HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - June 20, 2001 E-21CITY OF LORI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution Supporting Amendment of League of
California Cities' Bylaws and to Increase Dues to Implement
a "Grassroots Network"
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2001
PREPARED BY: Janet L. Hamilton, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution to support an
amendment to the bylaws of the League of California Cities
to implement a statewide program titled "Grassroots
Network" (Appendix A). The City of Lodi's share for this
effort will mean an increase in League dues paid by the
City of $4643.
BACKGROUND: The Network would consist of ten field offices staffed by
fourteen new and three existing staff. They will work with
city officials to promote League legislative priorities.
The past two decades have seen a significant level of growth in State government. While the state
budget has grown phenomenally, increasingly it has come at the expense of local revenues and
local authority. Cities are consistently outspent and out -lobbied by groups that are able to commit
substantially more resources to influencing legislative decisions, and can bolster these lobbying
efforts with campaign contributions.
Since cities and the League may not make campaign contributions to state officials, a logical
strategy would be to develop a network of local elected and appointed officials with their own
extensive community contacts, including personal and professional acquaintances among
legislators and with the Governor. A special Task Force appointed by the League of California
Cities was formed to address the problem and has recommended the implementation of the
"Grassroots Network", as described in Appendix B.
As related to City Manager Flynn by former City Manager and Range Rider for the League Tom
Peterson, to date (June 11, 2001), 45 of the 47 cities that have voted to amend the bylaws have
cast votes in support.
FUNDING: Operating Budget
Respectfully submitte
Dixon Flynn
Citv Manaqer
APPROVED:
Attachment A:
Proposed Addition to League Bylaws
Article XVI: Establishment and Financing of
Grassroots Network
Section 1: Enhancement of Advocacy Efforts.
To enhance the League's advocacy efforts on behalf of cities, the League hereby
establishes a Grassroots Network. The Grassroots Network consists of a series of field
offices throughout California, responsible for coordinating city advocacy efforts and
promoting statewide League policy priorities.
Section 2: Dues Increase
(a) Initial Financing. The dues increase approved concurrently with the addition
of Article XVI shall finance the League's Grassroots Network for the second half
of 2001 and for 2002. The increase shall be used exclusively to finance the
Grassroots Network.
(b) Continued Financing. Any subsequent dues increases shall occur in
accordance with Article IV.'
Section 3: Accountability
(a) Annual Goal -Setting and Performance Assessment. The League Board
shall set long-term goals and annual objectives for the League's Grassroots
Network. The League Board shall periodically report to the League's Member
Cities on the Grassroots Network's performance in meeting those goals and
objectives.
(b) Board Discontinuance. If at any time the League Board finds the
Grassroots Network is not meeting its objectives on behalf of cities, the League
Board may discontinue the Grassroots Network.
(c) Membership Vote on Program Continuation. On or before December 31,
2007, the Board shall ask Member Cities to vote on whether to continue the
Grassroots Network beyond December 31, 2008.2
Explanatory Note: "Article IV" is the existing section of the League's bylaws, which provide for 1) a
two-thirds vote of approval by the League board for all dues increases as well as 2) division ratification of dues
increases in excess of the Consumer Price Index. Article IV also caps individual city dues increases at $5,000
per year.
2 The League's bylaws provide that a majority of votes cast is necessary for decision on League votes.
See Article XII, § 4.
PO
Purpose
City officials have experienced deep frustration in recent years as the state government has amassed more resources and
power at the expense of local government services. The League has a solid reputation as an advocate of city interests, but in
the new era of term limits, traditional lobbying methods are often a poor match for grassroots campaigns and financial
contributions by other competing interests. Many organizations have already responded to the new political reality in Sacra-
mento by investing in a stronger grassroots organization, including the powerful education lobby, which recently launched a
new, high profile and well funded grassroots organization called EdVoice. The League now has to respond in kind to this new
climate by building a solid grassroots network to coordinate city officials' efforts locally to influence legislators, their staff,
potentially helpful community groups, and the news media.
Maior Elements
The Network would consist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff (15 coordinators/2 support).
The coordinators would work with city officials and the regional divisions of the League to promote key League legislative
priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and other supporting community groups. They would arrange meetings,
plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community
groups with similar agendas. In short, they would increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions and the already
busy city officials in each division on the state legislature's and govemor's decisions affecting cities.
Cost
The Network would cost cities an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. This is the equivalent of four one hundredths of
one percent (0.04%) of the $3.8 billion cities collect each year in sales and use taxes, and about one tenth of one percent of
the $1.57 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Most observers believe both revenue sources could become
victims of legislative raids in the next recession. Individual city costs for the Network will vary depending on city population. For
example, a city of 50,001 to 60,000 population would pay an additional $4,643. Such a dues increase will require amendment
of the League bylaws approved by no less than 2/3 of the voting League membership.
