Councilmembers Price, Supernaw and Austin Agendize <nobr>Nov. 22</nobr> Item To Re-Allocate Nearly $700,000 -- Incl. $475,000 City Att'y Says Its Office Can't Legally Spend To Enforce State Wage Laws -- To Instead Identify Specific Public Safety Priorities On Which It Can Be Spent, Incl. Restoring Resources, Staffing & Equipment

LBReport.com

News

Councilmembers Price, Supernaw and Austin Agendize Nov. 22 Item To Re-Allocate Nearly $700,000 -- Incl. $475,000 City Att'y Says Its Office Can't Legally Spend To Enforce State Wage Laws -- To Instead Identify Specific Public Safety Priorities On Which It Can Be Spent, Incl. Restoring Resources, Staffing & Equipment

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

VIDEO runs 1 hr/20 minutes is a large file (465MB) and may take some time to load.

Paid advocacy content
AND for VIDEO and FURTHER INFORMATION on EL DORADO AUDUBON, CLICK HERE.
Paid for by El Dorado Audubon

(Nov. 18, 2016, 7:20 a.m.) -- So what do you want your City Councilmember to do with nearly $700,000 ($475,000 that the Council allocated in September to the City Attorney's office for local wage enforcement + $220,000 separately allocated to investigate wage theft issues)...when the City Attorney says its office can't legally spend its $475,000 portion for local wage enforcement?

Councilmember Suzie Price, joined by Councilmembers Daryl Supernaw and Al Austin, have agendized an item for the Nov. 22 Council agenda that would reallocate the roughly $700,000 so city management can identify "specific public safety priorities" on which it can be spent, including "restoration of resources, staffing [and] equipment."

[Scroll down for further.]

In their agendizing memo they write: "By way of this item, Council requests that the City Manager to identify specific public safety priorities that can be funded using the money that was previously allocated to wage enforcement. The list of priorities should include restoration of resources, staffing, equipment or any other priority that meets the amount and use limitations associated with the money that was previously allocated to wage enforcement."

Price, Austin and Supernaw note in their agendizing memo that in September "there was uncertainty expressed by some council members as to whether or not the city was legally able to enforce state wage law" and they indicate the City Attorney's office, working with outside counsel has "determined that the City cannot take any active role in the enforcement of State wage laws. A memorandum to that effect was disseminated to Council on October 18, 2016. This legal determination has now made the allocated monies available to be used to fund other needs in the city of Long Beach."

Advertisement
Computer Repair Long Beach

For FREE Computer Tip, click here.

The City Attorney's office Oct. 18 memo isn't attached to the Councilmembers' Nov. 22 agendizing memo...but in a display of newsworthy transparency, the City Attorney's office has put its advisory memo to the Council online at this link. Initially marked "Privileged Attorney-Client Communication," it's a rare look at the analysis that the City Attorney's office applied in reaching its conclusion.

Accompanied by a detailed analysis from outside counsel, the City Attorney's office told Councilmembers on Oct. 18: "[T]he City Attorney's office cannot legally expend the funds allocated to it at the September 6, 2016 Council meeting for 'effective minimum wage enforcement,' and it is the recommendation from the City Attorney that the funds allocated be returned to the General Fund, or re-allocated to another Department for minimum wage related educational purposes."

The $695,000 sum was a bone of Council contention during its September budget proceedings. The issue stems from a Sept. 6, 2016 Council action that erased a Council-enacted minimum wage ordinance to align LB with a Sacramento-enacted statewide minimum wage increase (SB 3) but also provided City funding for wage enforcement activities. Councilwoman Price questioned whether the city has the legal power to adjudicate minimum wage enforcement issues (which are handled by the state's Dept. of Industrial Relations) and Price established in a colloquy with Ass't City Attorney Mike Mais that the City Attorney's office hadn't yet analyzed SB 3 to determine what cities can or can't do under the new state law.

Accordingly, Price recommended setting aside funding for wage enforcement without formally allocating it until the legal question had been answered, but her motion to divide the question died for lack of a second...and the Council went on to vote (8-0, motion by Mungo, Andrews absent) to allocate $475,000 (to support outreach "to ensure the public is informed about wage theft") and hire two wage theft investigators (estimated cost roughly $200,000 that management was told to find somewhere.)

A week later on Sept. 13 when the final FY17 budget came to the Council for approval, Councilmembers Price, Andrews and Austin proposed allocating $695,000 to the Police Department for the hiring of Police Officers. Their motion failed with six Councilmembers (Gonzalez, Pearce, Supernaw, Mungo, Uranga and Richardson) voting to "receive and file" (take no action on it), after which the Council went on to vote (9-0) to allocate the $475,000 as indicated on Sept. 6 (for enforcement of state wage laws) plus $220,000 for "local investigation wage theft enforcement services" but with the proviso that "City staff to report back on how the Minimum Wage enforcement funding will be spent before using the funds."

The Nov. 22 Price-Supernaw-Austin agenda item that would reallocate the nearly $700,000 to identify "specific public safety priorities" including "restoration of resources, staffing [and] equipment" adds that the "Council acknowledges the important issue presented with wage theft/enforcement and therefore, urges the City Manager to continue to support the various State and County programs dedicated to the issue of wage theft. Where legally feasible, the City should support State and County efforts to investigate, enforce and adjudicate wage enforcement claims."