03-23-1970 - Regular Meeting - Minutesw
•
MINUTES OF THE RE�GULAR'MEETI&G OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 23, 1970.
The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at
7:31 P.M., in the West Covina City Hall, by Mayor Leonard S. Gleckman.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Tom Gillum. The
invocation was given by Reverend Jerome H. Vanover of the Community
Presbyterian Church of West Covina.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Gleckman; Councilmen Gillum, Nichols,
Chappell, Lloyd.
Also Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Wakefield, City Attorney
H. R. Fast, Public Services Director
George Zimmerman, City Engineer
Richard Munsell, Planning Director
Ross Nammar, Administrative Assistant
Doug Dawson, Administrative Analyst
Chairman Tice - Personnel Board
Ed Faunceo Art Sanborn - Personnel Board
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 16, 1970 - Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Council-
man Lloyd, and carried, approving minutes as sub-
mitted.
AWARD OF BIDS
1) PROJECT NO. 7002 LOCATION: Civic Center ,area
(Bid No. 70-50) Bids received in the office of the
City Clerk at 10:00 A.M. on
February 18, 1970. Held over from
February 24, 1970 and March 9, 1970
to this date. Council reviewed Engineer's report. City Clerk advised'
the reading of the bids had been done at the previous meeting.,
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement
for the landscape/sprinkler maintenance on the Los Angeles County -
West Covina Civic Center site with the low bidder, Roger White Land-
scape Service of Los Angeles, for a period of 24 months at a cost of
$19995.50 monthly, with the total cost being divided equally between
the City of West Covina and Los Angeles County.
Mr. Aiassa: Mr. Mayor, in reference to this project,
City Manager No. 7002, I would like to receive authorization
from Council for an additional $3,006 from
account No. 125-7002 for any change orders that might be needed.
So moved .by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Nichols, and carried.
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
1) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC - Council reviewed Engineer's
WORKS CONSTRUCTION report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4125 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ADOPT-
ING THE 1970 EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
CONSTRUCTION."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of -said Resolution.
- 1 -
REG. C..C. 3-23-70 Page Two
Public Works Items (Item 1 a) Cont'd.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, adopt-
ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
• Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
• carried, instructing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
amendments to the Municipal Code and correct the references from the
1967 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Con
struction to the 1970 Edition.
•
11
2) RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR
HOLLENBECK STREET IMPROVE-
MENTS. Mr. & Mrs. W. Hannah
LOCATION: 841 South Hollenbeck St.
West side of Street between Cameron
Avenue and Vine Avenue.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, authorizing the Engineering staff to negotiate right-of-way
acquisition in exchange for the City's paying the cost of curb,
gutter, and street improvements at the Wallis Hannah property at
841 South Hollenbeck Street.
3) EXCAVATION ORDINANCE
MODIFICATION
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Gillum., seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, directing the City Attorney to prepare a modification to the
excavation ordinance.
4) STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
LAD 66-71
LOCATION.:. Throughout the City.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Nichols, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, to accept and file Engineer's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4126 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA, LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FIFTH YEAR (OF THE FIVE
YEAR PERIOD) BEGINNING JUL.Y 11, 1970, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1971, PUR-
SUANT TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 3393 ORDERING THE CITY
CLERK OF SAID CITY TO TRANSMIT'. -DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT TO THE COUNTY TAX
COLLECTOR, EMPOWERING SAID TAX COLLECTOR TO MAKE COLLECTIONS FOR
SAID ASSESSMENTS FOR SAID YEAR.
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading of
the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
the resolution levying the assessments for the fifth .year (of the five
year period) beginning July 1, 1.970,.and ending June 30, 1971.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gilium, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5) STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
LAD 68-71
LOCATION: Annexation No. 192 and
Giano School.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, to accept and file Engineer's report.
RESOLUTION NO. 4127 The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALI-
FORNIA, LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS
2 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS (Item 5) Cont'd.
Page Three
'FOR THE THIRD YEAR (OF THE THREE
YEAR PERIOD) BEGINNING JULY 1, 1970,
AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1971, PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION NO. 3808 ORDERING THE CITY CLERK OF SAID CITY TO TRANSMIT
DIAGRAM ASSESSMENT TO THE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR EMPOWERING SAID TAX
COLLECTOR TO MAKE COLLECTION OF SAID ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAID YEAR."
•
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no
objections, waive further reading of
•
the body of
said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried
on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols,
Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
6) PROJECT NO. SP-69007
LOCATION: West side of Azusa Avenue
Albert Handler
between Cameron Avenue and Fleet -
well Street.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report)
RESOLUTION NO. 4128
The City Clerk presented:
ADOPTED
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, ACCEPT-
ING A TEMPORARY RIGHT TO PASS AND
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body
of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
• AYES: Councilmen Gillum,,Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
7) RESOLUTION NO. 4129
ADOPTED
The City Clerk presented:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A PORTION OF FAIR-
WAY LANE FORMERLY VACATED.
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd., adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell; .Lloyd," Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8) REVISIONS OF THE CITY'S LOCATION: Throughout City.
SELECT SYSTEM OF STREETS & (Council reviewed Engineer's report)
HIGHWAYS
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols,.and
carried, authorizing the City Engineer to coordinate select system
routes with adjacent .jurisdictions.
9) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT 132 LOCATION: Service Avenue between
Street Improvements Glendora and Valinda Avenues.
Clara Baldwin Stocker Home
for Women
Motion by Councilman G.11.um, . seconded .by Councilman .Lloyd, .and
carried, accepting street improvements., ...s,idewalk....and_driveways,
and authorizing.the release:of Western Casualty and Surety Company's
Bond No. 355137 .i.n.. th .._.amount - of $ 5-, 70.0,.
10) VINCENT AVENUE ..APPRAISAL LOCATION: Westerly.of Glendora
(AKA VINCENT..PLACE) Avenue between the intersection of
Glendora Avenue with Vincent Avenue
and the intersection of Glendora
3 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Public Works Items (Item 10) Cont°d.
Page Four
r,
Avenue with Walnut Creek Channel.
(Council reviewed Engineer's report)
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, accepting the appraisal report and authorizing the staff and
the City Attorney to proceed with the exchange and sale of property.
11) RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISER LOCATION: San Bernardino Freeway
• SAN BERNARDINO FREEWAY Frontage.
WIDENING (Council reviewed Engineer's report)
•
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, authorizing the transfer from Account SD 70004 Storm Drain
Design $8,000 into Account MP 70016 Right -of -Way Appraisals.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, authorizing the engagement of Harrison Baker and Associates,
at a cost not to exceed $8,000 to appraise the parcels of property
which will be bought or sold by the City in connection with the
San Bernardino Freeway reconstruction.
12) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
STATE DIV. OF HIGHWAYS
LOCATION: San Bernardino Freeway
(Council reviewed Engineer's report.)
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Nichols, and
carried, approving the cooperative agreement and authorizing
execution by the Mayor and City Clerk after receipt of the final draft
from the Division of Highways provided there are no substantive
changes in the present draft agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Action of March 18, 1970.
Reviewed By Council.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, to accept and file- the- action of the.Planning Commission
of March 18, 1970.
Request of Chairman Adams re. Planning Dept. Work Schedule
(Mayor Gleckman determined that Council had no objection to the
addition of this item to the agenda.)
Mr. Aiassao Since there will be a councilmatic election on
City Manager April 14th, I would suggest that this report
be held over until after that date.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Mayor Gleckman, and carried,
holding over to the Council meeting of April 27, 1970.
D) RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION -
a Review Summer Budget
Mayor Gleckman: We have a report recommending that the
posed amount of $52,710 be reduced to
$49,710 thus reflecting a continuing of
programs we experienced last summer.
pro -
the
Mr. Aiassa: We are going to adhere to the 1969-70 budget
City Manager because you are being.a-sked to.approve in
advance so the Recreation Department can hire
the intermediate staff needed for.the..summer programs. What may
occur after we review the budget and adopt it for the 1970-71 fiscal
year is that the full amount may be budgeted, but at this time we
would like to establish the equivalent of what we had last year.
Motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman Gillum, approv-
ing the recommendation of staff that the proposed amount of
$52,710 be reduced to $49,710, thus reflecting a $3,000 difference
- 4 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Recreation & Park Com. - Cont°d.
Page Five
from previous budget, and that in essence this be the budget for
the year 1970-71.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr. Aiassa, we are not locked in and we have
the freedom of movement when this comes up
at our budget sessions to discuss the merit
of each item?
• Mr. Aiassa: This is right. But what we need now is the
City Manager availability of recruitment.
Mayor Gleckman: Any further comments? The only comment I
would have each year when we get involved with
the Recreation & Park Department summer budget
we continually cut back. This time they are asking for $3,000 more
and I don't see an increase in programs,only in cost.
Mr. Aiassa: There is an increase suggested in the operation
City Manager of programs. What they are trying to do is
provide two recreational leaders for each area
and before we do that I want to study it a little more and present
the facts to the Council in report form.
Motion carried.
PERSONNEL BOARD
Minutes of February 3, 1970 Motion by Councilman Gillum, second -
February 11, 1970 ed by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to accept and file the minutes of the
Personnel Board dated February 3, 1970.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
to accept and file the minutes of the.Personnel Board dated
February 11, 1970.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a) Board of Supervisors - Opposing State.Senate Bill (Hold -over to
Item I-3 of City Manager's agenda)
b) Chamber of Commerce
Annual Fireworks Show at Mt. SAC
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
granting permission to the Chamber of Commerce regarding the Annual
Fireworks Show at Mt. Sac.
C) City Council of E1 Segundo - Resolution No. 2307
Beautify Railroad Rights -of -Way
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring to staff.
d) Rotary Club of West Covina
Exhibition of Trailer at Newport Beach
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, authorizing the Rotary Club to use the trailer and place
it on exhibit at their convention at Newport Beach.
e) League of Women Voters of East San Gabriel Valley
Request Agenda and Minutes be sent to their Official Observer
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, authorizing the sending of Council agenda and minutes to
the League of Women Voters official observer, Marjorie Welch,
1915 E. Via Verde, West Covina.
- 5 -
REG. CoCo 3-23-70 Page Six
Written Communications - Cont'd.
f) Californians for Yes on 7 - Endorsement
Raising Interest Rate on Bonds
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring to staff.
• g) South Hills Little .Le.ague - Candy...S.ale-.
• Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, granting permission to the South Hills Little League to
conduct a candy sale during the period starting April 4, 1970 and
ending on April 18, 1970.
h) Resolution No. 2785 of the City of Covina
re Mid -Year Salary Adjustments for Sheriffs & County Fire Depts.
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, referring to staff.
CITY ATTORNEY
1) ORDINANCE The City Attorney presented:'
INTRODUCTION "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, AMEND-
ING SECTIONS 7200, 7219, 7221, 72374, 7239, 7241 and 7242 OF THE
WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXCAVATIONS IN PUBLIC STREETS."
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and carried,
waiving further reading of the body of said Ordinance.
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
. carried, that said Ordinance be introduced.
2) RESOLUTION NO. 4130 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, OPPOS-
ING ASSEMBLY BILL 98 RELATING TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION"
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion.by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, adopt-
ing said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,.Nichols,.Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES None
ABSENT: None
3) RESOLUTION NO. 4131 The City Attorney presented:
ADOPTED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, RELAT-
ING TO CHARGES FOR POLICE SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES TO CONTRACT CITIES."
Mayor Gleckman: Hearing no objections, waive further reading
of the body of said Resolution.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, adopting
said Resolution. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CITY MANAGER
1) TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES Reviewed by Council.
March 17, 1970
Motion by Councilman Chappell,.seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, to accept and file.
- 6 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Seven
City Manager - Cont°d.
2). CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGN
Mayor Gleckman: I would entertain a motion that Operation
Clean -Up be set aside for a Study meeting so
we can set policies that will prevail from
this time on.
So moved by Councilman Nichols, seconded by
• Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
(Mayor Gleckman directed Mr. Aiassa to please set up.)
3) SENATE BILL #38 -.STATE HIGHWAY FUND
Mayor Gleckman: We have a staff report on this and also a
letter from the Board of Supervisors request-
ing that this City, which is in the County of
Los Angeles, adopt a Resolution opposing Bill #38 and forward copies
to the State Legislators.
So moved by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by
Councilman Chappell, and carried.
Councilman Nichols: With the permission of the Chair may I return
to Item 1 of the Traffic Committee minutes ?
(Permission granted.) Mr. Aiassa, on Item 7 on the extension for
the turn pocket at BBK - have they experienced accidents?
Mr. Zimmerman: There were two accidents, none recorded in the
• City Engineer last couple of years. One in 1967 when a
disposal truck left the BBK driveway and was
struck in the rear by northbound traffic, and a similar accident
• later'in 1967, but none in 1968 or 1969.
Councilman Chappell: I thought sometime ago we recommended they
stay open 24 hours a day and I notice in this
report it shows they are closing at 6:30 p.m.?
Mayor Gleckman: Every day but weekends.
Councilman Chappell: I didn't read it that way in the report.
Mr. Aiassa: No and we are checking on it.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) PERSONNEL BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO WITHDRAW FROM
SOCIAL SECURITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Mayor Gleckman: Last Monday night the Council held an open
meeting with the Personnel Board and the
three consultants involved, and at that time
it was requested by Council that we meet with them in public and
then set -for hearing, on the 23rd of March, so that any comments
/ that might wish to be made by the City employees could be.
(Stated procedure for this public hearing.)
THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
John W. Forrester We had 90/ in round figures of the employees
726 N. Caroline indicating to Council they desired to drop
West Covina Social Security so that-we.can go into the
(Police Detective) State Plan. I believe I have heard talk
around, -about an -injunction being served on
Council. I don't know if that is fact or not, but if it is,
I believe possibly it'is'true of a very small minority group - 3
or 4; and if Council allows this very small group to override the
- 7 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Hearings - Cont°de''
Page Eight
i`
wishes of the majority then you .are doing a disservice to the
employees on a whole. I don't think in your good judgment you
should allow this to happen. I realize you don't even have to ask
the City employees for what their wishes are in this regard, but
now that you have and now that they have indicated to you a vast
majority of willingness to drop from Social Security, I think
you should probably adhere to our wishes. If in your good judg-
ment you do decide to do this I don't think you will have any.
where near the dissatisfaction among the employees as you would
if you do decide to maintain our membership in the Federal Social
Security act.
Thelborn Stanford
844 Crumley
West Covina
Special Services
I agree with what Mr. Forrester says. I
would like to bring out a point that I brought
out at the Personnel Board meeting. I don't
Off. think any of us want to have to work until we
with Social Security
get enough out of it
in for your wife or
living conditions of
until I am 65 years
Security.
are 65 years old and if we keep this system
there is no way in the world we can retire and
to live on when you have to leave part of it
take one of the options offered, under the
today. I sure don't want to have to work
old and therefore I request that you drop Social
Charles Bahn I am now speaking for the Public Safety Divi-
Fire Engineer sion of the Fire Department and also the
West Covina Police Department. I will make -a -general
statement. We do not want to go into length
at this time but just.a general statement on the..things that have
happened. We feel the vote taken by the city employees,,including
all of themishowed a definite 82/ of all city .employees wishing to
drop Social Security. We feel this is a very significant number of
employees throughout the City wanting to drop, and along with the
recommendation of the Personnel Board - 4 to 1 in favor of dropping
Social Security, we feel with these strong recommendations you should
consider dropping and we urge the Council to drop Social Security.
This is a very important issue for us and affects us financially.
Possibly later on we will get into some of the increases that would
be expected by the employees if we stay in Social Security, but at
this time we urge that you do consider the wishes of the majority of
the employees and drop Social Security.
Harold Lange I would like to say that I have gotten forty
3313 N. Eastbury signatures so we are a little larger than a
Covina few who want to retain Social Security. I.have
Planning Department some figures I could show you where I could
point out that in 1995 the city could find
itself liable for anywhere from $840,000 to $1,250,000 per year, if
Social Security were to increase at the rate of the cost of living
which is roughly 5% per year. Since there hasn't been too much to
rebuke on the part of those that wish to drop it there isn't much
more to say at this time. There are forty of us in City Mall proper
that wish to stay in Social Security.