Membership Review
The idea of the Grassroots Network originated with the City Managers Department and was more fully developed by a
special Task Force appointed by the League board of directors. Information on the program was developed and disseminated
to the full League leadership ( board, divisions, departments, policy committees and caucuses), as well as to every city
manager. Dozens of presentations on the proposal were made to each League division, many departments, and to most of
the area city manager groups throughout the state.
Accountabilitv to the Membershi
Based upon membership input, the Task Force recommended, and the board adopted, significant changes to the original
proposal. These include: establishing long-term goals, annual program objectives, and regular reports to the membership; an
unbiased, professional evaluation three times during the first five years; and a vote of the membership after five years to
continue the program. Under the League's current bylaws, the board may also vote to discontinue the Grassroots Network at
any time.
Next Steps
Cities are now asked to vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the League's bylaws relating to the establishment of the
Grassroots Network, along with a new increased dues schedule to pay for the program. A ballot will be sent to each city.
Ballots returned to the League must be postmarked no later than July 6, 2001.
Revised 05/07/01
couNafo r8as
l�
g= �`Grassroots Network
l.eagite o` ialifarma [hies ��;
�rkc jOG4
What is the Grassroots Coordinator Network?
The Grassroots Coordinator Network would consist of 10 field offices staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff who
would serve as grassroots coordinators. Their job would be to work with city officials and the regional divisions of
the League to aggressively promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and
other supporting community groups.
Why do we need a Grassroots Network?
The Network proposal was developed by atask force (see page 4 for a list of task force members) authorized by the
League Board of Directors as part of its strategic planning process. It responds to the deep frustration of many
local officials about the cities' loss of political clout, compared with other, better -positioned interest groups that
contribute millions of dollars to campaigns.
The concept of establishing local field offices is used very successfully by political campaigns, as well as by teach-
ers, labor and other statewide membership organizations. These groups find that a network of field offices is a well -
tested means to communicate with a dispersed membership, and to mobilize local support for the organization's
causes. A recent survey by researchers at Wake Forest University found that key congressional staff, as well as
government and public affairs executives, ranked grassroots activities as more effective in influencing the outcome
of legislation than corporate or contract lobbying, campaign contributions or advocacy advertising. California's
powerful education lobby must agree: they recently launched a new, high profile and well -funded grassroots
organization called EdVoice. These are the interests against which the League must compete in Sacramento.
How will cities benefit from this proposal?
The goal of the Grassroots Network is to focus on major issues of concern to all cities, such as fiscal reform,
increased funding for transportation and local control. Cities will benefit from the increased visibility of city issues in
local and statewide media, and by holding legislators accountable back home for the votes they cast in Sacramento.
The potential payback for this investment is enormous. For example, on a statewide basis the proposed $1.6 million
dues increase needed to pay for the network is equivalent to only four one hundredths of one percent (0.04%) of
the annual $3.8 million cities receive in sales and use taxes. It is one tenth of one percent of the S1.57 billion
cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Portions of both VLF and sales and use tax revenues are at risk from
legislative raids if the state suffers another recession.
The costs are also relatively small when compared to the expenditures made by organizations that compete with
cities and the -League for the allocation of dollars in Sacramento. For example, the 1999-2000 legislative session
just two of the statewide public employee unions' that sponsored or lobbied for SB 402 (the binding arbitration bill)
reported spending about $3.1 million in campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide office or
Page 2 of 4
current statewide office holders, in addition to their expenditures for in-house or contract lobbying. During the same
period, the California Teachers Association, which competes very effectively for funding in Sacramento, reported
spending approximately $2.7 million on lobbying expenses on education issues. In the same period, the CTA also
spent approximately $6.3 million on campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide office and
current statewide office holders, and $35.2 million on initiative campaigns to further advance their policy agenda.
What would the grassroots coordinators do?
The coordinator's role is to increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions, by helping busy city officials
focus strategic attention on state legislators' and the governor's decisions affecting cities. The coordinators will work
to build relationships with local elected and appointed officials, local media, and other individuals and organizations
in the region who might be called upon to be part of a local coalition on a particular League initiative or pending
legislation.
The coordinators' would:
Arrange meetings for city officials with legislators, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media
campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas.
• Support mayors, council members and city managers in drafting sample letters from cities; and train city staff on
understanding and accessing the legislative process.
Provide regular presentations on legislative developments and insight into the political dynamics influencing
legislative developments.
• Meet regularly with legislative staff, media representatives and community groups about the League's legislative
priorities.
What kind of person will be hired to staff the Network?
Everyone associated with this project has concluded that the best way to make this Network effective is to hire
seasoned, professional, political organizers, not policy analysts or technical people right out of college. The budget
provides an attractive salary and benefit package to do this. In addition to reassigning some League staff, we
expect to recruit savvy political people who have worked on legislative or local elections, staffed legislative offices,
or worked in public affairs or campaign consulting firms.
