BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 347 |Hearing |7/8/15 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Chang |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |3/26/15 |Fiscal: |No |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Lewis |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Local agencies: city selection committees
Requires specified city council members to serve as the voting
member of the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee when a
mayor is unable to attend a meeting.
Background and Existing Law
State law creates a "city selection committee" in counties that
have two or more cities, composed of all of the mayors in that
county, to appoint city members to boards and commissions. Each
city appoints an elected official as its delegate to the city
selection committee, usually its mayor. A quorum of a majority
of cities on a city selection must be present at a meeting for
the committee to vote. When the mayor is unable to attend a
meeting of the selection committee, state law requires the mayor
to designate another member of the city's legislative body to
attend and vote at the meeting in the mayor's place.
The Los Angeles County City Selection Committee is composed of
the mayors of each of the 88 cities within Los Angeles County;
45 or more mayors must be present at the City Selection
Committee's meetings to reach a quorum. Because mayors often
get caught in traffic or cannot attend meetings for other
reasons, the Los Angeles County City Selection Committee has
historically had trouble reaching a quorum. Even when an
AB 347 (Chang) 3/26/15 Page 2
of ?
unavailable mayor designates an alternate to attend and vote at
a Committee meeting in his or her place, the designated
alternate is sometimes unable to attend. This situation has
made it difficult for the committee to function.
The Brown Act specifically allows local legislative bodies to
use teleconferencing instead of meeting in person, but the size
of Los Angeles County and the number of mayors (or alternates)
needed to reach a quorum makes it impractical for the committee
to hold teleconference meetings instead of meeting in person.
Some Los Angeles County cities now propose changing state law to
create a clear, statutorily defined line of succession in the
event of a mayor's inability to attend the meetings of the Los
Angeles County's City Selection Committee.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 347 provides that, for the City Selection
Committee in the County of Los Angeles, the following applies
when the mayor is unable to attend a meeting of the Committee:
Either the vice mayor or mayor pro tempore serve as the
voting member and is entitled to one vote; and,
In the absence of the mayor and the vice mayor or mayor
pro tempore, the next ranking council member, determined by
seniority of service, serves as the voting member and is
entitled to one vote. .
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. The Los Angeles County City Selection
AB 347 (Chang) 3/26/15 Page 3
of ?
Committee has been unable to consistently reach quorums to fill
elections to regional boards and commissions. In some cases,
this results in key appointments remaining vacant or unable to
open for elections. Mayors and city council members in Los
Angeles County face unique challenges including traffic,
distance, notification, and time of meetings contributes to the
quorum challenges. AB 347 offers some flexibility to meet that
challenge."
2. Getting by. Existing law already requires an unavailable
mayor to designate another member of the city's legislative body
to attend and vote at a city selection committee meeting in the
mayor's place. If the committee schedules its meetings with
advanced notice, and mayors have permanently designated
alternates, it is unclear why the Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee would still have difficulty meeting its
quorum requirements.
Similarly, state law gives city selection committees the
authority to formulate their own rules governing the time,
place, and manner of their meetings. It is unclear that a
change in state law is needed to allow the Los Angeles County
City Selection Committee to meet a quorum, when existing law
permits the committee to choose meeting locations, times, and
formats most convenient for its members.
3. Special legislation . The California Constitution prohibits
special legislation when a general law can apply (Article IV,
§16). AB 347 contains findings and declarations explaining the
need for legislation that applies only to the Los Angeles County
City Selection Committee.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government 9-0
Assembly Floor 78-0
Support and
Opposition (7/8/15)
Support : California Contract Cities Association; Cities of
Avalon, Bellflower, Burbank, Cerritos, Claremont, Diamond Bar,
Downey, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lomita, Malibu, Norwalk, Rosemead,
AB 347 (Chang) 3/26/15 Page 4
of ?
Santa Fe Springs, Signal Hill, South Pasadena, Torrance, Walnut,
and Whittier; Los Angeles County Division of the League of
California Cities; South Bay Cities Council of Governments.
Opposition : Unknown.
-- END --