League of Women Voters v. Countywide Crim. Justice Coordination Com.

• Decision Date: 03 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. B029791,B029791
• Citation: 250 Cal.Rptr. 161,203 Cal.App.3d 529
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, a non-profit California corporation; Gerald Uelman and Richard Floyd, Residents and Taxpayers of the County of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTYWIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATION COMMITTEE; Legislative Subcommittee; Task Force; Sherman Block, Sheriff of Los Angeles County; Robert Philibosian, District Attorney for Los Angeles County; Robert Edmonds, Chair of Legislative Subcommittee; Alan Watkins, Executive Director of Coordination Committee; and County of Los Angeles, Defendants and Respondents.

Page 161

250 Cal.Rptr. 161

203 Cal.App.3d 529

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, a non-profit California corporation; Gerald Uelman and Richard Floyd, Residents and Taxpayers of the County of Los Angeles, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTYWIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATION COMMITTEE; Legislative Subcommittee; Task Force; Sherman Block, Sheriff of Los Angeles County; Robert Philibosian, District Attorney for Los Angeles County; Robert Edmonds, Chair of Legislative Subcommittee; Alan Watkins, Executive Director of Coordination Committee; and County of Los Angeles, Defendants and Respondents.

No. B029791.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 3, 1988.

Review Denied Nov. 23, 1988.

Overland, Berke, Wesley, Gits, Randolph & Levanas and Mark E. Overland and Robert Berke, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants

De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel and David L. Muir, Sr. Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

INTRODUCTION

SPENCER, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs League of Women Voters of California, Gerald Uelman and Richard Floyd appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties submitted their respective motions for summary adjudication primarily on stipulated facts and exhibits, although defendants submitted some additional evidence in the form of declarations. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion in its entirety and granted defendants' motion as it related to six issues alleged to pose no triable issues of material fact; the trial court determined there were no triable questions of material fact, adjudged these issues to be without substantial controversy and deemed them established. As to two other issues, the trial court denied defendants' motion.

Thereafter, the parties stipulated the court's ruling of December 1, 1986 and its order of December 11, 1986 specifying certain issues without substantial controversy should be entered as a final judgment in the matter. They further stipulated there was no triable issue of material fact as to the specific provisions contained in a proposed judgment and, as to those issues the court had designated as questions of material fact, no additional evidence would be presented unless the judgment was reversed in part or in whole on appeal. In accordance with this stipulation, the trial court entered judgment on July 29, 1987.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 7, 1981, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC). CCJCC was comprised of the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, acting as ex officio committee chairman; the Los Angeles County sheriff, district attorney, public defender, chief administrative officer, director of community development, superintendent of schools, director of data processing and clerk; the mayor, city attorney, chief administrative officer, president of the City Council and chief of police of the City of Los Angeles; the presiding judge and supervising judges of the criminal and juvenile divisions of the Los Angeles County Superior Court; the chairmen of the Municipal Courts Judges Association and the Municipal Court Presiding Judges Association; the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District and four representatives of smaller cities or police departments in the County. In February 1983, the United States attorney for the central district was added as a member.

A standing legislative subcommittee was formed as part of CCJCC, with Assistant Sheriff Robert A. Edmonds serving as chairman. Other members included representatives from the county's chief administrative officer, the probation department, the district attorney and the county counsel. Mr. Edmonds was compensated as assistant sheriff while he performed his subcommittee duties.

In September 1982, CCJCC directed the legislative subcommittee to study a proposal to implement certain procedural changes in the criminal justice system. The subcommittee was instructed to explore the initiative process as a means of obtaining these reforms. On September 29, the legislative subcommittee met during business hours. The subcommittee discussed a proposal to reduce state constitutional requirements for juries in criminal cases. It reached the conclusion an amendment should be pursued to reduce the size of juries in misdemeanor cases to six jurors and to reduce the number of votes required for misdemeanor convictions or acquittals to five, as well as to reduce the requirements for conviction or acquittal in all felony cases except capital crimes to ten votes rather than twelve.