Where will the field offices be located?
The 10 field offices would be located around the state to ensure that coordinators are available to serve each of the
League's 16 geographic divisions, while still balancing the need to maintain close contact with legislative districts
and to be accessible to all cities. A map of the distribution by region is available in the information packet developed
by the League. The League will send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to solicit interest by cities in hosting a
coordinator. The goal will be to achieve the highest impact on League lobbying and greatest visibility among mem-
bers, while still keeping expenses as low as possible.
Page 3 of 4
How does the Network relate to the ABC effort?
Action for Better Cities was created to make expenditures and engage in "political" activities such as statewide
initiative campaigns. Recently, through in-kind contributions of staff time and strategic counsel, ABC was able to
play a major role in helping to defeat Proposition 37, the initiative that would have severely limited cities' abilities to
impose fees to support local regulatory activities and provide services. While both the proposed Network and ABC
share a similar objective, namely to gain more political clout for cities, the Network coordinators will focus on
organizing local activities in support of League legislative positions. ABC will lead any initiative effort in support of
fiscal stability and similar objectives.
Our city already pays a lobbyist. Why do we need this network too?
The Network doesn't replace the ongoing need to have a strong lobbying presence in Sacramento. (In fact, part of
the task force recommendation which has been approved by the League Board of Directors is to set aside at least
$50,000/year in the budget to hire contract lobbyists in Sacramento to assist League staff at strategic times on
some key issues.) Cities that currently have their own contract or in-house lobbyist will probably continue to find
that having their own representation makes sense, for two reasons.
First, the League's lobbying program represents the interests of all 476 cities. It lobbies the legislature on matters of
statewide importance to cities, and cannot provide the representation needed to address the individual needs of
cities or even a single region. Second, the grassroots coordinators will be networking and organizing people, not
lobbyists. This work will support and enhance the efforts of all city lobbyists, regardless of whether they are con-
tractors or in-house staff. Several prominent contract lobbyists who represent individual cities have commented that
they see the network proposal as complementary to their ability to represent their clients.
What criteria will be used to measure the Network's effectiveness?
The League board specified that, if the Network were approved by the membership, the board would set both long-
term goals and annualized objectives for the program and report them to the membership. The board also required
that the League engage the services of a consultant to conduct a professional membership survey that establishes
a base line of information about city officials' perceptions of the effectiveness of the League's legislative advocacy
efforts and the relative level of involvement of city officials in support of that advocacy work. The board's intention is
to repeat that survey at the end of year three and following year five, comparing changing attitudes and levels of
efforts.
How will the League be held accountable for the Network's success or failure?
In addition to the survey to assess members' perceptions and actual involvement in grassroots activities, the board
also directed the staff to (1) establish a separate Grassroots Network account in the League budget, so that mem-
bers can track Network expenses; (2) publish an annual legislative voting records report, including a ranking of
legislators and the Governor on key city issues; (3) report board goals and annual legislative and policy objectives
to the membership; (4) provide regular reports at the Executive Forum, Annual Conference and League department
and division meetings; and (5) provide periodic reports to the membership.
Will this new program have a sunset date?
On or before the end of the sixth year of the program (December 31, 2007), the board will ask the membership to
vote on the question of continuing the program. If the membership votes against the program continuation, the
Network would be shut down, and cease operations by no later than the end of the seventh year (December 31,
2008).
Page 4of4
What will it cost?
The estimated annualized cost is $1.6 million, spread among all member cities. This estimate is based upon the
following assumptions:
■ Several current League staff members will be reassigned. Approximately 14 new staff will be hired.
■ Much of the cost for the individual offices will be subsidized by the cities where the office is located, for ex-
ample, by making office space and support staff available within a city facility.
How will costs be distributed?
Costs would be distributed among all cities based upon the League's dues structure, which is based on population.
Some small cities pay only a few hundred dollars, while the largest cities pay tens of thousands of dollars. The
median dues statewide are currently about $4,930. The Network would increase median dues by approximately
$2,588.2
When would a dues increase start?
If the membership votes to approve the bylaw amendment the proposed dues increase would be effective on July 1,
2001.
Grassroots Lobbying Task Force
Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara - Chair
John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville, and President of the City Managers' Department — Vice Chair
Eileen Ansari, Council Member, Diamond Bar
Harry Armstrong, Council Member, Clovis
Lee Ann Garcia, Council Member, Grand Terrace
Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek
Jim Marshall, City Manager, Merced
Patsy Marshall, Council Member, Buena Park
Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas
Kevin O'Rourke, City Manager, Fairfield
Susan Peppler, Council Member, Redlands
Greg Pettis, Council Member, Cathedral City
Mike Siminski, Council Member, Lompoc
Armour Smith, Vice Mayor, Modesto
Anne Solem, Council Member, Mill Valley
Richard Tefank, Former Chief of Police, Buena Park
Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey
Endnote
' The California Professional Firefighters Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California.
