Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05141985 - 2.9 TQ: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM:;, . "Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa DATE: May 6 ,' 1985 County SUBJECT: Authorization to Recruit for a Legislative Coordinator SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Agree in principle to the need for a Legislative Coordinator function._ Refer the issue for consideration during the 1985-1986 budget hearings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that $50,000 would be required if the Board decides to fund this function. BACKGROUND: The County has historically had an employee from the County Administrator's Office located full time in Sacramento to serve as the County' s legislative coordinator. With the budget pressures over the past few years, this position was allowed to lapse with Mr. Laib' s untimely death a couple of years ago. Since then, the County Administrator' s office has attempted to provide legislative information and coordination out of Martinez, with trips to Sacramento as time permitted and legislative activity demanded. The County Administrator' s Office now subscribes to the legislative bill service and Capitol Information Management which provides computer access to all information on the activities regarding legislation the County is following. This information activity is important to County departments and. can, and should, be continued out of Martinez. The computer also ties the County into the County Supervisors Association of California' s electronic mail service which provides same-day or next-day access to information CSAC transmits to counties. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: lf&&44�e RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) el 0 117 ACTION OF BOARD ON May 14, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X DIRECTED the County Administrator to solicit Requests for Proposal to perform this function. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -- ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED May. 14, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382/7-63 BY �� �� DEPUTY r ..i Page 2 What is not being provided in any satisfactory way at present is an actual physical presence in Sacramento. Members of our legislative delegation have remarked on how valuable it was to have one individual in Sacramento who could serve as a link between them and county government; who could provide county-specific information on legislation they were voting on, and who could provide them with the County' s view on specific pieces of legislation. Bringing the concerns of the County to the attention of our delegation cannot always be done adequately by letter or- phone call. Frequently, the time pressures require that an immediate judgment be made regarding a position on a specific piece of legislation. There is frequently a need to talk to several legislators in an effort to explain why the County either favors or opposes a particular piece of legislation, or an amendment which is being considered. This can frequently be done most successfully if a person is physically located in Sacramento. Other than continuing to try to perform this function from Martinez , there are three methods of providing for legislative representation in Sacramento. One is to retain a contract lobbyist to work on one or two critical issues or pieces of legislation. The County has used this type of lobbyist in the past, and there will probably be a need to continue to do so in specific circumstances. However, it is much too expensive to hire this type of lobbyist on even a part-time basis regularly. It is also unnecessary to do so on a regular basis. The second method is to hire a County employee to be located in Sacramento full time as we have done in the past. This person works only for the County and represents only this County' s interests. Generally, an employee is not as skilled as a contract lobbyist nor can an employee bring the same type of pressure to bear that a professional lobbyist can. However, an ,employee has the advantage that he or she can become personally acquainted with our legislative delegation and has no interests other than this county' s to represent. An employee can also become better acquainted with the county organization so he or she knows whom to call directly to get information. This - alternative is the one used by most larger counties in California who maintain at least one full-time employee in Sacramento. The last alternative is to contract with an individual or firm which also represents other clients, frequently other public jurisdictions. A contract legislative representative combines some of the advantages of a contract lobbyist with the advantages of an employee. A contract legislative representative can spend more time on a variety of issues of concern to the County than - can a single-issue lobbyist. The County can generally expect to get a higher level of lobbying skills with such a contract person than with an employee because we are paying the equivalent of one full-time employee' s salary, but getting only part-time service from the individual or firm who is also concerned with issues affecting his or her other clients. Such a contract person will generally be aware of and can alert the County to a variety of• issues which may affect the County and can represent _ the County on a variety of bills and `issues. Contracting with a firm often means the County has access to representation from several individuals with expertise in different areas rather than expecting one individual to be expert in a range of issues. i