As noted in the report of the September 29, 1982 meeting, "The subcommittee agreed in concept with the suggestion to seek the necessary constitutional amendments through the initiative process. However, the subcommittee also identified a number of practical issues which will clearly In November 1982, the legislative subcommittee requested attorneys employed by the appellate division of the Office of the District Attorney, in the course of performing their duties, to research and draft a memorandum on possible proposals to be included in a draft proposed initiative. These attorneys utilized county resources and overhead, including secretarial services, and produced an eight-page document which covered 27 distinct proposals to effectuate wide-ranging changes in both misdemeanor and felony criminal procedure. The memorandum, dated November 22, 1982, is prefaced with the following statement: "We wish to emphasize that these are proposals only, followed by a few brief comments. Listing these proposals here should not be considered an endorsement of their merits."

                limit the CCJCC's involvement in such a campaign.  [p]--No public funds can be used to advocate a position on any matter placed before the electorate.  [p]--A Statewide initiative campaign calls for a massive organizational and financial effort based on widespread public interest and concern.  [p]--An initiative process is extremely costly with estimates for the petition process alone running at over half a million dollars."   The report concludes with the following recommendations:  "--that the CCJCC adopt a position favoring reduced juries;  but assume no direct role in organizing or coordinating a ballot initiative campaign.  [p]--that the CCJCC explore public sentiment on this issue and take steps to identify statewide organizations willing and able to spearhead an initiative process.  [p]--that the CCJCC provide assistance to such organizations as appropriate and/or legally proper."  (Emphasis original.)
                

The legislative subcommittee held many meetings between November 1982 and March 1983 to develop ideas for and to draft a proposed initiative to present to the CCJCC, with the expectation the proposed draft eventually would be submitted to the Secretary of State for qualification as a ballot measure. The subcommittee developed a proposed timetable to be presented to the CCJCC for its approval, which covered the gathering of subjects for inclusion in a draft proposed initiative, the drafting of its language and contacting interested groups who might serve as sponsors of such an initiative. By February 1983, the subcommittee had narrowed an initial list of 27 proposals to 7 which would be included in the draft proposed initiative. On each occasion, the subcommittee met during business hours in county facilities.

Deputy district attorneys and other county employees used county supplies and support services in formulating, drafting and typing memoranda on the various proposals in lieu of the performance of other duties. From the end of January 1983, District Attorney Robert H. Philibosian knew and generally approved of this work. County employee Alan Wilkins acted as staff director of the CCJCC and in this capacity arranged and attended meetings of the CCJCC and the legislative subcommittee and prepared minutes of these meetings in lieu of performing other county duties. On January 28, 1983, deputy district attorneys formulated and prepared a 45-page "tentative draft" on the seven major components of the proposed draft initiative in lieu of the performance of other duties. This document was typed by county employees in lieu of performing other duties.

During his normal working hours on February 4, 1983, Assistant Sheriff Edmonds drafted a letter to Paul Gann, utilizing county secretarial services and supplies. The letter reads in pertinent part: "I'm writing you as Chairman of the Legislative Subcommittee of the Los Angeles County-wide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee. As [Mr.] Timmons, Staff Assistant to the Subcommittee, indicated to you on the phone, our group is working on the drafting of a Speedy Trial Initiative, which we hope to place on the June 1984 ballot. [p] As [Mr. Timmons] also told you, the substance of the Initiative is still the source of subcommittee deliberations, so I cannot go into specifics on its content until mid-February. I did, however, want to ... let you know who we are and what the Initiative effort is about.

"The Committee, itself, was created almost two years ago by the Board of Supervisors in the wake of a drastic upturn in violent crime. It is the expressed purpose of the Committee to increase coordination among the elements of the local justice system in Los Angeles County and to open up communications with local elected officials. We have ... become the focus of local coordination efforts in justice issues. [p] The first discussions of the initiative were begun last fall when it became increasingly clear that many improvements in the justice system which the committee supports have previously and unsuccessfully been introduced in the Legislature, and that the initiative process may hold out our only hope of implementing much needed change.... [p] We would appreciate any suggestions you might have on subsequent steps which...