2 For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article IV, section 2, is would be
suspended for the years 2001 and 2002. The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will apply to total dues in year
2003 and years following.
1
Grassroots Network
i
Proposed Distribution of Staff
Among League Divisions
16
1 Legislative Coordinator
13 2 Legislative Coordinators
. 3 Legislative Coordinators
2
3
Regional Divisions 4
1. Redwood Empire
2. Sacramento Valley
3. Central Valley
4. South San Joaquin Valle
R Y
- Y+
5. Desert -Mountain 12'
6. Inland Empire
xk r
T Riverside County,
g
8. Imperial County
;.
9. San Diego County
' F.
10. Orange County
10 7
-
11. Los Angeles County
12. Channel Counties
9 i 8
13. Monterey Bay
14. Peninsula
15. East Bay
16. North Bay
�ouv�Ec �8pa
r
Grassroots
L04gw c` (d if Cities
4'rfHG 2O�'F'�
Action Plan
The following dates constitute the time frame and action steps to implement, operate, evaluate and manage the grassroots
network if approved by the League membership.
DATES ACTION
March, 2001- On-going Develop data base for political action.
July, 2001 Implement recruitment program for grassroots coordinators - advertise positions.
Send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to cities to solicit interest in providing
office space/equipment.
Initiate professional survey of membership perceptions of involvement with
League legislative advocacy.
August 2001 Deadline for coordinator candidates' resumes.
Deadline for RFPs on office space.
September, 2001 Interviews for grassroots coordinator candidates.
October, 2001 Make job offers to grassroots coordinators.
Site Selection Committee chooses office locations.
Complete membership survey
November, 2001 Grassroots Coordinators report to work.
Training Workshops for grassroots coordinators to cover: l) League organization,
history, goals and key issues; and, 2) Operating a grassroots program.
Board of Directors sets long-term goals/short-term objectives and distributes to
League membership.
December, 2001- On-going Program begins with introductions to membership and involvement in city official
meetings.
December, 2003 Complete mid -program survey of membership perceptions of involvement with
League legislative advocacy.
December, 2006 Program completes five years of operation. Third survey of membership is
initiated to evaluate success.
December, 2007 League membership votes to continue program.
December, 2008 Grassroots program terminates, if membership turns down program. Program
continues if membership votes to retain it.
,:�JF
44 . �.W061,
RTI � Imo` ••
$3,500
$3,000
Local Sales
$2'500 & UseTax
N $3.8 billion
.2,000
$1,500
Grassroots
$1,000 Coordinator
Vehicle License Network Cos
$ Fee ('VLF') $1.6 million
(ind backfill)
$1.6 billion7
All measures include the City & Canty of San Francisco
Source: Computations by Ccleman Addsory Sery ces ushg State Dept of Finance popla6'on estimatea ERAF data
suppled by CountyAuditors pursuent to Chapter 84 Statutes of 1899, VLF estimates based on Gok emor's Budget
Attachment "C"
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-165
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES BYLAWS TO INCREASE DUES TO IMPLEMENT
THE LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, a task force of the League of California Cities is recommending
support of an initiative titled: "Grassroots Network"; and
WHEREAS, the task force recommended 14 additional employees to staff 10
field offices to support the advancement of legislation that benefits all cities; and
WHEREAS, in 1991-1992 the State began taking local property taxes to fund
schools, costing cities over $1.6 billion; and
WHEREAS, statewide'property tax revenues have dropped from 15% to 7% of
all cities' revenues; and
WHEREAS, the State legislature continues to pass bills that impose un -funded
mandates and preempts local authority, limiting the ability of cities to respond to the
challenges and opportunities in their communities; and
WHEREAS, the legislative position of cities is increasingly underrepresented in
relation to the lobbying and fundraising efforts of opposing groups.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi
does hereby support an amendment to the League of California Cities Bylaws and does
hereby support an increase in dues to implement the League's "Grassroots Network."
Dated: June 20, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001-165 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 20, 2001, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Land and Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Howard and Mayor Nakanishi
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
2001-165
The Grassroots Network Proposal
What Happened?
• Proposition 13 passed by voters in 1978 to
give taxpayers protection from property
taxes.
• Trojan Horse: froze tax rates and gave
power to state government to allocate
property taxes.
Effects
- Property tax only 7% of cities' revenue (15% in
1976)
• Reduced state and federal aid to cities
> 1974-75: 21%
> Today: 13°%
• Result: Serious cuts in city services
> 12% cut in library funding
> 22% cuts in parks and recreation
Before 1978
• Inconceivable that a city could not maintain
its streets, equip its libraries, answer
emergency calls, and have attractive parks.
• California renowned as one of the
"strongest home rule states in the nation."