Mayor Gleckman: If you like you may present the petition to the
City -Attorney and make it an official part of
record. One question by a Councilman - did I
understand that you passed this around here in City Hall only?
Mr. Lange: Yes only in City Hallo Not.at the City Yard
or any other place. Now there may have been
some of them that heard about it and signed,
I really don't know.
Ron Hedrick The gentleman just before me said he had a
1107 Kingside Drive list of 40. names. The vote .as .I..l.ast. recall
Covina was 317, which.me.ans there.must be about 277
Fire Department employees for dropping Social Security. The
gentleman also had an opportunity to present
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Nine
Hearings - Cont°d.
facts on his actuary as prepared by the actuary for the individual
employees, I would like at this time to present a little picture
on my own actuary. The annual contribution as shown here under
Social Security is $374.00 a year. .This is based on the maximum
Social Security earnings. The maximum number of quarters at $7800
• started for me at about $3000 and is still building up, so I would
not receive the maximum benefit at retirement because I haven't
paid on the 87800. rate long enough. President Nixon has proposed
that OASDI be paid on $9000. income effective next year.
My actuary shows that I am paying OASDI at
the maximum rate. It also shows that I do not have enough years
left before retirement age to receive the maximum benefit which is
supposed to be $250.00 a month. The actuary shows the maximum
amount I can receive under OASDI is $181.00.
Actuary Item I - Retirement Age 55. The actuary makes the
assumption that my income at age 55 (24 years from now) will be
the same as it is today. At age 18, thirteen years ago, my income
was under $300.00 a month. My income now shows a 35% increase.
Using my previous wage experience as a guideline, and this is being
conservative, my income at age 55 will be 65-70% higher. This will
amount to approximately $1400.00. I am a fireman now and plan to
advance. The Captains salary is over $1100.00 now.
Item I shows my retirement income will be $423.00 My calculations
show that it will be at least $700.00 and by dropping OASDI I will
receive an additional $85.00 as compensation for what I have already
paid into OASDI. The current program shows that my PERS income
will drop by $181.00 when OASDI begins to pay at age 65, if I live
that long.
If some of the miscellaneous employees' actuaries show a drop in
income under straight PERS it is only reasonable to project their
increase in PERS at - their own. retirement ..age. and• see how.- it comes
out.
Actuary Item II - non -service death:.. Everyone.has life insurance -
the City and PERS both '.provide a months salary per year of service
up to 6 years. Under Item A - I already have the ten quarters and
1959 Survivor's benefit would provide more to my widow than the
current plan with OASDI. Under Item B - I still come out ahead by
dropping OASDI. Under Item C (1) remains the same in or out of
OASDI. Item 2 - shows a loss of $80.00 a month to my widow by
dropping OASDI. This is only if I have less than 10 years with
PERS. However, I, and.I am sure 99% of all married employees will
provide for their wife by taking one of the retirement options.
The option as shown in my actuary provides 50% at age 55 for me,
but doesn't provide for my widow when I die. If a member dies a
week after retiring on. the 50% option, his widow would only receive
the $500.00 death benefit. By taking one of the options a member
can provide 50% of his retirement as a monthly income for the life
of his widow. This would be received in addition to the $70.00
from OASDI.
Actuary Item III - non -service disabled:. (A) is the same with or
without OASDI. (B) QASDI drops off some, however many people carry
private disability insurance. With the 4.8% savings that dropping
OASDI provides, everyone. should be .able-.to...buy_insurance at least
until they have the ten years of service and then PERS. covers -them
for ..1/3 salary if they cannot do the job they are hired.to do. A
member does not have to be completely.dis.abled to.collect PERS as
with OASDI. (C) Using--the.s.ame.previous service projections my
salary by 1980 should be around $1126— One-third would be $375.00
plus the $165.00 from OASDI as shown on my actuary that I would
receive from OASDI that is already earned.
I thank you for your indulgence with me in
this. I felt that my actuarial would be the same for many other
REG. C..C. 3-23-70 Page Ten
Hearings - Cont°d.
employees in the City and if they would take an honest evaluation
rather than taking what is down in black and white, they too would
find that they are gaining rather than losing.
Jim Hillis On February 20th a memo came to.the
1509 S. LaFayette Street Department as to a meeting here
San Gabriel in the Chambers pertaining to the
• Equipment Maintenance Retirement Systems. I came to this
meeting inasmuch as I am a representative
to the Employees' Association for the Street Department including
the trees and corporation yard employees. I told them at this
time don't include the Street personnel in this action because we
voted by a strong majority to drop Social Security and we want it
left this way. We are a big section of the Miscellaneous employees
and our general feeling by a strong majority is to drop social
security. I can't speak for the Park Department employees, but I
do know that they have a strong majority that wish to drop Social
Security,
Jim Butler, President The Retirement Committee as
W.C. Employees' Association set up with Councilman Gillum
as Chairman, appointed a sub-
committee and this Committee attempted to meet with all the
employees and explain all the items on the actuarial printo
sheet. We then held a general meeting with the employees and had
the three consultants present; questions were asked and answered;
we then went back and had a secret ballot of all employees. The
Safety employees where 100% in favor of withdrawing from Social
Security and the Miscellaneous employees were approximately 2 to 1
in favor of withdrawing. I believe there were 54"no°' votes from
the miscellaneous employees. The Employees' Association has stated
all along to the Personnel Board and would like to state it again'
this evening, that we are in favor of withdrawing from Social
Security and we.request that you do so. Also this morning and during
the day I received numerous phone calls from Miscellaneous employees
stating that this injunction as filed is not representing them as
Miscellaneous employees. Thank you.
Hal Lange This injunction is not necessarily all the
Planning people on the list. These people on the
list only want to retain , but some,
including myself, have donated to the injunction, but not necessarily
every one on the list. As far as the statement made as to the
maximum of $250.00 per month that is on $7800 and I am sure if the
$9,000 per year increase were made, there would also be an increase
in benefits. This $250. maximum is a base pension and does not
include the one-half additional you get for your wife, which puts
it up to $375. In my particular case Social Security accounts for
almost half of my pension. Thank you.
NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. COUNCIL DIS-
CUSSION.
Councilman Nichols: I think at the outset it would be
appropriate to ask the City Attorney to
comment on the injunction that has been
issued against the City and City Council and to comment in some
detail as to the implications.of that injunction- and as to its
effect on the Council as a body and as to its effect on the
individual councilmen in the discharge of their duties, because
obviously any consideration I might give this matter is going to
weigh considerably on these legal implications.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council,
City Attorney on Thursday of last week the City of
West Covina was served with an order to
show cause and a temporary restraining order in an action filed against
the City by certain employees of the City.
- 10 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Eleven
Public Hearings - Cont°d.
The Superior Court has issued a
Temporary Restraining Order on a:ex parte basis without any hearing
so far as the Court is considered. Among other things that ex__parte
order fixes a hearing date on April 3, 1970. In the meantime the
City Council is enjoined and restrained from taking any action either
directly or indirectly which would terminate or amend any agreement
between the City of West Covina and the Public Employees' Retirement
System. The effect of which would be to cause the withdrawal of the
City from Social Security participation. Also included in the
injunction against the City is the right of the City to perform any
act the result of which would be the termination of Social Security
coverage.
I think it important to say one or two
things with reference to the action itself and the nature of the
proceedings so far as the Court is concerned. During the day I have
had telephone calls.from several attorneys who apparently represent
various groups of city employees inquiring as to the effect of the
Temporary Restraining Order and making suggestions as to procedure.
One of the most persistent assertions seems to be that the plaintiffs
in the action delayed unreasonably in bringing the matter to the
attention of the Court and seeking the Temporary Restraining Order,
and as a result of that delay it has been impossible for other groups
of employees to be represented or in fact have a day in court.
