12,749 / 59.1% Yes votes ...... 8,815 / 40.9% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

What Measure F would do: The City Charter would be amended to delete these duties related to the Civil Service Commission.

Proponents say:

• Proposition F will enhance prosecution by allowing the Prosecutor more time to perform duties devoted to preventing and prosecuting crime.
• It will improve efficiency by increasing the number of misdemeanor hearings the Department can handle.
• It will eliminate ethical conflicts involving police officers who could be making an appeal of a disciplinary action before the Commission one day and asked to testify by the same prosecutor the next day as a witness at a criminal trial.

• No good reason for this change has been stated, and prop F does not clarify how the prosecutor’s role would be filled.
• This issue should not require a Charter amendment.
• Prop F makes a small and non-urgent change which does not alter the basic structure of city government.

Presently, the Long Beach City Charter requires that, among other duties, the office of the City Prosecutor shall prosecute, attend and conduct on behalf of the City Manager and other appointing authorities, all hearings before the Civil Service Commission. The proposed amendment would eliminate this duty from the office of the City Prosecutor.

City of Long Beach

City Profile

date: Saturday, April 21
time: 10 am - 12 noon
place: Los Altos Library, 5614 Britton Dr
plus: short presentation on the city Budget for fiscal 2008 by David Wodynski, Bureau Manager, Budget and Performance Management Bureau
more info: LWV Long Beach Area

City Prosecutor Tom Reeves
Long Beach City Prosecutor's Office

But for now, your No vote can send a more important message. Council has no business wasting a million dollars and creating voter inconvenience for this extra and utterly non-urgent election.

JOE WEINSTEIN
Mathematical and Statistical Analyst

So this election and its propositions are the Council's million-dollar tax-paid solution. But the Council didn't bother to state what is the problem.

One instance is Prop. F, which removes one role of the City Prosecutor. Prof. F may well have good reason, but none has (as of the time of this writing) been stated. Nor does Prop. F clarify how that role would instead be filled - if indeed it need still be filled. And why couldn't transfer of the role to another office be done by inter-office memorandum-of-understanding rather than charter change?

Even if good answers emerge on all these issues, Prop. F makes a small and non-urgent change which does not alter the basic structure of city government.

A No vote will send two clear messages:

We the voters are not mere rubber stamps.
Before it casually orders up a special election, Council must give itself and everyone explicit good reasons both for each of the proposals offered, and for incurring the election costs and inconveniences.

JOE WEINSTEIN

The need for Proposition F was explained at two community meetings and in writing to the City Council. It is not necessary, and would actually create future problems, to specify an alternative Civil Service representative for City Management in the City Charter. As the legal advisor for all city departments including Civil Service, the City Attorney can readily make arrangements to represent management at Civil Service.

The duties imposed by the City Charter cannot be transferred by an "inter-office memorandum-of-understanding". That's like saying the duties of the State Assembly can be transferred to the State Senate by a memo + it just doesn't work that way.

The City Prosecutor has said that Proposition F is necessary to eliminate potential conflicts of interest and to enhance the efficient prosecution of crimes. These are not "small" or "non-urgent" reasons for changing the charter! Vote YES on Proposition F.

Tom Reeves
Long Beach City Prosecutor
Long Beach City Prosecutor's Office