1977/10/28Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
77-1183
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt
In accordance with Section 507 of the City Charter and Section 54956 of the
Government Code, a Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council was called for
the purpose of considering:
Disposition of the Resolution Nos. 77R-696 and 77R-697 pertaining to
the Integrated Operations Agreement with Southern California Edison
Company and the agreements in connection with the City's participation
in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3.
At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, the minutes of the following Special
Meeting of the Anaheim City Council were transcribed verbatim from a tape re-
cording of said meeting.
"THOM:
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. The Anaheim City Council is
now in session, in a Special session. As my fellow Council Members
know, I put out a memo to you the other day indicating in that memo
my reluctance to sign the two resolutions which dealt with Items 4
and 5 on Tuesday's agenda and as part of that memo, I stated that if
any of you would like a Special Council Meeting called prior to
next Tuesday to attempt to resolve the dilemma to notify the City
Clerk. One member of the Council did, and, therefore, the Special
Session is called.
I would request that the Council Members reconsider their actions
on Items 4 and 5 of last Tuesday's meeting, specifically the
resolution authorizing an agreement with the Edison Company and
authorizing the Utilities Director to sign the agreement; and the
second resolution authorizing the execution of letter agreements
and other types, participation agreements to San Onofre, Units
2 and 3, Supplemental Agreements for Integration, and Edison-Anaheim-
San Onofre Transmission Service Agreement. I would, therefore, put
that motion before you that you consider, that you reconsider,
these two items. Is there a second to the motion?
KOTT:
THOM:
Second.
The motion has been made and seconded. We'll have a roll call vote.
ROBERTS:
The motion has failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
77-1184
THOM:
HOPKINS:
THOM:
SEYMOUR:
THOM:
HOPKINS:
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
I think it would be then appropriate, ladies and gentlemen of the
Council, to request that the City Attorney outline possible pro-
cedures that you can use to compel the execution of these agreements.
Mr~ Mayor and Members of the Council, it was my understanding that
due to the fact that this might possibly involve litigation that the
Council Members may desire to discuss the litigation aspect in
Executive Session, however at the Council's pleasure we will arrange
either way.
I think it would be, perhaps, best to deal with it publicly.
my opinion, I'll leave it up to the rest of you.
I'm prepared to deal with it publicly.
Ail right sir.
That's
We are dealing, primarily, sir, with the Charter of the City of
Anaheim and specifically I was referring to Section 511, which refers
to all ordinances and resolutions shall be signed by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk. We have done considerable research in
our office with respect to this matter and we are prepared to issue
a ruling, which I will give copies of to the Members of the Council,
which states basically that when three ~nembers of the City Council
of the City of Anaheim cast affirmative votes for a resolution, t~at
the resolution is legally valid at ~h~t Lime and the enactment becomes
effective at the time of sucb affjw~at~-~e votes. The signing of
such a resolution is merely a mJ~ ~e~al duty for the purpose of
authenticating the action of the ~i!~v Council and giving notice of
the contents thereof and is not ~ ,~nc.~.~t~on precedent to the validity
of such resolution, and we base t~at ,opinion on a decision of the
Supreme Court of California that ~as decided back in 1925 and is
still good law. It's Pacific Palisades Association vs. City of
Huntington Beach, and that is found i~ the Pacific Reporter, 237
Pacific Reporter 538. So it would bm our opinion that the resolutions
referred to are effective upon the ~!'f~rmative votes being cast and
that if the other party, Edison C~;~any and the other cities, are
satisifed with an unsigned resoluti~>~, that this would be acceptable.
The other recourse that the Council refers to, if the Mayor, of course,
is unavailable or absent or unable, to perform his duties because of
disability, the Section of the Charter., 504, would be applicable that
the Mayor Pro Tem could then perform the duties of the Mayor; however,
the Mayor, in this case, there's no indication of any intent to be
absent or disabled, so therefore the Mayor Pro Tem would not be
authorized to sign on his behalf.