Simply to put the matter in proper perspective but without attempting
to judge the merits of that contention, I think it is important to
note that it was early in March, if my recollection serves me properly,
when the Personnel Board recommended to the City Council that the
coverage of the employees of the City so far as Social Security is
concerned, be terminated. While it is true the original resolution
requesting the termination of coverage was adopted back in 1968 it is
my recollection and I think the record will substantiate the fact,
that resolution was adopted upon the basis there would be a study
and at some later date, decided as to whether or not Social Security
coverage would be dropped so far as City employees are concerned.
I mention these facts simply to point out it was only recently that
there was a firm recommendation as to the steps to be taken by the
City and the matter now pends before you really in the posture of
making a determination now as to whether or not Social Security
coverage shall be terminated. It has also been suggested that the
City Council might, by taking no action and simply awaiting until
April 30 that by that date the resolution would become effective and
the City employees would automatically be withdrawn from Social
Security coverage. With respect to that suggestion I must point out
that while the Temporary Restraining Order is cast in the language
of prohibition, that is it purports to restrain Council from taking
any action which would terminate Social Security coverage, in legal
effect as I see it,what the Temporary Restraining Order requires is
that the City Council take an effective action to cancel the resolu-
tion which has been formally adopted which would then have the effect
of terminating the withdrawal of the City from Social Security
coverage.
I believe it is my duty to advise you that
I do not believe the City Council at this juncture may safely pursue
a course of action which ends up in no action as far as the City .is
concerned. I think it is incumbent upon you under the Temporary
Restraining Order, until lifted or otherwise dissolved, to take a firm
action between now and the first of April to terminate and rescind
the resolution you previously.adopted requiring the withdrawal of
Social Security coverage. So far as the time in which you must act
is concerned I think some additional comment is in order.
The rules„ adopted by tl� Board of .
Administration of the PERS require that if a City decides to rescind
its action and elects not to -withdraw from Social Security after it
has given notice to do so, that it.must act within a sufficient time
to notify the Board of Administrators of the PERS in writing in time
for that Board/in turn to notify the`Federal Social Security Agency
- 11 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
Page Twelve
that the City employees are not to be withdrawn from Social Security.
How much time that will take I am unable to say.
Insofar, as the proceedings before the
Court, the only alternative to the proceeding to rescind your prior
resolution would be to instruct the City Attorney to attempt to ad-
vance the date of hearing with reference to the Temporary Restrain-
ing Order. At the very earliest I think this could not be heard
• by the Court until next Friday, March 27th. I wish to point out,,
also that action by the City after that date whether or not to
terminate Social Security might very well be too late, simply \
because of the necessity for written notice to the Board of Administra-
tors of the PERS and notification to the OASDI. With respect to the
merits of the pending action I need also, I think, point out to the
City Council that I can give you no assurance that the Temporary
Restraining Order issued by the Court in this matter will not be
continued until the matter can be heard on its merits with a full
opportunity to explore all sides of the problem. In that connection,
I have pointed out to the Council and the special committee that
studied the withdrawal from OASDI that there was a substantial loss
of benefits so far as the Miscellaneous employees are concerned in the
contemplated action. And I pointed out to Council that I thought
there was a basic liability :which the City was assuming to make up
these lost benefits should the City Council elect to withdraw from
OASDI. The amount of that liability'is, of course, indefinite and
uncertain and cannot be predicted by any of us with any degree of
certainty. I mention the loss of benefits simply because in my
opinion it is extremely doubtful whether or not a Court would con-
clude that the City had the right as to those employees that are
adversely affected by the`withdrawal from OASDI, to actually terminate
that coverage.
What I am saying is, I think, there is no
assurance that can be given to this Council that even though applica-
tion were made to the Court to advance the date and have a preliminary
hearing on the Order to Show Cause, that the action of the Court
would be changed. I say this also for the reason which you are all
aware of that once withdrawl from OASDI is an accomplished fact the
means do not exist for the City to reenter the OASDI either partially
or wholly as far as its City employees are concerned. In other words
under the existing law withdrawing is an irrevocable act so far as
the City is concerned. On the other hand the rescinding of your
original resolution would mean that within.a period of 2 more years
action could be taken to start the time rolling again for the with-
drawal of employees.
One other probelm I think should be
mentioned. Many people have asked me what the alternatives are. Would
in my opinion, would it ever be possible for the City to terminate
OASDI coverage. Under the existing state of the law I think it is
doubtful whether or not the City could/if challenged in Court;
successfully defend its action in withdrawing from OASDI. This relates
again to the question of loss in benefits. So far as the Federal Law
is concerned there is legislation now pending in the Congress of the
United States, introduced by Congressman Utt, now deceased, providing
for a withdrawal of a portion of the covered employees rather than
of all the employees. The legislation would specifically authorize,
for example, that only the Safety members in the system be withdrawn
from Social Security. If this legislation were to pass it would
mean then that the City could divide ,:the coverage. Miscellaneous
could continue to be covered by Social Security and the coverage for
Safety members could be dropped, On the other side of the coin there'
are a number of bills pending in the California Legislature designed
to provide increased benefits under the 1-60th Plan.to which the
City would revert on the discontinuance of OASDI. The effect of this
legislation would be to increase Survivor's Benefits, increase
Disability Benefits, to an extent which would more approximately
equalize the benefits the employees would receive under the combined
retirement system.
12 -
REG,.C.C. 3-23-70 Page Thirteen
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
I have no alternative/as the matter now
pends before you tonightybut to tellyou in my opinion the only
course open to the City Council is to adopt a Resolution rescinding
the adoption of Resolution 3741, which provides for the withdrawal
from Social Security and notifying the Board of Administration of
the PERS of your action.
• Councilman Nichols: One additional question. Mr. City Attorney
what would be the implication if an
individual Councilman chooses to ignore
the restraining order?
Mr. Wakefield: The City Council acts as a body and not
City Attorney in an individual capacity. If a majority
of the members of the City Council vote
to take a particular course of action that is the action of the City
Council. If less than a majority choose to dissent or vote against,
that is their privilege to do so, but the action is the action that
stands. There is no individual responsibility or liability on
individual members of the City Council that is controlled by the
Temporary Restraining Order. In other words, I think, each indivi-
dual member is free to vote his own conscience. I think a majority_
vote by the City Council declining to rescind, for example, the
resolution previously adoptedjwould be in violation of the Temporary
Restraining Order, and I would so advise you at that point.
Councilman Gillum: As I understand this Restraining Order it
could be continued for some time until
final decision is made by the Court?
This is just a temporary thing and then there will be a hearing and
a permanent restraining order will be issued or the temporary will
be denied?
Mr. Wakefield: Procedurally what would happen would be
City Attorney that on the 3rd of April the Court would
hear from the City Attorney, the repre-
sentative of the City and the plaintiffs in the litigation, and at
that time would decide whether or not a preliminary injunction should
be issued which would continue in force the Temporary Restraining
Order until the action could actually be tried on its merits and a
full hearing be held. It is true that the Restraining Order the
Council is now under might be continued until a final hearing was
held on the action itself.
Councilman Gillum: Is it conceivable that the Courts could
rule in such a way that it would prohibit
this City from ever at any time withdrawing the employees as a whole
or parts of the employees from the OASDI?
Mr. Wakefield: Yes that is possible. Again, I think,
City Attorney the judgment of the Court would have to
be based on the laws in existence at the
time the determination was made. As I tried to indicate to you, in
my opinion at least, changes in the law could affect the ultimate
decision of the Courts in a matter of this kind. The rule, with
respect to changes in retirement systems, that .our Courts have
announced and followed thus far is that if a retirement system is
changed or modified and there are reductions in certain benefits
there should be corresponding increases in other benefits so the
net result of the action is a retirement allowance substantially
equal to that which was provided for the employee at the time he
began his city service. Adjustments in benefits upwards to more
equal OASDI benefits under a combined system would provide, I think,
legal justification'for the termination of Social Security.
Councilman Gillum: As I understand you, Mr. Wakefield, if
they issued a permanent injunction pro-
hibiting the City to withdraw, at any future date then the City
at such time in the future that these benefits should be brought
into line the City itself would have to go to the Courts and prove
- 13 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
Page Fourteen
the point and ask that the injunction be lifted against the City?
Mr. Wakefield:
City Attorney
That is correct.