• Today that era seems like a dream.
The Other Shoe Drops in
., 1991-1992
• Economic Recession: state takes local
property tax to fund schools
• Total cost in 2001: over $4 billion (51.6
billion to cities; $300 m./year growth)
•
$15 billion state surplus — but no ERAF
return
State Cuts of City Revenues
C-14- mwl
SO • • -
R :.crrr 11 L
4+00 .
sz0o
4300
4400 S ... .... .
4sc0
4600.
4)00 J _
4eco .
sso0 .
■uw.,0•.•a.r •wwwawe•. .,n.. A.muaew.
cw nem o,a r..R
.d
Z
suotstAtp anaea-1 Suouie paingtnstQ.%
33UIS an5sa-1 futlstxo £ pue mau t,I Q -
saog;o pla3 01 C
spaau antlelsiSal
Isauto 1.toddns 01 samnnae SIOOJSSt12 aZtueoio
pue Olesaua5 of sloleutpJooa plai33o Ytowolq .
UI SI IVHM
.jzOM43N SloO.ISSE,ID
:asuodsa-j AaltulS y .
sunoo oql of lonuoa [too[ io3 alneq aql
5uplel :uogtRp!-j uolitjll91`d gutputg.g
-sapp altun itgl
sansst uo snoo; iomzIIo :tela ot5alel;S Q
(I) �ssauan[1aa,��
OATIVIS123-1 asea.laul 01 aaoa
Apua.gd an2caZ aq1 seg IBLIM t
Luse
'jaMW %p. ,(tjUal!!!a uudsuely
s! Diu aten:apN •M.Nino� ;vaa Y. Zts
.tmpM'6 •F x�4 ,� .
+!•tC6Na3JYn[ri' P x h. (SBUBA)
sue!
N 1
esL stuaO .
punctjela
s ��
��tiAt a7e1S f r• `
a xes sates cud noi'poods m( lollop algmm gxa!°,d
:xiel saps
3VSJ glt,,A dtgsiaul.ted pauagl$uailS
•uoileisi5ai uoildwaaid
pue altpuew [sow jvno; ,CIInjssaoonS Q
(laapnEl ale1S I0 -000Z) sppoj pus slawls
.1o3 5utpun; 5utpnlout `3atlaZl Ino -1 loaitCl
uollllq £, IS :sutM laopng.to3 passoij,.
(Z) ;,ssaaaAtlaajja
aAtletst2aZ asua laul 01 auo(I ,
Xpea.ljV anaeaZ aq) seH 1uqM
%ez =_
s04 -C-0
7
t00Z At mrf alvnapa MO-nA%9"L9189Y.
'�.Ool Saa3 AM Te1oi
':`.ZT Pun3 Te3aua9 97715
%L9 11 +:C sa?Ouabv azv7s
OLE; i ;:si sAe"m4MR a:eOS
soot Osw j ':.ET MCI a;e7s
':.8T TO -led Ann 1?iez
xey aeo •;ZT sa?1?J
i.,ta lnoA of sao5 ganw A'LOH
:saa3 uotle.tlstSaZl -7 asuaot-I alotgaA
'•^M=X^✓31 I�^••A++SINJ ]JY:IIM'
('care tuauldganaposm is
' ti!a a m.ivadeld In,ddy
i xu
su4+cO
%IeWaS
/ofPiS ��
%`9 �
,
Un
LAlta inoX of sao5 gonw mOH
:xj kpadoid
Why a Grassroots Network?
(1)
We need to do something different!
• Loss of local governments' political clout in era of
legislative term limits
• Increasing emphasis on campaign contributions
• Deep frustration on the part of many local officials
• Growth of legislators with local government
experience provides great opportunity.
...
Lobbying and Campaign Contributions
3
We're Being Outspent ...
Lobbying and Campaign Contributions
$4.0
..
$a.s
$0.0 RAk. ora•w•.
ff.fN.f]a
S $2.5
m
0
$2-0
a
$t.s
crer.N rk.nam.r
� 57.0 t..w.•r Aa.n
calfpNe Gfe f) fat SS)
$0.5 ta,]f1.0N
$0.0
ti Why a Grassroots Network?
,
_® ' (2)
• Well -tested means to communicate with dispersed
membership, used by:
>Political campaigns
i�Teachers, labor & other statewide organizations
• Create organized and focused responses
• Keep key city issues in front of legislators, media,
etc. so legislators can be accountable for their
votes on key city issues.
.
League of 56 E02 Supporters
Calilornia Gties
]e•w tyr•+9aeaM N9wa weed rMfm (afem+Sada Nae"aanM'^I •'pn•ra•caea bnry
E.s.+ar rwe•ee� u� W� amvr..r rr•a
We're Being Outspent ...
Campaign Contributions
$7.0
i
�
$6.0
� 55.0.