The other possibility that we have found in the research that we
have done, is that a proper court action could be brought in the
form of the Writ of Mandamus to compel the Mayor to sign the
resolutions. This would be done in the form of a petition to
the Superior Court, requesting that the Court issue an Alternative
Writ of Mandamus to direct the Mayor to sign the resolutions.
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
77-1185
THOM:
HOYT:
SEYMOUR:
Whether litigation would be a proper recourse is something that
the Council should consider, and I believe that Mr. Watts and
perhaps Mr. Hoyt have some comments that they would make in that
respect as to the effect of litigation on this entire matter.
The other recommendations that we have, deal with the Section of
the City of Anaheim Charter dealing with contracts. Specifically
I'm referring to Section 518, of the City Charter, which provides
that the City shall not be bound by any contract, except as herein-
after provided, unless the same shall be made in writing approved
by the City Council and signed on behalf of the City by the Mayor
and the City Clerk, or by such other officer or officers as shall
be designated by the City Council. Any of said officers shall sign
a contract on.behalf of the City when directed to do so by the City
Council, and it is our opinion that a motion of, which is duly
passed by the majority members of the City Council, would be
sufficient to direct the Utilities Director to sign these agreements
and there would be no necessity then for signing of a resolution,
and we would recommend that at this meeting the Council take the
vote on a motion which would read into the minutes and the record
all the provisions of the resolutions that were the subject of
this motion, and then direct the Director of Utilities to sign
the agreement. We would recommend that it be done at this meeting
and also on the regular meeting next Tuesday inasmuch as there is
always a possibility that this might be considered an order to
pay money, and these can only be authorized at a regular meeting.
So as a double precaution, a reading of this motion today and also
next Tuesday would cover the matter. These are our legal opinions,
and I believe that Mr. Watts and Mr. Hoyt have some other comments
concerning the other parties' attitude in this ma~tter.
Would Mr. Watts and Mr. Hoyt like to speak collectively, in tandem,
or individually? Evidently individually.
I guess individually, Mr. Mayor. I don't see Mr. Watts so we can't
speak together. I'd be happy to discuss this situation, of course,
with Southern California Edison Company. I have received no firm
offer from them, they're somewhat nonplused. They are interested in
seeing the City Attorney's ruling. I suggested that might be a
way of handling it. The motion route might be a way of handling
it, and I asked their attorneys if they thought that would be
satisfactory; their response was "we're not experts in municipal law;
we're just not, we're not prepared to answer that question without
some research," and they smiled; and I guess that's about where we
are as regards to the Southern Cal Edison Company.
Incidentally, this, the actions similar to those taken by the City
Council last Tuesday on these items were also taken, it's my under-
standing, unanimously by the Riverside City Council Tuesday evening.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the City Attorney. Where are these
resolutions that are to be signed, where are they physically, have
they been prepared?
77-1186
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
HOPKINS:
SEYMOUR:
HOPKINS:
ROBERTS:
SEYMOUR:
THOM:
SEYMOUR:
THOM:
I believe the City Clerk has them, Councilman Seymour.
We have them before us now then.
Is that correct Mrs. Roberts?
Yes.
Mr. Chairman, it is my very strong feeling that your action and
your unwillingness to sign the resolutions as approved by a majority
of this Council ....
My reluctance.