Councilman Chappell: When I called you this afternoon in
• regards to asking for a date closer to
the present time, you indicated it could
perhaps be possible they might release this Restraining Order, but
in listening to you now it doesn't sound like that is a real possi-
bility anymore. Is that how you look at it?
Mr. Wakefield: I did indicate to you that I thought
City Attorney there was a possibility that the Court
would advance the hearing date to next
Friday and depending upon the action of the Court then we could
decide upon a further course of action. Actually this is the last
regular meeting of City Council this.month and some further check-
ing of the rules so far as the Board of Administration of the PERS
is concerned, has convinced me that a postponement of action to a
later date would substantially jeopardize the effect of the action
so far as the City Council is concerned.
Councilman Chappell: Well what happens if the postal people
go out tomorrow and we can't get that
letter mailed? Then where do we stand?
Mr. Wakefield: I think it simply adds to the risk of
City Attorney delay so far as action is concerned.
However, I think if worse comes to worst
. we could send a telegram which would be an instrument in writing
which might be effective.
Councilman Chappell: Then if the Court throws this out on
Friday early in the morning and we have
a meeting we would have the same method to send our decision.
Mr. Wakefield: Yes that is possible.
City Attorney
Councilman Lloyd: It comes through very clearly that our
position as Council is truly untenable.
We must take action whether we wish to
take action at this time or not. We have no choice. I think the
City Attorney has done an extremely fine service in laying out the
variables. He has pointed out to us that we have but one point of
action and of course, we are now thrown on the horns of dilemna.
I can't speak for the rest of the Council but I have a feeling
they probably share some of my feelings in this case. It is
obvious that the majority of the employees wish to withdraw from
Social Security and I for one, find no fault in following that
course of action. I think if the majority of the people wish to
do something I find no reason why I should be standing in the way
to preclude. I honestly feel you people have reviewed in far
greater depth than I, and .it affects you more .than it does me.
I am more interested in the harmonious flow of administrative
service as far as the City of West Covina is concerned, than I am
in interferring with your personal situations and relationships
with the administration of this City. We have had good
recommendations from our Personnel Board and once again the
recommendations fall upon the very difficult situation of a Court
action which has been instituted because of :the fact of an April 1
deadline. I think what we must do at this point is to ask for one
more recommendation from the city employees on both sides, pro and
con. I am not eliminating Mr. Lange, he represents a minority of
the people who serve this City. I think that in the democratic
processes of our government we tend to feel that the majority does
indeed rule. I subscribe to that, both as a political scientist
and as a legislator. So what I am trying to do in my own mind
and the people I serve with, is to find a solution to give myself
- 14 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Fifteen
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
enough breathing room so that those of you who can be served by
withdrawal from the OASDI and wish to be, we can serve those
ends, but in addition we are going to have to take action obvious-
ly here tonight according to the recommendations of the City
Attorney. And I am prepared to take that step. I have no other
alternative and it is still a requirement in the best interests
of the City, then we will have to go forward' and do that, as
onerous as it may be.
Mr. Mayor - I would like to hear from
Mr. Butler and afford him the opportunity of an ad hoc committee
approach with those employees that are here tonight so he may
hear their voices again in view of the information presented by
the City Attorney. I also think in fairness, Mr. Lange and those
with him should also be afforded to present their views. I think
what we really need gentlemen, is a 10 or 15 minute recess and
allow these people to meet with their own people and then request
these two representatives to come forward with some consensus of
the people and we will then, here in counsel with our City Attorney,
go forward with what we think will -..have to be done. I think
probably this is the best solution right at this given moment so
all present have the opportunity to present their views and have
presentation as they really want it, and try to do that which is
best for the greatest number.
Councilman Gillum: One question. Mr. Wakefield, in the
staff report there is a third recommenda-
tion as to the introduction of a,resolution to be adopted on the
13th to start the procedure of withdrawal, if it appears the Court
action will have to stand. As I understand you, is it possible we
would be in violation even in taking this approach? As I read it
again it basically says we can't do a thing.
Mr. Wakefield: If the City Council were to rescind the
City Attorney resolution previously adopted by it two
years ago providing for the termination
of OASDI coverage it°would have satisfied all of the requirements
of the Temporary Restraining Order and in effect the issues raised
by the legal action would become moot. It is true that the City
Council may again adopt a new resolution providing for the termina-
tion of Social Security at the end of two years, that action and
the validity of that action would depend upon its effect on the
time withdrawal actually occurs or prior to that time and as I
tried to indicate, in my opinion it would depend on the status of
the law, both Federal and State, at the time withdrawal became
imminent. In other words employees are not affected by that action
until the action is actually taken and the rules of the State System
do provide for the termination of that action if a determination is
made that it is not in the best interests of the City to proceed
with it. So that is a conditional action and would not be in
violation of the Restraining Order. There is only one minor problem
which I think we should have in mind -at this point. The rules of
the Board of Administration of the PERS provide that the resolution
be adopted at least 10 days before the beginning of any quarter to
be effective two years thereafter. We are now within 10 days of the
April 1 quarter. If the ;resolution were to be adopted now, the
earliest it could be effective would be on July 1, 1972.
Mayor Gleckman: For the record we cannot install a new
resolution and then immediately decide to
withdraw, we must wait the 2 years?
Mr. Wakefield: That is correct. The earliest date
City Attorney effective would be July 1, 1972. There
is a mandatory two year waiting period
under Social Security law.
- 15 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Public Hearing - Cont°d..
Page Sixteen
i
•
Mayor Gleckman: If we could move the Temporary Restrain-
ing Order up to the 27th and call an
adjourned meeting of the City Council and then go by telegram
whichever way we could, but if we did not receive a decision from
the Court on the 27th then I could understand their precluding
this Council from makinga decision, but it is hard for me to
understand why we have to wait two years and then receive a
Restraining Order. and the decision taken out of an elective body
by a legal interpretation without this Council trying to make
a definite effort in trying to settle the situation knowing about
its legal intrusion prior to April 1.,._.I would be so inclined
gentlemen, that we have taken this thing this far we should make
every effort to settle it before April 1 and request that the
injunction date be moved up so we can try and get a legal
interpretation from the Courts. If the Court decides not to give
us that interpretation and delays us then I feel we have done
everything as an elective body that we can do, but if we in turn
sit back and say our hands are tied by the Courts and there is
no out, when we know there may possibly be one, then I don't think
we have taken the responsibility that we said we would take - -
this is the way I feel about it.
Mr. Aiassa: As you probably realize, this Friday is
City Manager Good Friday and many of the various
public agencies will be closed.
Mr. Wakefield:
City Attorney
Yes the courts will be closed from 12 to
3.
Mayor..Gleckman: The point I am making is I think it is
the Council°s obligation to seek out the
disposition of this action without looking for a legal loophole.
Councilman Lloyd: I concur most heartedly with you. But I
also think we should allow these people
to meet on their own and then come back and talk. I would move
that we call a recess for this purpose at this time.
Seconded by Councilman Gillum, and
carried.
RECESS CALLED AT 9:05 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 9:27 P.M.
Mayor Gleckman:
At this time is
there any employee that
would care to address
Council
regarding
the recommendation to
withdraw from Social
Security?
Jim Butler, President
I would like to
just reaffirm
our posi-
W.C. Employees' Asso.
tion as stated earlier.
There
are 82.9%
of the employees
that wish to
withdraw
from Social Security.
Ron Hedrick, President The question was brought up as to the
Firemens' Association deadline for withdrawal and how to
notify. I took the liberty to call
Miss Beverly Gaffney, she is the head of social security in the
Office of State Retirement System in Sacramento, Area.Code 916 -
445 5651. I put this question to her at 2:05 P.M. this afternoon
and her answer was: the City can notify her by phone or telegram
as late as March 30th if they follow up by a letter. She put her
people on alert and would like to be called either way the City
goes on the action taken.
At this time I would like to ask that
the Attorneys for the employees be heard.
- 16 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Seventeen
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
William Kirlander I was retained this afternoon by the
Santa Monica Police Officer's Association of the City.
