Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 14-53RESOLUTION N0.14-53 The City of Bakersfield did not oppose th~ new system of "municipal cou~ts". Ass~ances given to cities re'ga~ding the distri- 'bution of fines and forfeitures when re.organization'was being debated, were taken at face value. Now,"it appears that we were naive to believe such assurances. · · ~ The ."Statement by League of California Cities in Opposition to County Proposal' to Shift Burden of New Courts from Counties to Cities",' delivered by Mr. RiChard Carpenter before "the Interim Com- mittee on April 16, 1952, is acomplete and.factual analysis of the matter. We commend it to you. · In the 'proposals now' before the Legislature there a~e all of the~ seeds which produced some of our most unfortunate law enforce- ~ment and court situations o~1 th~ 1920, s.- We recall 'all too vividly the era of fee-paid police officials and Judges, when automobile associations and tourist associations found 'it necessary to issue bulletins advising their members~ to .avoid certain places. IfI the Counties now feel ithat the+ existing.' formula for the distribution of. fines and forfeitures places an .undue burden on County government,' then.let them' return to us our police. courts so that we may exercise jurisdiction over misdemee~ors. ~We will guarantee a higher degree of efficiency. in the adminis.tretion of Justice, satisfactory to the public, and at no expense whatever to the County. PREANBr.~. ' ' -" WHEREAS, there is now pending before the Legislature of the State of California a number of proposals., the intent' of each being to shift the burden of cost-of Municipal' Cot~ts onto· cities, and WHEREAS~~. the administr'ation of Municipal Courts was under- taken by CO~tiesi at their ~oWn request, as a proper County f.unction, ~dEP~EA~S,I Cities exercise no control. whatever' over personne1 or expenses 'of-such courts, and · '.W~.REA~8~ the Cities are maintaining alarge force of police of£icerS~ at thei~ own exp~e, in addition to contributing ·through taxation for the maintenance of Sheriff,s officeS, and such+police officers ~are recognized as law enforcement officers by the State in the enforcement of.State as wetl~as local laws, ~The police forces '· of the Cities are maintainedwith0ut_ any contribution from the Counties and~ 'are la benefit to all the ·people of .the' C0unty~and State as a whole, ....... ~WHEREAS, the cost to the Counties in maintaining an adequate law enforcement. agency to insure the Safety and wel£are. of all the people of the ~OOunties has been reduced considerably by the mainten- ance lby ~said Cities of police forces for ~the enforcement of State laws, and _ I. . , ~-.rL WHEREAS, th~ necessity of maintai,ning a large police force in incorporated cities is not due .to .the lawlessness~ of the +residents of the cities necessarily, but in many ·cases is Caused.by violations of the +'laws by .persons residing in the, county and in othe'r~ localities, both within and without the State, and WHEREAS, the Cities have suffered Considerable loss of revenue tn mounts which cannot be ascertained because of 'the"failure of the ~MuniCipal ·Courtsto furnish a statement,of accounts to the Cities showing·the disposition of the casesI Originating in the Cities, and WEEAS, the administration of Justice has always been and. should be by'all the people. for all the' people, whether they be resi- dents· of a City, County, State 'or other-locali-ty, and should be made available on an equal basis and, not according to whether they reside in a 'City or in the County, and no-penalty should attach 'to a person merely because he 'is a resident of a 'City when the determination of his rightS are involved, and ' ._WHEREAS, the' proposals embodied in Senate !Bill'No. 1100 and Assembly' 'Bills Nos. 1640, 16~L1, 1642 and 2429 are .unfair, 'and argu- ments in theirsfavor are~ specious-, and WHEREAS, it is basically wrong for one political agency-to pay for' its proper functions with funds 'belonging to mother p~litical agency. CONCLUSION · NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of· the -City of Bakersfield does oppose passage of Senate Bill No. 1100 and all other 'measures of'like intent, and ,I. 'BEFIT FURTHER RESOLVED that this. Council favor's re'storation to the 'Cities of .the right to establish police courts having mis' demeanor Jurisdiction. · BE IT· ALSO FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of this Council be and she is hereby directed to transmit a copy of 'this Resolution t.o the following: Assemblywoman Dorothy Donahue, Assemblyman H. w. Kelly, Senator Jess Dorsey and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern..- ~'~ .... --o0o-----' I HEREBY CERTIFY that th~ foregoing ResOlution was passed and adopted.by the Council of the City of. Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of MarCh, 1953, by the follow- ing vote: Council.of the City of Bakersfield. APPROVE this 23rd day offMarch,. 1983..