Well, you indicated not only reluctance, but you indicated in your
memorandum that in the event that we were to go to court and get
a Writ of Mandamus, and in that event, you might sign them. Now, I
define that and interpret that to be a thwarting and frustrating
action on your part, not only of the electorate of the citizens of
Anaheim who authorized the action that we took Tuesday, but in
in addition to that, it thwarts and frustrates the action of this
body. In my opinion, you have, if you follow through with that
action, you have not only violated your oath of office you took
upon taking your office, but, in fact, you will have committed an
illegal act in violation of the City Charter. Now I am prepared to
make whatever motion or series of motions that will effect the
following, unless you are prepared to sign those resolutions now,
in this meeting, and they would go as follows: (1) a motion to
direct the Utilities Director to sign any and all documentation
to insure the viability of meeting the contract date of November 1,
relative to the generation plant at San Onofre, (2) to direct the
City Attorney to obtain a Writ of Mandamus as quickly as possible
and upon the receipt of that Writ of Mandamus, to then either direct
the City Attorney, the District Attorney's Office or the Attorney
General's Office to immediately begin prosecution against you for
violation of the City Charter. Now you can take it one way or you
can take another, and I'm happy to lead the way in whatever event.
Either you sign those documents here, before the Council, right now,
or I'm prepared to introduce those motions and move on with this.
I might be prepared to do that if the motions were made and passed.
I might consider that compelling enough in that if you instruct the
City Attorney to seek a Writ of Mandamus and the, by motion, and
that motion is upheld, then I know the City Attorney will seek the
Writ of Mandamus and obtain it, and I know then upon a court order
I would sign it. So I would, I would respectively ask that you insti-
tute that motion to do it and if that motion carries, then I will do
it. If you don't put the motion into effect, then obviously your
convictions as to it are somewhat tremulous and may even be supportive
of mine.
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
77-1187
SEYMOUR:
ROTH:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
ROBERTS:
THOM:
SEYMOUR:
THOM:
SEYMOUR:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
Well, Mr. Thom, then let me make the motion and make it very clear.
I would offer a motion to direct the Director of the Utilities
Department to sign whatever documentation necessary to conclude
our agreements prior to the expiration date of November 1, relative
to San Onofre, (2) Direct the City Attorney to seek a Writ of
Mandamus requiring the Mayor to sign resolutions, (3) Direct the
City Attorney to make a recommendation to this body as to who is
the appropriate prosecuting individual, whether it be the District
Attorney or the Attorney General, to, upon receipt of that Writ of
Mandamus, to prosecute the Mayor for illegal conduct and violation
of the City Charter. I so move.
I'll second it.
Second.
Roll call on the motion.
The motion has been carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom
Very good. I would then take this position. The motion has carried.
The proper amount of compelling actions are under way and I can, in
good conscience, say that I am compelled to sign the resolutions.
Therefore, I will execute them under the compelling threat of a
Writ of Mandamus. I would like the minutes of this meeting to
reflect the fact that I am signing them under threat of Writ of
Mandamus compelling me to execute them.
Mr. Chairman, can we have those resolutions signed now?
Surely.
Thank you.
May we also have a verbatim minutes of this Special Meeting at the
taxpayers' expense?
Requested by Council Member Kaywood, at the taxpayers' expense.
I would like to thank my fellow Council Members, and I would like
to apologize to them for any inconveniences that this action has
caused them. I know that it caused you no small amount of incon-
venience to have to attend another Council meeting this week, but
you all know my feelings on this and my opposition to it cannot
falter, and I needed the compelling circumstances to force me to
do this and you have brought them about, and I appreciate your
doing that, and I apologize to you for any inconveniences I caused
you. (NOTE: Mayor signed resolutions during meeting)
Those are all? Those are~the two resolutions. A motion to adjourn
would be in order.
77-1188
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28, 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
KOTT:
THOM:
KOTT:
Mr. Mayor, before you adjourn I just have a comment I would like to
make, that while I understand your situation, I understand your
reluctance to sign, and Councilman Seymour, apparently Councilman
Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood's desire to uphold the law. I can't let
this go in all good conscience without making a few comments in that
regard.