Our office in the past several years has
had a lot of experience in Judge•Schauer°s court room and when I
saw the proceedings this afternoon I was surprised that Judge Schauer
or any judge would issue a Restraining Order in this case and it
surprised me on several counts. First of all it is unusual to have
a restraining order issued restraining a legislative body from
acting. Secondly, and even more shocking, it surprised me because
of the April 1 deadline restraining you without a hearing until
after the deadline date. And it surprised me that he apparently
did this without giving the City the opportunity to appear through
its Counsel. Now naturally we were retained on rather short notice
because our clients had short notice on this. I might digress for
a moment and say Marvin Javin has.been retained by the Firemens°
Association and he has some more light to shed on this.
I called Judge Schauer°s clerk and
indicated to him my surprise that this TRO had been issued under
these circumstances and the clerk told me that the plaintiff's
attorney had represented to the court that Mr. Wakefield the City
Attorney, had been notified of the plaintiffs• attorneys' intent
to get a TRO and it was on the understanding of the Judge that
this was in effect alright with the City that the TRO order was
issued. Let me point out more specifically the court°s procedure
in getting out a TRO, let's say my office wants to get out a
TRO against the City of Los Angeles, what the Judge has always in
the past insisted is that we get in touch with the city attorneys,
office and we.have a representative of the City Attorney°s office
present with us in chambers at the moment we are trying to get this
• TRO, and the Judge gives a sort of pre -lawsuit hearing whether the
TRO should be issued. This is the custom and this is what the
Judge in effect did in this case, but he was told the City Attorney
had been contacted and in effect it was alright if the plaintiff
proceeded in getting the,.TRO without any hearing at all. So this
was issued under circumstances which in effect would waste over two
years of your employees time and possibly restrain benefits, and
frankly, I think, my clients have a legitimate question when they
ask Mr, Wakefield _ did he know about this in advance and if so
why weren't my clients notified that this application was going to
be asked of the Court? Since all employee rights are so drastically
affected by this TRO why wasn't the City Council notified and why -
wasn't something done to see that the city was represented at the
time the application was.made for the TRO order. And with all due
respect to Mr. Wakefield, I think the question is legitimate on
behalf of my clients and I hope we can have an answer. If
Mrm Wakefield did know about this and didn't do anything about it
then the question comes to my mind in view of the comments by
Mr. Wakefield tonight, the question comes to my mind and the mind
of my clients, that perhaps he doesn't believe in this case, and
perhaps it would be in the city°s interest and the employees of
the City if other counsel, who perhaps believed in the case more
than Mr. Wakefield, represented the City. I know I, as an attorney,
feel more comfortable in,representing a client if I believe in
their cause and I am sure Mr. Wakefield does too. I am sure City
Council would not want Counsel to represent them if that counsel in
effect would tell the Judge m I am for the plaintiffs. I leave
that there and I urge the City Council to consider asking
Mr. Wakefield this question and answer my clients questions to me
as to why wasn't something done about this before this order was
issued by the Judge?
I would like to take issue again with
Mr. Wakefield, with all due respect, and that is on his comment to
the Council that this TRO obligates the Council to take affirmative
action to terminate or rescind their prior resolution adopted in
February of 1968 severing the City from social security participation.
There is nothing magic about language used in a TRO, it means what
it says and if doesn't say something you shouldn't read it into the
17 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Eighteen
Public Hearings - Cont'd.
document. There is nothing in this document obligating this
body to take any affirmative action. I am sure the plaintiffs
attorney intended to force this body when he drafted this
document and got the Judge to sign it, he intended to obligate
the Council to take an affirmative action but unfortunately he
didn't put it in the document. It does not tell you to take an
affirmative action, to rescind the resolution you took in
February of 1968. I don't know how you can belabor the language
of that document. Mr. Wakefield says apparently he can read
between the lines and the Council has the obligation to affirma-
tively rescind that resolution, but that isn't what the document
says. These documents should be and are interpretated by the
Courts very literally and since it is not obligating this Council
to rescind its prior resolution, I submit to you gentlemen that
there is no need for you to do that, and certainly you would not
be in contempt of Court or violating this Order, if you simply
did nothing and the resolution went into effect as planned.
Now what do I suggest on behalf of my
clients? First of all I think this Council can safely do nothing
and let the resolution go into effect terminating Social Security.
I certainly realize you have your attorney and it is difficult
not to take his advice, but I'think it would be appropriate to
continue your deliberations in this matter to Friday or Monday
evening and direct either Mr. Wakefield or whatever attorney you
choose, to go into Court and with every means at his disposal
try and get the TRO dissolved because if it is, then you can safely
do nothing, or at the very least attempt to advance the hearing
date to Friday or maybe even Thursday. On behalf of my clients
I intend, and I understand the other employees' lawyer is going
to do the same, I intend to go to Judge Schauer and join with
whatever attorney you choose, and try and argue to him that this
• TRO should be removed. So at the very least we urge you to
continue this matter to Friday to allow the Judge to make an
intelligent decision, and by intelligent I mean where he is
confronted not only with the plaintiff's side of the picture but
the great majority of the employees' side of the picture.
Marvin Javin, Attorney I represent the Firemens' Association
Javin & Javin and I would like to state that I agree
Monterey Park with what Mr. Kirlander has said on be-
half of the Policemens' Association.
I would like to go into one point a little more thoroughly and
that is to show what could have been done had the City appeared at
the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order. Section 526-of
the Code of Civil Procedure states quite plainly that an injunction
cannot be granted to prevent a legislative act by a municipal
organization. This point was not raised before Judge Schauer and
I spoke to him this afternoon and he informed me that he was
advised by the attorney for the plaintiffs that the City had been
notified of the hearing Ind that since no one showed up at the
hearing he assumed there was no objection to it and no opposition
overall was raised. With regard to the restraining order it seems
to me quite clear that the restraining order merely orders you not
to do certain things. There is no way that can be interpretated
to order you to undo things that had been done. As far as the law
is concerned it is easier to get a negative restraining order
which merely orders the defendant not to do something or other.
Whenever you attempt to get a restraining order,to take an
affirmative action a greater showing is required to justify such
an order. I think if the plaintiff in this case had sought to
obtain a restraining order requiring the City Council to take
an affirmative action,then they would have been required to make
a greater showing. If Council has looked at the points of authority,
there are no points of authorities really.to merit such a type of
order requiring affirmative action by the City Council. I think
you would be quite within your legal rights to do nothing. At the
very least I implore you to give us at least until Friday of this
MUBE
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Nineteen
Public Hearing - Cont10.
week to go to Judge Schauer°s court and file an application seeking
to resolve this restraining order. To date, the employees involved,
have not really had a chance to present their case before the Judge,
and that will still giveyou time to make up your minds later on
in the week. We request this continuance for that purpose.
Peter Williams I understand Mr. Javin at the break said
Fireman the Court did not know of the April 1
• deadline at the time of the issuance of
the order - is that correct? (Mr. Javin answered "Yes".) I
believe he failed to bring this out and I wanted'it brought out.
Another thing I wondered is why we are now sitting here four or
five days before something has to be done, and I think we have been
at this position before,'and we have had two years to study this
thing and it hasn't been satisfied. We didn't know in November
what could have happened and if we had this information in
November that a restraining order was to be entered it could have
been litigated by now. This is the question I have.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor - I would like to answer the
last question brought up. Why are we
sitting here four days before the deadline? - because I was
Chairman of the Committee set up to review and study this issue.
There were a number of problems we ran into. First of all finding
and determining the proper approach, the proper information requir-
ed and where to obtain this information,° There was a period of
possibly 6 or 8 weeks that nothing was done because of vacations
and the members on the committee were not able to attend. If you
will poll the members on the Committee you will find we at least
• met every month and set forth the program to be followed in which
to obtain and distribute the necessary information. All this
,information came together and then it was decided to hire the
actuary. The actuary was about 10 days later than promised to us
and we worked out the schedule to.h®ld the meeting with the
employees and at that time that this schedule was made up we
wanted the information to go to the Personnel Board no later than
the first meeting in January. They held two meetings and one was
a special meeting, so actually it was a combination of things
that caused us to get to this point. Honestly I say "maybe" we
could have accummulated it by 30 days sooner but we were unable
to get all:the members of the Committee together because of
vacations. I can assure `.you all through the Committee meetings
they supported my feeling urging them to continue on this and
to get all the possible information and proceed in the best
manner for all the employees.. Believe me, City Council does not
like to sit here 4 or 5 days prior to the deadline and make a
decision of such importance, so I would have to tell you that the
Committee and the Personnel Board and everyone involved in this,
did their utmost to get all the information and make sure all the
facts were there and unfortunately we are 4 days prior to the
deadline, but everyone did work very hard on it and did their
very best.
