Laserfiche WebLink
Measure A is more complicated than the City's statement implies. It proposes sweeping <br />changes to the City Attorney's Office at a multi - million dollar cost. <br />Yet, the City has chosen to circumvent public review by not convening a Charter Review <br />Committee. <br />This measure, which will amend our City's constitution, has not been allowed public <br />vetting, nor has it been evaluated by any Council Committee. Therefore, no one can be <br />certain of the ramifications of this ambitious prosecutorial program. <br />Important questions remain unanswered: <br />• How will the proposed costs of $2.5 million a year affect an already overdrawn <br />budget? <br />• Why does the City list 'police' as a supporter when their rank and file is on record <br />as opposing? <br />• Is it worth the redundant cost for a new City department when the County District <br />Attorney's Office appears to be productive? <br />• Is it wise to place prosecution power in the hands of a City Council appointee <br />versus an elected official? 3 r <br />• What safeguards are in place to prevent undue influence by the City Council? <br />A Charter Review Committee would compel testimony from City officials, weigh public <br />comments, publicly deliberate the issue, and recommend for or against its placement on <br />the ballot. <br />This public process could be undertaken and, if supported, an amendment could be <br />placed on the November 2016 ballot. Instead, voters should question this 'fast track' to <br />the June ballot. <br />Public safety depends on public awareness. Without a thorough examination of this <br />amendment's merits, one that includes vigorous community involvement, League of <br />Women Voters Riverside must recommend a NO vote on Measure A. <br />Please learn more by visiting Facebook.com/NoOnMeasureAX Q 0 0) XPOA. 0 fi G <br />