Now, first of all, I would like to state that I have here before me a
letter from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. It states that the
Board of Directors of the Anaheim Chamber request the Mayor to
comply with provisions so on, so on, and so on. So, well, it's
my understanding that Councilman Seymour is the person who called
the Chamber of Commerce, namely the person of Larry Sierk, and they
all got together this morning and without really ever putting forth
any effort into the issue itself, the issue of the electrical contracts,
they put together this resolution and I, myself, know of about a
half a dozen of the Board of Directors who weren't there. So they do
again offer another stage of uncredibility, which is typical for the
Chamber.
I think too, I think too, the position that the three Council
persons have taken while I agree with them in upholding the law, I
do feel the idea of involving the Chamber in a political matter,
which really doesn't belong to them, I'd rather see them busy
bringing business into the area, which there seems to be a lack
of, I do feel that it is a disgrace the way Councilman Seymour
handled that situation. I think that if he could handle these
things as a person and as a man, by himself, without calling on
people who haven't made a study and really don't know what the thing
is all about. I would have a higher regard for him. I still
say that I am not willing to gamble with the taxpayers' money and
that's exactly what this is, it's a big, big gamble, and I don't think
that anyone sitting on this Board here, on this Council, in his right
mind would enter into a proposition like this on his own personal
basis. I think that this is a disgrace to the community the way.
this has gone. It's just a mockery really, because there are some
of us who do have honest differences of opinion and just because we
have honest differences of opinion, doesn't mean that you can't be
friends or you run to mama, or you run somewhere else to do your
dirty work for you. I don't appreciate that type thing.
Is there more? (staff entered with packets)
This thing is laden with unknowns such as taxes, interest and probable
court costs. And, $51 million is just the tip of the iceberg, as I
see it. Furthermore, Councilman Seymour alludes to the fact that
the people voted for it. Well, they did vote for it. They voted for
25% reduction in electricity for $150 million. You're not going to
see 25% reduction for $150 million. It's got to be at least a billion
dollars Or more, and there still may not be any reduction in electricity,
electrical rates. It won't be there. That's what this says and it
just so happens that he was one of the promoters of Proposition A,
along with the Chamber of Commerce, Rockwell International and other
corporate entities because they were trying to protect
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28, 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
77-1189
SEYMOUR:
KOTT:
SEYMOUR:
KOTT:
WOMAN IN
AUDIENCE:
SEYMOUR:
WOMAN IN
AUDIENCE:
SEYMOUR:
WOMAN IN
.~UDIENCE:
KOTT:
WOMAN IN
AUDIENCE:
KOTT:
WOMAN IN
AUDIENCE:
VOICE FROM
AUDIENCE:
SEYMDUR:
themselves. And it's my feeling that this is not in the best
interest of the residential homeowner of this community. And
so, while I do agree with upholding the law, I feel the Mayor
did the correct thing, I do not agree with the method that this
was achieved.
Mr. Chairman, may I have the opportunity to respond? First of all
Dr. Kott, let me assure you that I find no fault whatsoever with
an honest difference of opinion. I think that's healthy that,
for example, yourself and the Mayor, as well as two members of the
Utilities Commission, have diverse opinions.
Well, why didn't you invite us to the Chamber meeting? Why weren't
those two members of the Utilities Commission invited?
Dr. Kott, do I have the floor?
Well, I'm just telling you they weren't invited.
You weren't invited Dr. Kott.
Could I have...
And he didn't call the meeting; you weren't invited.
Mr. Chairman..
Why don't you guys do this kind of bickering in private?
that or let some of us talk.
Why?
Either
Because we have ideas; we're the voters; we're the people that made
the mistake of putting you up there.
Well then, you can express yourselves at the polls.
We will, believe us.
I believe this is an open Council Chamber, isn't it?
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I find no fault whatsoever and, in
fact, I respect your right and your responsibility, as well as Dr.
Kott's, to voice your opinion as well as your philosophy. I have
no problem with that. The problem that I have, and I believe the
problem that the Chamber saw, as well as any other respected citizens'
group, individually or collectively would obviously see, and if you'll
77-1190
KAYWOOD:
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 28~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
check the resolution that we received from the Chamber of Commerce,
it says nothing about generation, yes, no or indifferent. It says
uphold the City Charter, abide by it, and that's all it says.