Councilman Lloyd: Mr, Mayor - I think it is incumbent on
this Council to recognize that we are
not in the legal sense of the .word involved in a judicial action
as a judicial body and I would remind all those in attendance that
while these two gentlemen have made very appealing presentations
that they are indeed appealing to laymen and that is precisely what
we are. We are not required in any sense of the word to make a
decision that is fundamentally based in law. I think what we must
do in this case, - as soon as I am.thr.ough with my remarks, is to
allow the City Attorney to refute some of the comments made. I
think, Mr. Mayor, that we are going to have to meet and apparently
as soon as possible, in order to give these people the opportunity
to make their presentations in Court. The two attorneys represent-
- 19 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Twenty -
Public Hearing - Cont°do
ing the employees - are you prepared to plead your case in court
in regard to this restraining order? (Both answered "Yes".) How
much time do you need?
Mr. Kirlander: I would say about 2 weeks, but we are
going to attempt to have this done by
Friday. (Attorney for the Firemens°
• Association agreed.)
Mr. Wakefield: I think I do need to make a few comments
City Attorney with reference to some of the things
Mr. Kirlander and Mr. Javin have said,
not in any sense of provoking an argument but to keep the record
straight. Both attorneys called me today, and I toad Mr:. Kirlander,
and I think I told Mr. Javin, that I was advised that the applica-
tion would be made for a Temporary Restraining Order on last Wed-
nesday. I did not feel it was incumbent upon me to take the
initiative to appear on behalf of the City without some further
instructions from the City Council or the City itself. I was not
invited to the courtroom either by the attorney for the plantiffs
or the Court. I advised the plaintiffs' attorney I would be in
West Covina all afternoon and my office knew where I was and I
could have been reached had the Court desired to hear from me. it
is my understanding that both Mr. Kirlander and Mr. Javin were
retained this afternoon to represent certain city employees. I am
sure Mr. Kirlander would not have expected me to inform him of this
action taken previously prior to the time he was hired.
It is easy for both Mr. Javin and
Mr. Kirlander to advise this City Council that they need not take
any action and it is appropriate for Counsel to do nothing - I say
• it is easy because none of their clients are going to be held in
contempt of Court, they are talking about my clients. I don°t
intend to give this City Council or any member of it any.advice.'
which will:' -subject this Council to be even accused to be held in
contempt of court. As far'as I am concerned the advise I have
given you I am prepared to stand by. I think it is incumbent under
the terms of the Temporary Restraining Order for the Council to
take that action which is necessary to stop the running of the time,
so far as the withdrawal from Social Security is concerned. I
would not want to have it on my conscience that any member of this
Council had been subjected to the accusation that they had acted
seemingly in violation of a Court order.
As I indicated before, I think there are
two items about this matter which are important. If the City
withdraws from Social Security the rights of the Miscellaneous
employees will be forever prejudiced. There is no way under the
existing state of the law that the City can get those employees
back into Social Security. On the other hand so far as the
Safety employees are concerned, the action in stopping the running
of the original resolution simply maintains the status quo for
another 2 years, or at the maximum to July 1, 1972. A period of
temporary inconvenience perhaps, but bearing in .mind this is not
the first time action of.this sort has been considered so far as
the City is concerned, we have been two years in the consideration
of the matter and I think it is apparent from the number of employees
here tonight that the results of that study are inconclusive in terms
of its effect upon individual employees and whether they will or will
not be benefited by withdrawing from Social Security.
I wish also to say to the City Council if
I am instructed to attempt to obtain an early hearing on the order
to show cause I will .do so with vigor and to the best of my ability.
It is not my nature to get into a fight unless I am going to fight
hard. I will follow whatever instructions you may give me in that
respect. I must also advise you, however, that I have no assurance
that the Court will advance the date of the hearing on the order to
show cause, nor can I give you any,assurance that the matter will be
- 20 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Public Hearing - Cont°d.
Page Twenty-one
decided on Friday if it is advanced to that. date. All I can assure
you is that I will follow your instructions to the best of my
ability, whatever they may be.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Wakefield, you said you were informed
of this on the 17th? (Answer: Yes) Did
you inform anyone at City Hall that this action was being taken by a
• group of employees?
. Mr. Wakefield: No sir I don't believe I did.
Councilman.Lloyd: I would move that an adjourned meeting
be held by City Council on Friday, March
27th at 4 P.M.., and that the City Attorney be instructed to move
forward with all possible haste to get the Court to make a decision
such that we can move forward with this action.
Seconded by Councilman Gillum.
Councilman Gillum: Mr. Mayor - I think it is only fair to
the City Attorney to have an expression
from this Council, if we are going to
ask him to defend this action placed against this Council. In a
sense what the action states as I interprete it and I am not
practicing law but just trying to be safe, that we are to stop any
action so far as withdrawing from Social Security. So I think
it would be to his benefit to have an expressionfrom this Council
as to whether at this time the Council considers withdrawing from
Social Security. I don't think it would be fair to him to say -
go fight and the Court says "fine we will withdraw the injunction"
and the attorney finds the Council is not in favor of .withdrawing.
Councilman Lloyd: I believe the City Attorney, plus the
other attorneys present, sufficiently
indicated that if they go forward with vigor and represent, that it
is a contingent situation here which apparently the Judge was not
fully aware of and I think at that point he will probably give
reconsideration. Am I correct?
Mr. Wakefield: As I .interprete the City Council action
City Attorney it was simply to use my best efforts to
have the court set aside the Temporary
Restraining Order, leaving it to the judgment of the Council as
to what action the Council would take. Obviously, the Court is
not going to switch the matter around and direct you not to
withdraw. All that would happen under any conceivable circumstances
is the Temporary Restraining Order would be dissolved, which would
put the decision making power back in the hands of the Council.
Motion carried.
Mayor Gleckman: Mr. Wakefield, I think by the unanimous
decision of this Council we have shown
the confidence we have in you and I believe you have the direction
in which to go.
CHAIR CALLED A: -RECESS AT 10 P,M.. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:05 P.M.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Bohn Dampier I am chairman of this year's Garden Tour
1104 E. Michelle sponsored by West Covina Beautiful. I
West Covina would appreciate your consideration in
allowing us the use of the first level
of City Hall and the grounds to conduct our tour. We .are proud
of the new City Hall andgrounds and would like to have it as the
background four our art -show by the East San Gabriel Valley Art
Garden: Association...I .appreciate the planting is just completed
and not yet in bloom, but feel it would be an interesting time for
the citizens to see what has been done and how lovely it is. We
21 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Twenty-two
Oral Communications - Cont°d.
plan to serve light refreshments and will riaturally assume the
responsibility for clean up, etc., while on the premises. The.
tour will be held on April.26th from 2 to 6 p.m., and we will
probably be on:the City Hall premises from 3 to 6. We would like
permission to use outside electrical outlets for a coffee unit and
the sound system. I have spoken to Mr. McClay, who is the
liaison from the Parks Department and West Covina Beautiful and
he said while the planting is not fully developed and at its best,
• it would show the citizens what has been done to.date. He feels
too, it would be of interest to see how it is now and then see
the,progression of the plantings over the years.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. I know time is of the
essence to this organization, especially
if they are talking about April 26th - does Council have any
objection to adding this item to our agenda? (No objections)
Mr. Aiassa, would you have any staff opposition, or report, that
you feel it would be impossible for us to take action this evening
on this?
Mr. Aiassa: Normally you would have the opinion of
City Manager Recreation & Park Commission, but I
think you might give it rather strong
support and then direct it to the Recreation & Park Commission
and ask for their sanction. They are meeting tomorrow night.