'5 SA -0 R2
o � a
53.0 ' �y,
x52.0 i
w S1.0
i
so .0
We're Being Outspent
t2 0
$12'
s]o.o
SB.O
e
D
g ss
C $a D
M S2.0
FA F�U
$0.0
Sn.e'
f. anaaa
lxpira Crlame CrrRN Vann °f C•Menr taYrNs
4Nenw Caw � �. .�wa Mraw Ar Gwe�w
atwA+n. ..•. oss. rmfe•
R•N r.wrw•1 Aaaara
Gwn• 5•aww N9u.nao-e rffAc)LgwM Swam Aw<•amq•q �Yww+a.us.Way
swe gen arybna s w W w a W �a
...
Lobbying and Campaign Contributions
3
We're Being Outspent ...
Lobbying and Campaign Contributions
$4.0
..
$a.s
$0.0 RAk. ora•w•.
ff.fN.f]a
S $2.5
m
0
$2-0
a
$t.s
crer.N rk.nam.r
� 57.0 t..w.•r Aa.n
calfpNe Gfe f) fat SS)
$0.5 ta,]f1.0N
$0.0
ti Why a Grassroots Network?
,
_® ' (2)
• Well -tested means to communicate with dispersed
membership, used by:
>Political campaigns
i�Teachers, labor & other statewide organizations
• Create organized and focused responses
• Keep key city issues in front of legislators, media,
etc. so legislators can be accountable for their
votes on key city issues.
.
League of 56 E02 Supporters
Calilornia Gties
]e•w tyr•+9aeaM N9wa weed rMfm (afem+Sada Nae"aanM'^I •'pn•ra•caea bnry
E.s.+ar rwe•ee� u� W� amvr..r rr•a
We're Being Outspent ...
Campaign Contributions
$7.0
i
�
$6.0
� 55.0.
'5 SA -0 R2
o � a
53.0 ' �y,
x52.0 i
w S1.0
i
so .0
st What Research Tells Us
(1)
• In recent survey ofBusiness Weeks 1.600
companies. 82% indicated they used erassroots
strategies to influence legislation.
• Key congressional staff rank grassroots activities
as most effective mean
s to influence legislation
(57%).
$civ-s� Ga..mnuS'nore�v anJ rine<: 1f nar Il.vk•. Ilhor lk:e.n ], onJ W'hs,
Nichol D. Lord Wake Forca l:ni]asim's Babmck Graau]re School
of
S1arn5unem
rwtwa c.wunr orrw a.ae.orr rrrw� c.rwn.
4Yw•w eaw ApakwM1' A.W. wewN•Aan Carawar
AnerM•Aavr Yfswa NfeYbnw Iwo Mew. 4aeeYlw
R•a �uwe•1 Aa.sww
Seav Olawa]ceMN9WMsb rffam lafwNue Sade•
st What Research Tells Us
(1)
• In recent survey ofBusiness Weeks 1.600
companies. 82% indicated they used erassroots
strategies to influence legislation.
• Key congressional staff rank grassroots activities
as most effective mean
s to influence legislation
(57%).
$civ-s� Ga..mnuS'nore�v anJ rine<: 1f nar Il.vk•. Ilhor lk:e.n ], onJ W'hs,
Nichol D. Lord Wake Forca l:ni]asim's Babmck Graau]re School
of
S1arn5unem
IZ7' What Research Tells Us (2)
• Government/public affairs executives rank
grassroots as most effective (49%).
• Grassroots part of total advocacy strategy,
including lobbying, advertising and
contributions.
S,y_N4: G ---U R-Ia gy—d T-1—: Wkw W L, Mt ., D-7. aid
Why. Michail D. L.W. Wako F.,= Uni—ity', Babcock Graduate
School orManagcrncnt.
Coordinator's Job (1)
• Build relationships
➢Legislators and their district staff
>City officials - elected and appointed
DMedia
➢Possible coalition partners - Other individuals
and organizations
• Organize meetings, news conferences,
letter -writing and media campaigns
How Does the Network
Relate to Action for Better
Cities (ABC)? (1)
Action for Better Cities:
• Makes political expenditures (not campaign
contributions) to support "political"
activities (statewide initiative campaigns)
• Helped defeat Proposition 37 (local fees and
taxes)
•
Will lead initiative effort for cities' fiscal
' How Cities Will Benefit
• Increased focus on major issues of concern
to all cities
>Fiseal reform
➢Transportation funding
➢Preservation of local control
• Increased potential for impact
tk
' Coordinator's Job (2)
• Support city officials in drafting sample
letters
• Train city staff on legislative process
• Presentations on legislative developments
• Insight on political dynamics influencing
legislation
How Does the Network
Relate to Action for Better
Cities (ABC)? (2)
Grassroots Coordinating Network:
