CC - Item 2B - Minutes 12-16-05• •
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
December 16, 2005
Mayor Imperial called the special meeting of the Rosemead City Council to order at 8:10
pm in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead,
California.
Councilmember Tran led the Pledge to the Flag. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor delivered the
Invocation.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmembers Clark, Nunez, Tran,
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor and Mayor Imperial
Absent: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Larry Bevington, residing at 8372 Rush Street, supported the February 7,
2006 recall election date and offered the full support of the SOC office to
expedite the election.
Brian Lewin, residing at 9442 Ralph Street, asked if the Special Meeting
was noticed in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (City Clerk Castruita
confirmed it was) and expressed support for reinstating the election on
February 7, 2006.
Ricky Choi, spoke on behalf of Assemblymember Judy Chu by reading a
statement from Ms. Chu who strongly urged the Council to rescind the
suspension of the election. The statement indicated that the rationale for
the previous suspension rescinding the election is no longer valid pursuant
to recent clarifications from the United State Department of Justice.
James Flournoy, residing at 8665 Landisview, indicated that expenses
should not be a consideration in carrying out the will of Rosemead
residents. Mr. Flournoy felt the Council acted outside of the authority of
the law by canceling the election and thought the election should be
reinstated on February 7th to limit the council's legal liability. If the date of
the 7th was subsequently determined to be impossible due to logistical
reasons, he suggested the date change issue be brought back at the
regular meeting on December 27, 2005.
Ken Pike, residing at 9220 Steele Street, strongly urged the council to
consider costs from the Consent Decree signed with the Department of
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 1 of 7
• •
Justice. In the Decree, the council acknowledged understanding and
future compliance of the language requirement provision. Mr. Pike
advocated a delay in setting the election to avoid further waste of public
funds until clarification is received from the 9th Circuit. He also indicated
the February 7 election might be enjoined, as the petitions circulated were
not translated in four languages.
Steven Ly, representing Rosemead Pride, referenced the Department of
Justice letter which indicated the DOJ will not challenge the election in
court, but did not address the validity of the petitions. Because the
petitions were not translated into four languages, Mr. Ly felt they were
invalid and indicated some people might have been tricked into signing the
petitions. In addition, Mr. Ly expressed his support to Maggie Clark and
indicated he and PRIDE would back Councilmember Clark if an effort to
recall her were initiated.
John Davidson residing at 7542 Melrose Avenue, asked all aspects of
election fairness be considered: 1) petition validity; 2) Department of
Justice rules; and 3) timeline. Mr. Davidson advocated the Council not
rush into an election until all matters are clear.
Jean Hall, residing at 3655 Muscatel, urged caution before the council
proceeded and asked why a special meeting was called. Ms. Hall inquired
if new information had been presented or if legal guidance had been
received.
Linda Kilpatrick, residing at 4716 Walnut Grove Rd, expressed her full
support to Maggie Clark in whatever decision she makes. She requested
Councilmember Clark put a stay on reinstating the election until full legal
research is undertaken.
Fred Herrera, residing at 3879 Delta, advocated protection of city funds
and asked that the Council wait until a judge makes a ruling. He
questioned why this topic was being discussed at a Special Meeting rather
than a regular meeting.
Todd Kunioka, residing at 8400 Wells Street, claimed that justice delayed
is justice denied as over 4,100 confirmed registered voters had qualified
the petitions. Mr. Kunioka suggested that the Voting Rights Act does not
apply to recall proponents as it applies to the City. In addition he pointed
out that the Department of Justice letter protects council from financial
liability and is not something the council should consider when making a
decision.
Councilmember Clark clarified to Mr. Kunioka that there is a factual
difference between cases cited involving the 9th, 10th and 11th Circuit
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 2 of 7
• •
courts. In the cases before the 10th and 11th Circuit Courts, they rulec the
language requirements did not apply to initiatives and referenda; whereas,
the 9th Circuit's ruling applied to recalls.
Juan Nunez, residing at 2762 Del Mar, spoke about a leak in the parking
lot, an item not listed on the agenda and was asked by Mayor Imperial to
table those comments. City Attorney Wallin stated that in a special
meeting there is not a provision for Oral Communications from the
Audience on topics not listed on the agenda.
2. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION
A. Th e Consideration of the Rescission of Resolution No. 2005-45
which Rescinded the Resolutions Calling the February 7, 2006
Recall Election of Councilmember Jay Imperial and
Councilmember Gary Taylor and Requested that the County
Provide Election Related Services.
B. Th a Consideration of Amending Resolution No. 2005-33 to Set
a New Date for the Special Municipal Election originally
scheduled for February 7, 2006, if necessary.
C. The Consideration of Authorizing the City Clerk to Retain
Counsel and to Expeditiously File an Appropriate Action to
secure a determination as to the validity of the Recall Election.
Councilmember Clark clarified why the special meeting was called: on
Tuesday, a DOJ letter confirmed that the City and the Council are not
personally liable as long as they act in good faith regarding the February
7, 2006 Recall Election. In addition, the 9th Circuit three judge panel en
banc challenge deadline was December 14 and the County Registrar of
Voters filed a petition for reconsideration; which means the decision is not
final.
Councilmember Clark felt that given the legal challenges of the Recall
Election the period for the election to be held in limbo was too long. She
also indicated that a court challenge might be put forth against the Recall
if someone felt disenfranchised. The matter could go to court and be over
turned. Councilmember Clark asked the City Clerk if the February 7
Election date could still go forward if 12 production days have been lost in
the process. She also inquired if the ballots had already been printed.
She expressed concern about the accuracy of the candidate statement
translation since in her re-election one of the translations had to be re-
done because it was completely illegible.
