the gener- al debate cn the issue as they give undue credibility to th :positions ad- vanced by ether, less savory promot- ers of change in the present law. The fact is. for a nui,ber of ;ears now, pubi!C .riti':iBS .,ave teen ironf- ing the det)ate fpr 'rn malgam of suspect intern;t" rMinaniy doctors and Tyie public gen- erally and met ::)f me ;)reel ght have a difflc;.!';i_ 'letting worked p :;Ve(cl _, . HCl bi5t rrlarq:naily at {u�,re J t!i oi�:k t7p efrt:r- it) .,,r .le ,."di c I - surgery or get excited over a finan- cially sound manufacturer picking up for an under -financed, uninsured, out -of -business distributor or comp - immunity protected employer for adding a production enhancing foot switch to an unguarded power press causing the amputation of the opera- tor's hand from the resulting ab- sence of a point of operation guard. The public, however, is more 'likely to respond sympathetically to the pleas of local governments who have less ability to influence the conduct of their co -tortfeasors, particula-!y, the driving habits its citizenry, whose oc- casionai abuse of highway privileges produces those tragic and devastat- ing injuries commonly cited as the cause of the "deep -pocket" problem. Is there a solution that will ease the pain of the public entities without beating up on the tort victims? The appropriate answer to the med. mai. ..crisis% of a decade ago should have been the availability of affordable in- surance to adequately fund the risk of those injuries produced by an ex- ploding and increasingly complicated health care system. That did not hap- pen. The easiest group to pick on were the victims. it would have been infinitely more difficult to underta:ce the tougher lob of passing the hat among ail the players in the health care system in order to come up with enough bucks to see that the victims were adequately compensated. Ten years later we read about the AMI/American Hospital & Supply eight billion dollar meager and Fre- mont Indemnity's one hundred twen- ty two million dollar profit on the sale of its interest in MAXICARE, but still no adequate funding mechanism for medical malpractice. There exists only a hodge-p•:,dge isnalbr-fi- nanced ad hoc groups .{pith rine fin- ger in the dike holding back a.ne rush of medical rr[alpractice claims and the other pleading with the legis- lature in Sacraments, for more limita- tions on the rights of malpractice victims. V mile the medical establish- ment appears to be willing to spend billions on gadgetry v,,hose ability to extend or improve the cuality of life is questionable and on the mainte- nance of overstaffed and underub- lized health care faci;ities, they have set aside comparatively little to fund an adeo::ate damage recovery for the system's victims. If our experience with med. mal. "reform" over the past decade is at all instructive, it would seem that the public, entities would be better served by getting about the business of find- ing the means to adequately insure the risk of injuries produced by their occasional transgressions. if the pri- vate market is unable to provide cov- erage at an affordabie Premium oth- er mechanisms should be explored to provide a solution. Earlier this year. the Cities a Counties themselves floated a pyo" - posal for a road liability superfund. The fund would be available for local entities to tap :neo to satisfy judg- ments or settlements in road defect cases to. make up the difference be- tween the total judgment or settle- ment and the public entities contribu- tive share of fault. The fund would be created by adding an additional fee to auto registration or drivers license renewals. The proposal appeared to die for lack of an author. Even its propo- nents now consider it to be a long shot. Obtaining necessary legislative and administration support might be difficult since this method of financ- ing might be perceived as just an- other objectionable tax the public. Nevertheless it may b.a a most ap propriate solution to _ public er6- ties problem. While its acceptance, enactment and implementation are fraught with serious obstaces, t:e superfund _ one „> sin -„ �. ,lo', be shot down t)c f ;re it ; .. .=''l a :hanc. io be hear cr rl„ere :J . on the Vic” "s road t0 talo.