• Create and maintain a network of city
officials, other coalition partners
• Bring sustained, focused attention to city
issues
• Hold legislators accountable
4
Proposed Location of
=I
Field Offices
o --
What About Cities Who
1 Already Have Lobbyists?
• Grassroots coordinators do not replace
Iobbyists
➢Hired to be political organizers, not
lobbyists or policy advisors
➢Focus only on issues of statewide
importance to all cities
>No representation or support for agendas of
individual cities or regions
AIM
"ic7' What's At Stake
Estimated cost of Grassroots Network: $1.6
million
>Four one -hundredths of one percent (0.04%)
of $3.8 billion annual city sales and use taxes
>One tenth of one percent (0.01%) of $1.57
billion cities receive in Vehicle License Fee
revenues (including backfill)
>Both revenues sources are vulnerable to state
appropriation in another economic recession
Proposed Location of
' Field Offices
• League will use RFP process and Special
Advisory Committee to select locations
• Focus on achieving highest impact on
League lobbying
• keep program affordable
Program Costs
• Estimated annual cost of $1.6 million
• Spread among all member cites
• Based upon League's dues structure
(population)
>Current median dues: $4,930
>Median dues increase: $2,588
>New median total dues: $7,818
'Pill I
What's At Stake: City Sales Tax and VLF
Revenues Far Exceed Grassroots Network Cost
S4,000
$3,500
53,000
Local Saleste
$2,500 & UseTax
132.000 �'•"W
$1,500
;; Gnszroots
$1.000 ven de 4cense comdfntor
-Network Cost
5500 Fea ryLFry � sr.s�e,
$• _
l' Membership
M Accountability
• Board sets clear long-term goals, annual
objectives and reports regularly to
membership
• Unbiased, professional evaluation 3 times
during first 5 years
• Membership votes after 5 years to continue
or abandon the program
a No More
"Business As Usual"
• Cities must build on their strengths
• Strong grassroots is cities' answer to big
money politics
• "Maintenance of status quo is not a rational
option!" — (A contract lobbyist)
Next Steps
Cities are requested to vote on new League
bylaw to establish Grassroots Network
> Bylaw amendment includes dues increase to
pay for program
➢Program established if supported by 2/3 of
those voting
9
League of California Cities COPY
Ballot on Grassroots Network
City of U o A
Does your city vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the
League's bylaws relating to the establishment of a League
Grassroots Network (attached as Attachment A and
incorporated by reference in this ballot), along with the dues
schedule (attached as Attachment B and also incorporated by
reference in this ballot)?
[ I Yes
[ ] No
Ballot returned b
,�7s City Official Name
` 4 City Official Title
Ballots must be returned by First Class Mail and postmarked no
later than July 6, 2001.
Return ballots to:
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, 4t" Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Counting Committee
Attachment A:
Proposed Addition to League Bylaws
Article XVI: Establishment and Financing of
Grassroots Network
Section 1: Enhancement of Advocacy Efforts.
To enhance the League's advocacy efforts on behalf of cities, the League hereby
establishes a Grassroots Network. The Grassroots Network consists of a series of field
offices throughout California, responsible for coordinating city advocacy efforts and
promoting statewide League policy priorities.
Section 2: Dues Increase
(a) Initial Financing. The dues increase approved concurrently with the addition
of Article XVI shall finance the League's Grassroots Network for the second half
of 2001 and for 2002. The increase shall be used exclusively to finance the
Grassroots Network.
(b) Continued Financing. Any subsequent dues increases shall occur in
accordance with Article IV.'
Section 3: Accountability
(a) Annual Goal -Setting and Performance Assessment. The League Board
shall set long-term goals and annual objectives for the League's Grassroots
Network. The League Board shall periodically report to the League's Member
Cities on the Grassroots Network's performance in meeting those goals and
objectives.
(b) Board Discontinuance. If at any time the League Board finds the
Grassroots Network is not meeting its objectives on behalf of cities, the League
Board may discontinue the Grassroots Network.
(c) Membership Vote on Program Continuation. On or before December 31,
2007, the Board shall ask Member Cities to vote on whether to continue the
Grassroots Network beyond December 31, 2008.2
Explanatory Note: 'Article IV" is the existing section of the League's bylaws, which provide for 1) a
two-thirds vote of approval by the League board for all dues increases as well as 2) division ratification of dues
increases in excess of the Consumer Price Index. Article IV also caps individual city dues increases at $5,000
per year.
2 The League's bylaws provide that a majority of votes cast is necessary for decision on League votes.
See Article XII, § 4.
Attachment B:
Proposod Dues to Establish the Grassroots Network
For cities having a population of:
(A)
Base
Dues
Paid in
2007
(B)
% , ���
a� .�, -
Additional :
Dues fob
Grassroots
Last half%`
of 2001;,
(C)
Base
Dues for
2002
(Est.)
[A + 4%]
� ,
�,fAnnual�
r Des'1or;
Grassroots•.