Mayor Gleckman: I think it is a good point and we can,
if Council is so.disposed, give an
indication of Council action to the; Recreation & Park Commission,
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, indicating strong support to the request received from
• West Covina Beautiful for the use of facilities at City Hall for
the termination of their Garden Tour on April 26th, and so make
this recommendation to the Recreation and Park Commission for
their consideration.
Mary Lewis I am co-chairman for the Clean -Up
816 So. Graybai Committee for West Covina Beautiful and
West Covina we would like to urge the City Council_
Committee who will be considering this
matter of having this Clean -Up Campaign again this year, to know
we thought great strides were made in beautification last year
and we would like you to know that West Covina Beautiful is
ready to assist in anyway possible in this endeavor.
Mayor Gleckman: Thank you. Mr. Aiassa - will you please
put this on our agenda and notify them
of the date of .the study meeting.
Don Sinclair I am first Vice -President of the
426 So. Bircroft St. Edgewood Baseball League and I would like
West Covina to take this opportunity to invite the
City Council to the opening games for the
Edgewood Baseball League. There are two divisions, as you.know, one
is called Bronco and meets at the Coronado Park, and the other is
the Maverick Division and meets at the field on Citrus. If any of
you can attend we would..appreciate your saying a few words to the
boys. We would also like you - Mr. Mayor - to receive a trophy,
which was won by our 1.3 year old championship team last,year,to be
displayed at City Hall. :This will'be April 4th at 9 a.m., and
1 P.M.
Mayor Gleckman:
Thank you. It will be our pleasure.
- 22 -
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
City .MFnager Agenda - Cont°do
Page Twenty-three
•
i
4) Williams & Mocine Statement
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell,
approving the payment of the invoice from Williams & Mocine in
the amount of $822.00 for the Central Business District study.
Motion carried on roll call vote as follows.*
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,.Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
5) Request for Consultant Funding re Library Expansion,
Parking and Auditorium
Mr, Aiassa: We are now being approached by the
City Manager library for extended expansion of about
20,000 sq. feet, also additional parking
is required and the land for the expansion of the library. So at
this time we should do some preliminary design as to the Master Plan
of the area for this expansion, including if and when we may want
to add an auditorium. I would like permission of Council to
contact several consulting firms to get an indication of the cost
to do a preliminary study, so that we can at least design the
area in consideration of further expansion.
So moved by Councilman Chappell, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
6) First Meeting of the Central Business District
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, receiving and filing the staff report.
7) Authorization to interview Architects to Install
Comfort Stations in Friendship Park
Mr. Aiassa:
City Manager
like a decision "on this
design of --the Park and I
tion, if Council should
I would.also like to include security
lighting because the lighting goes with
the comfort station. The reason I would
is because staff is doing the landscaping
would like some cost figures as to installa-
decide to install a permanent comfort station.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded by
Councilman Lloyd, and carried.
CITY CLERK
1) ABC APPLICATION
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, that there be no protest filed on Eastland Lanes
Norman Smith, George Allen Walker and Kenneth L. Unruh, 2714 E.
Garvey Avenue, ABC application.
2) Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
Application to Increase Rates
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,
carried, referring to staff.
3) Claim of Southern California Edison Companv re Damaaes
Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Gillum,
carried, referring to staff.
and
and
(Councilman Gillum questioned the amount of labor in the bill and
Mr. Aiassa said that would be taken into consideration by staff)
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Chappell, and
carried, accepting and filing the City Treasurer's report for the
month of February, 1970.
�_ Aw
REG. C.C. 3-23-70 Page Twenty-four
Mayor's Reports
1) Conference re Youth and Dissent in the "701s"
Mayor Gleckman: - I have a request from the new City Council
Youth Advisory Steering Committee, they
received a notice of a meeting to be held on April 24th and 25th in
cooperation with the Law Day Theme - Bridge to Justice, which will
take into considerationmanyof the things that have to do with
• youth. In reading the material sent I think it would be an excellent
conference, and we have had two members of the Steering Committee
• that have requested expenses and would like to attend and represent
the City.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd,
Mr. Aiassa: I would like to make a suggestion to
City Manager Council, that we also authorize a staff
man to attend so we can have a report back.
(Discussion followed on the cost involved. Mayor Gleckman said it
was indicated it would be $17.50 per person)
Substitute motion by Councilman Lloyd, seconded by Councilman
Gillum, that the City Council Youth Advisory Steering Committee,
send two representatives plus one staff member to the conference
on April 24th and 25th, and an amount of $17.50 for each representa-
tive be allocated. Motion carried on roll call vote as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Gillum,Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES. None
ABSENT: None
• (Mayor Gleckman then called for a vote on the original motion.
No aye votes; all naye votes. Motion defeated.)
•
2) Hot -Line General Meeting: Mailing & Reproduction Costs
Mayor Gleckman: As you all know we were'the City that
started with the Hot -Line and we were
the first to allocate $50. to get them
started. I would very happily report to this Council that it has
gone from 14 calls a week to 2200 calls a week. The response has
been so great that the Hot -Line Committee has asked me to ask.City
Council if they would object to our authorizing a general meeting
of those very same people who were involved in establishing the
Hot -Line in the various cities and school districts, to get them
together and make a presentation so that we can expand the Hot -Line
to a local Hot -Line and for this it takes mailing and reproduction
costs. I was requested for a figure not to exceed $50.00. I
think this is probably one of the most worthwhile causes this
community can get involved in and I would ask that some one make
a motion asking Mr. Aiassa to seek.out $50.00 from our budget to
bring this meeting into being and continue with the expansion of
the Hot -Line.
So moved by Councilman Gillum, seconded
by Councilman Lloyd.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor - this would be done by the
City, I take it. The mailing and repro-
duction?
Mayor Gleckman: Yes, that is correct. And Mr. Aiassa,
do you have the money?
Mr. Aiassa: I will have an answer for you at your
next regular meeting.
Motion carried.
24
REG. C.C. 3-23-70
Mayor's Reports - Cont°d.
3) Proclamation
Mayor Gleckman:
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Gillum:
(Congratulations offered
If there are no
I will proclaim
Baby Day, April
Page Twenty-five
objections by Council,
March of Dimes Healthy
29, 1970.
No objections, so proclaimed.
I only have one thing to report and I
would like to have it in the record. I
am celebrating my 18th year of happy
marriage.
by Council.)
Councilman Nichols: I would like to advise you Mr. Mayor
that I will be out of town the rest of
this week and will be rushing back on
Friday and if I shouldn't make it in time on Friday, I will call
in to see how the vote went.
Councilman Lloyd: I note with pleasure that we received
in our packets a brochure from NBC and
in addition to that I.also noted with pleasure that the head of
our News Department at NBC, was at the Model Rocket meet and was
much impressed with it. The reason there..was::not a news media
present was simply because we did not have the funds to bring one
here.
• DEM
• Motion by Councilman Chappell, seconded by Councilman Lloyd,
approving demands totalling $234,621.16 as listed on Demand Sheets
C694 through C696. This total includes payroll account. Motion
carried on roll call vote as follows:
.AYES: Councilmen Gillum, Nichols, Chappell, Lloyd, Mayor Gleckman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor Gleckman: I would like to bring to the attention of
the Council a couple of events I attended
this last week that I think deserve some
mention. The first was a Citizenship Day at Monte Vista School
which was probably the nicest performance I have seen regarding
citizenship done by an elementary school. The Monte Vista School
is to be complimented.
The other is the Girl's Softball Bobby Sox
League which started on the 21st. They have 408 girls - 33 teams -
which is the largest baseball -softball league. Also the organized
Hockey activity in the City of West Covina ended last Saturday with
a tremendous display of some of the smallest kids I have ever seen
\ on skates doing a tremendous job. It is most unfortunate that with
the Rocket Meet and these other things that we can't get more
press coverage on those events, rather than some of the things I
do see in the papers, and on TVawhich definitely do not exemplify
the type of youth we have in this community.
Motion by Councilman Gillum, seconded by Councilman Lloyd, and
carried, adjourning at 10:21 P.M. to Friday'. March 27, 19701 at
4 P.M.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK - 25 -