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 3 of 7
0 •
City Clerk Castruita responded that printing had not yet taken place and
that candidate statements had not been translated. She also indicated
that two certified translating companies would be involved in approving
candidate statements; one would translate and the other would proof.
Mayor Imperial indicated that many different dialects are spoken by the
Chinese community.
Councilmember Tran asked the City Clerk if it was still possible to have an
election on February 7, 2006.
City Clerk Castruita responded that if the election process was allowed to
immediately continue, Department of Justice compliance could be
achieved with additional personnel and assistance from the County
Registrar Recorder. She indicated that the City would incur expedited
service charges.
Councilmember Tran made a motion to approve with a second by
Councilmember Nunez to adopt Resolution 2005-46:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, Califomia
rescinding its adoption of resolution No. 2005-45, reinstating and
readopting Resolution No. 2005-33 regarding the calling and
noticing of a special election for the submission of the question of
the recall of certain officers and the election of candidates to fill the
vacancy or vacancies if the recall prevails, reinstating and
readopting resolution No. 2005-35 regarding the request of the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to render
specified services to the City of Rosemead relating to the conduct
of a Special Municipal Election on February 7, 2006; and directing
the City Clerk to retain legal counsel to intervene and seek
declaratory relief in the event that an action is commenced to
challenge the validity of the recall election of Councilmember Jay
Imperial and Councilmember Gary Taylor.
Councilmember Clark asked how much expedited charges would cost.
City Clerk Castruita indicated the city would have to pay 10% above the
original estimate. Ms. Castruita further stated the technical portion of the
election was nearly complete but that community outreach activities were
still pending.
Councilmember Clark asked what the penalty is if Department of Justice
compliance is not achieved.
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 4 o17
• 0
City Attorney Wallin explained that the City Clerk and Council could be in
contempt of court and lack of compliance might present another challenge
to the validity of the election.
Councilmember Nunez asked for a status update on outreach activities
David Barron, Election Consultant, responded it would be difficult to
achieve objectives with the current staffing situation and stated that
Election law provides the City Council with the ability to authorize
additional help.
Councilmember Tran asked Mr. Barron if additional resources would help
the City achieve objectives for the Feb. 7 election.
Mr. Barron indicated that additional help would have to be trained, but that
with hard work, the spirit and intent of the Consent Decree could be met.
Councilmember Tran asked the City Clerk if there was enough time left to
facilitate the February 7 election.
City Clerk Castruita said she felt confident the technical portions could be
done.
Election Consultant Barron also agreed, but indicated there was a slight
risk with regard to the Advisory Group Consent Decree items.
Mayor Imperial asked if additional time would be helpful and suggested an
election date of February 28.
Councilmember Nunez clarified that holding the election between 88 and
125 days from when the election is called is a legal requirement. He
asked if holding the election on February 14 would be out of the
acceptable range.
City Clerk Castruita confirmed February 14 out of the range.
Councilmember Clark asked if the City was still under the 88 to 125 day
requirement. She expressed concern that the City would be liable if not
able to meet Department of Justice requirements.
Councilmember Nunez reminded the Council that a court of law did not
stop the election but that the City Council had. He advocated that the City
should get back on track to achieve compliance. He then asked the City
Clerk if there was still a risk of something going wrong even if the election
date was delayed.
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 5 of 7
s ~
City Clerk Castruita explained that risk increases when pressed for time.
Councilmember Nunez suggested the City should get back on track.
Councilmember Clark asked if it might be safer to hold the election on
Feb. 14.
City Clerk Castruita indicated that one week would not make much of a
difference in completing community outreach requirements.
Mayor Imperial suggested the election take place on Feb. 28 to coincide
with a Council Meeting night.
Councilmember Nunez asked what the meeting date had to do with the
election date.
Councilmember Tran called for the question as his earlier motion did have
a second from Councilmember Nunez. He made a motion to rescind the
Dec. 5 Resolution that was adopted and reinstate and readopt Resolution
2005-33 to continue with the Feb. 7 Recall Election. Voted resulted:
Yes: Clark, Nunez, Tran
No: Imperial, Taylor
Absent: None
Abstain: None
VERBATIM SECTION: As requested by Councilmember Taylor, verbatim
accounts of Mr. Taylor's comments only for the section below are as
follows in quotations:
Mayor Pro-Tem Taylor: "Mr. Mayor, I would like to state again for
the record. 1 voted no the last time and what 1 have discovered is
the campaign filings of the S. O. C. - PAC and the campaign filings
of the AFL-LA County COPE organization. They did not file the
campaign statements that they were supposed to have filed.
They did not disclose their expenditures until 5 months after the
election. "
Larry Bevington, an audience member commented that Mr. Taylor's
statements were a deviation from the agenda and asked why he
was allowed to speak.
Mayor Imperial explained that Mr. Taylor was allowed to speak
because he is a Councilmember making a statement.
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 6 of 7
Mayor Pro - Tem Taylor: "Mr. Mayor, the reasons for the
statement is because they are all connected together. The
financing and the organization, it started back two years ago and
the financing, the disclosures were not made for the eighty, excuse
me, $78, 000 dollars that COPE put in. And let's not kid ourselves
we know who is funding the election."
Audience: "Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart"
Mayor Pro-Tem Taylor: "That's true, that's true. Wal-Mart is a
community business now. Anyway, that's the reason, again,
because checking into it further that is documented that they did not
Me their forms and I fully expect it to continue through this election.
That's what 1 want in the comments."
END VERBATIM SECTION
3. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further action to be taken, Councilmember Tran moved to
adjourn the meeting, with a second by Councilmember Nunez; the
meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm.
The next regular meeting will be held on December 27, 2005, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
MAYOR
CC MIN: 12-16-05
Page 7 of 7