|
|
City of Burbank
Public Information Office
275 E. Olive Avenue, P.O. Box 6459, Burbank, CA 91510-6459
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
February 7, 2002
Contact: Robert R. "Bud" Ovrom, 818-238-5800
Dennis A. Barlow, 818-238-5700
City Seeks Final Ruling on Measure A
The City of Burbank today formally requested that the Los Angeles Superior Court issue an order finding major portions of Measure A to be illegal. The City’s filing does not affect the rights of any potential intervenor.
The City filed suit against the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority in October asking the Superior Court to determine which parts, if any, of Measure A can be enforced. The City’s complaint listed a series of legal defects in Measure A that made it illegal or impossible for the City to comply with the initiative without at the same time violating California law or the California Constitution.
The Airport Authority unsuccessfully sought to have the Court dismiss the case. When the Court declined to do so, the Authority told the court that it would not file any papers in the case and would let the court enter a judgment by default. Under California court rules, the Authority had until January 24 to file any papers setting forth its view on the law.
In the event that any party intervenes in the litigation before the Court rules on the City’s motion, the intervenor would still be able to argue the merits of the legality of Measure A since the City’s motion only applies to the Airport Authority. The City Council earlier this week offered to pay for counsel for Ted McConkey if he chooses to intervene in this lawsuit.
City Attorney Dennis Barlow explained, "The Authority has given up its legal right to contest any of the statements made in our complaint or otherwise present its views on Measure A. The Court can now proceed to make a final decision based upon the complaint, the documents submitted today, and any information we are asked to provide at any future hearing."
The documents submitted today describe in detail seven specific defects in Measure A. Among the key defects are –
q It is impossible for the City to determine the intended meaning of certain terms in Measure A, making it impossible for the City to administer the law;
q Measure A grants certain powers to the voters that must under California law be exercised only by the City Council; and
q The two-thirds voting requirements in Measure A conflict with the California Election Code, which allows initiatives to be approved by a simple majority.
The papers filed today ask the court to decide, in light of the large number of defects in the initiative, whether there are any portions that can still be enforced.
The Court has scheduled a hearing for April 17, which may be moved up or cancelled altogether at the Court’s discretion. There is no deadline by which the Court must issue a final decision.
City Manager Bud Ovrom commented that, "We are hopeful that the Judge will make a quick decision. Based on his comments at the hearing, he clearly understands that the City is in gridlock until he issues a final ruling. Until that time, we will continue with the policy adopted by the Council in December, which is to process all applications but hold off issuing any final decisions."
# # #