comments

Send a message to lobbyists

Reader Input
-A +A
Part of the impetus behind Measure A occurred in 2003-4 when the state amended Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code. The code requires general law cities to pay volunteers who wish to work on various city projects. This law does not apply to charter cities where people can freely volunteer to help their community. The law has been amended twice to extend a waiver of its ?pay? requirements over several years. Folks who oppose Measure A say that we should not worry about it as waivers will probably be extended into the future. This is a good example of how the state legislature takes care of general law cities. By adding to the morass. If the legislature has to periodically consider and waive Section 1720.4 and special interests are not fighting waiver extensions (as the opposition to Measure A says), why not just nix the waivers and rewrite the law? Then the law would permit volunteers to work on projects in general law cities the same as that allowed in charter cities ? without requiring volunteers to be paid. In fact, the legislature has killed four bills that would have done just that ? permanently exempt volunteers ? go figure! I suppose a few lobbyists and special interests have a need for playing this game. But it all adds up to a costly and inefficient state government that unnecessarily intrudes on ?home rule.? The predictable reaction to the above and the more that is coming from Sacramento has been to avoid the mess and games by becoming a charter city. Send a message to lobbyists, special interests and the legislature. We can do it better and do it in a more transparent manner. Vote yes on Measure A. Jim Bennett, Auburn