Netvvo rk -
20a2(Esij
[B X 2 + 4°%1 =;
(E)
Total Dues
Including
Grassroots
Network
2002 (Est.)
[C + D]
1
to
500
...
$37
$fi0'
$39
, , $2b0'
$59
501
to
600
...
99
., � 26 '
103
157
601
to
700
197
5
205
; , '108`,
312
701
to
800
...
216
,=
;5� ;
225
w `11t3 X>
342
801
to
900
. _ .
...
259
269
;
410
901
to
1,000
317
a` a
_
330,
e �`s'Y �z
��t73#
503
1,001
to
1,250
494'
514
x,`70#,
784
1,251
to
1,500
...
611
�10�#=
X60 j~
635
334''`;
969
1,501
to
1,750
...
727
191, :
756397„;
1,152
1,751
to
2,000
865
227
900
473 f3
1,373
2,001
to
2,250
...
921
242,
958503;
1,461
2,251
to
2,550
1,020
268`1'
1,061
557;!;
1,618
2,501
to
2,750
1,078
283
1,122
"589
1,710
2,751
to
3,000
1,176
309,;0
1,223,642"{
1,865
3,001
to
4,000
...
1,316
346 ;.
1,369
719
2,088
4,001
to
5,000
1,570
$ 4121
1,633
857=k
2,490
5,001
to
7,500
...
2,044
X536=;
2,125
m 1116
3,241
7,501
to
10,000
...
2,359
.6 X19 ''
2,453
288fC
3,741
10,001
to
15,000
...
2,848
7471'
2,961
9",55�v`%
4,516
15,001
to
20,000
...
3,279
X861
3,411
fi 791'£. <
5,201
20,001
to
25,000
4,105
=1;078
4,269
"2,24`
6,511
25,001
to
30,000
4,930`'1
294
5,127
`' 2 692,8'
7,818
30,001
to
40,000
...
6,068
A"593':','
6,3113
313'3;:,:
9,624
40,001
to
50,000
7,382
1 938
7,677
pr
403f">
11,708
50,001
to
60,000
8,504
,:
";2,232 a:
8,844
£' 4V3-4
13,487
60,001
to
70,000
9,346
;:;2;453;
9,7205;t03"1
14,823
70,001
to
80,000
...
9,817
2577 '.
10,210
5 360r
15,570
80,001
to
90,000
...
10,464
,2,747 •
10,883
� r ' S,714
16,597
90,001
to
100,000
...
11,464
<3,009>'
11,9236
s-62'6,Qc;
18,182
100,001
to
�
'25,000
13,075
13,598
a
7,13�;'.'k';
20,737
125,001
to
'150,000
14,392
,'34321';
'3178 "
14,968
a ;�
7 858;
22,826
150,001
to
200,000
16,357
;4294.
17,011
X8;9311,
25,942
200,001
to
500,000
17,176
4,509-
17,863
5 9378"'
27,241
Plus
819
2.15.
852
447:=
1,299
per each full 10,000 of
population over 200,001
500,001
to
640,000
41,693
43,361
22"413
1 6125
Plus
757
I 10 i99
a 787
I
1201
per each full 10,000 of
population over 500, 009_
Over
640,000
51,950
13637;.
54,028°
28,365;
82,393
For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article IV, section 2, is
suspended for the years 2001 and 2002. The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will apply
to total dues in year 2003 and years following.
The League board will consider in September whether a cost -of -living adjustment for dues will be needed in 2002.
This table shows 2002 dues with a cost -of -living adjustment of 4%.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-165
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES BYLAWS TO INCREASE DUES TO IMPLEMENT
THE LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK
WHEREAS, a task force of the League of California Cities is recommending
support of an initiative titled: "Grassroots Network"; and
WHEREAS, the task force recommended 14 additional employees to staff 10
field offices to support the advancement of legislation that benefits all cities; and
WHEREAS, in 1991-1992 the State began taking local property taxes to fund
schools, costing cities over $1.6 billion; and
WHEREAS, s'atewide'property tax revenues have dropped from 15% to 7% of
all cities' revenues; and
WHEREAS, the State legislature continues to pass bills that impose un -funded
mandates and preempts local authority, limiting the ability of cities to respond to the
challenges and opportunities in their communities; and
WHEREAS, the legislative position of cities is increasingly underrepresented in
relation to the lobbying and fundraising efforts of opposing groups.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi
does hereby support an amendment to the League of California Cities Bylaws and does
hereby support an increase in dues to implement the League's "Grassroots Network."
Dated: June 20, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2001-165 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 20, 2001, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Land and Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Howard and Mayor Nakanishi
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
The foregoing dOLL11 ;er;: is certified to he a correct SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
copy of the original on file in the City Clerk's Office. City Clerk
Jennifer M. Perrin
Deputy City Clerk, City of Lodi 2001-165
Dat '�
Dated: b/a� of