As far as my going to the Chamber of Commerce or any other group
in this City, individually or collectively, not only am I unashamed
that I've done it, but I guarantee you Dr. Kott, in the future I
will go to whatever end of this City, to how many, whatever number
of citizens it takes, to tell them, so that they might be informed
and vote intelligently at the polls, just what type of circus takes
place in these Chambers on a weekly basis. And if I can find support
and understanding for that viewpoint in the Chamber of Commerce,
Board of Realtors, the YMCA, in Anaheim Beautiful, in whatever
women's activities there are, whatever group or individually that I
can communicate that to, I not only have a responsibility as an
elected official to do that, but I assure you I intend to follow
through and complete it. Now, I didn't hold anything back. I
haven't come backdoor on this matter. I didn't call for this
Special Meeting. The Mayor refused to sign some documents. In
my opinion, that's a violation of the law. And you say you want
to uphold the law, then you respond to why you've just voted "no"
on the motion that was placed before the body because that's ~11
that motion dealt with, was the upholding of the City Charter.
Relative to the ballot issue, I guess on either side of the question
the political rhetoric can fly both before, during, and after such
an election, but the facts are that once an election takes place,
then the responsible people must carry forward in relationship to
how the ballot question was answered. If, in fact, you don't accept
that as a basic principle and foundation of a democratic government,
then you can always interject, no matter what the circumstances are,
the idiocy of the people didn't understand; the people were fooled.
Well, the people aren't fools. They're not idiots. And I think
you'll probably find that out if you should dare choose to run for your
office again. (applause)
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment here. On the minutes
of March 1, 1977, there is a verbatim transcript of the evening
portion that was with regard to contructing a civic center. And
there is some, prior to the portion I'm going to read, Mr.
Hasselbrink was speaking regarding the location of the City Hall
and referred to Dr. Kott's comments at the prior Council meeti~g
that the people overwhelmingly selected the site known as the
Lincoln Avenue site. Mayor Thom interjected "Kott may have said
that. I provided him with that information. I subsequently learned
I was in error -- it was not 2-1, but he was quoting me." On the
next page, Mayor Thom said, "I feel very obligated by any result
of any election carried on at any Regular Election or any Special
Election: when the electorate have spoken, in my personal opinion,
their preference is binding until they choose to change it."
Further on in the meeting, there was a comment by Joe White who
Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council - Council Chamber
October 2.8~ 1977 - 1:30 P.M.
77-1191
HOPKINS:
THOM:
KAYWOOD:
HOPKINS:
SEYMOUR:
KAYWOOD:
THOM:
said on the "vote of the site questioned by the majority, if that
was 56 or whatever. If I recall, we have a president that was
elected, possibly less than 51% and he still seems to be the President
of these United States. If they want to get a referendum to change
the location, I think they should, but until then I think there
is one location. The people voted for it regardless of how many
voted."
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, if I may just invite the
Council's attention to the fact that this is a Special Meeting and
and that the stated purpose of it was the disposition of Resolutions
77R-696 and 77R-697 (THOM: You're correct.), and it would be
improper to deviate from the announced...
It is improper. However, Council Member Kaywood consistently falls
off into the hereafter. I just thought I'd let someone else, other
than me, bring her back around on track. I must commend you for that.
I was merely responding to the fact that there was an election by
the people on Proposition A, and that if the Mayor feels that the
vote of the people is significant one time, it should follow through
on all the issues.
Councilwoman Kaywood, I wasn't directing it toward you. I was just
cautioning the Council that this was a Special Meeting and to carry
on beyond that is a Brown Act...
I move to adjourn.
Second. (in unison with the Mayor)
I second your motion. We are adjourned. Thank you ladies and
gentlemen.
Adjourned: 2:00 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
mT ' ' ~