HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1996-09-09
8-26-96 I 9-9-96
nearly every day, and stated she did not want to be swept up ,
with the daytime curfew ordinance, suggested targeting the
truants but do not involve the other children nor take away her
right to move about in public with her children. Mayor Forsythe
explained that current law provides for arrest, the ordinance
being proposed is for citations only. with reference to the
Kids Time Club, Ms. Theresa Thomas, Crystal Cove, mentioned that I
the Marina Community Center is being used by the Seal Beach
Playgroup and according to the Recreation brochure as a Marina
Camp at winter break, to which she inquired why it is allowed to
be used as such under State law and not the KTC. The Mayor
explained it is the number of hours that triggers the
requirement for a State license. Ms. Thomas expressed regret
with the KTC closure, noted the cost of after school care at
McGaugh is more than double, a grant does not even cover half,
and said her understanding is that the KTC program manager took
a six month leave from the Long Beach School District thinking
the program was continuing. Mayor Forsythe mentioned that the
city is researching other funding and recommended that parents
work through the School District for reduced costs similar to
'the lunch program, also responded that the information regarding
the KTC manager was incorrect, the position in fact was allowed
only as part time, and again, that the program did not have the
required State license. The Manager reported that the McGaugh
School schedule has changes where it will be in session an hour
longer, until 2:30 p.m., thus one less of day care which should
reduced that cost to approximately $180 per month. There being
no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications
closed.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the consensus of the Council to adjourn until September I
9, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. to meet in Ciosed Session if deemed
necessary. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the
Council, to adjourn the meeti~t 10:10 p.m.
\
of the
Approved: ~~~~~oA~~
Mayor
Attest:
Seal Beach, California I
September 9, 1996
The regular adjourned session scheduled for 6:30 p.m. this date
was cancelled as there were no Closed Session items to be
,~idered.
\ I
9-9-96
Seal Beach, California
September 9, 1996
I
The City. Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session at 7:01 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to
order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Forsythe
Councilmember Brown, Campbell, Fulton, Hastings
Absent: None
Also present: Mr. Till, city Manager
Mr. Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Chief Stearns, Police Department
Lt. Van Holt, Police Department
Officer Paap, Police Department
Officer Mullins, Police Department
Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Campbell requested that Item "I" be removed from
the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Councilman
Brown asked that the purpose of the proclamations be recognized
for information of the public. Hastings moved, second by Brown,
to approve the order of the agenda as revised.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Forsythe suggested that those persons wishing to speak to
the daytime curfew item do so at the time it appears on the
agenda, and confirmed that the maximum time per speaker, five
minutes, would be allowed. Dr. David Rosenman, 8th Street,
spoke in support of establishing the Tree Advisory Board, a
group of people representative of a cross section of the
community, including Mayor Forsythe, Councilmember Hastings, a
representative of the Department of Forestry, West Coast
Arborists, and city staff representatives. There being no
further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications
closed.
COUNCIL ITEMS
APPOINTMENT - SEAL BEACH CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION
Councilmember Campbell proposed the appointment of Mr. Pete
Arnold as the District Four appointee to the Seal Beach Cable
Communications Foundation for the unexpired term ending July,
1998. Brown moved, second by Hastings, to confirm the
appointment as proposed.
I
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
VOTING DELEGATE - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE
By unanimous consent, Mayor Forsythe was designated as the
voting delegate to the 1996 League of California cities Annual
Conference,.and Councilmember Campbell as the alternate voting
delegate.
9-9-'6
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "B" thru "I"
with regard to Item "I", the pipeline franchise ordinance, and a
conflict of language between the staff report and ordinance, the
city Attorney clarified that the insurer doing business in the
State of California is to have a current rating of A:VII or
better. Mayor Forsythe described the subject of the
proclamations on the Consent Calendar. Brown moved, second by I
Hastings, to approve the recommended action for items on the
Consent Calendar as presented.
B.
Approved the waiver of reading in full of
all ordinances and resolutions and that
consent to the waiver of reading shall be
deemed to be given by all councilmembers
unless specific request is made at that
time for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution.
,
C. Approved regular demands numbered 13611
through 13714 in the amount of $67,744.60,
payroll demands numbered 18399 through
18621 in the amount of $311,026.79, and
authorized warrants to be drawn on the
Treasury for same.
D. Proclaimed October 7th through October
11th, 1996 as "California Rideshare
Week."
E.
Approved the minutes of the regular
meeting of August 26th, 1996.
Proclaimed September 16th through the
22nd, 1996 as "Pollution Prevention Week."
I
F.
G. Proclaimed September 23rd through
September 27th, 1996 as "Lawsuit Abuse
Awareness Week."
H. Received and filed the staff report relating
to the citizens Option for Public Safety
(COPS) State funds pursuant to AB 3229,
authorized establishing a separate
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
(SLESF), and authorized the City Manager and
the Chief of Police serve on the Supplemental
Law Enforcement Oversight Committee (SLEOC).
I. Approved the introduction and first reading of
Ordinance Number 1410 entitled "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 16-B OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO PIPELINE FRANCHISES."
By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance
Number 1410 was waived.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
I
RESOLUTION NUMBER 4500 - ESTABLISHING TREE ADVISORY BOARD
Resolution Number 4500 was presented to Council entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
ESTABLISHING A CITY TREE ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENSURING OUR CITY'S URBAN FOREST." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Resolution Number 4500 was waived. The city Manager
noted this is a first step in making the City eligible to
receive grant monies for urban forestation, the Advisory Board
I
I
I
9-9-96
to provide assistance to the Council to develop a street tree
preservation and improvement plan, and acknowledged the Board
membership of eight citizens, the Mayor, Councilmember Hastings,
City staff, a representative of the Department of Forestry and
West Coast Arborists. Hastings moved, second by Brown, to adopt
Resolution Number 4500 as presented.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
REOUEST - KITE FESTIVAL
The city Manager advised that this is a request from the Seal
Beach Business Association, as proposed by Up Up & Away Kites,
to host a Kite Festival on Sunday, September 29th from 12:30
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the beach between 6th and 8th Streets. He
stated the Business Association will pay the special event fees,
no city services are anticipated, and the festival area will be
designated by cones and signs. Fulton moved, second by
Campbell, to approve the request to hold a Kite Festival on
September 29th.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton, Hastings
None Motion carried
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1409 - ESTABLISHING A DAYTIME CURFEW
Ordinance Number 1409 was presented to Council entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS
15-5.2 THROUGH 15-5.11, INCLUSIVE, TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ESTABLISH A DAYTIME CURFEW FOR MINORS
SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY FULL-TIME EDUCATION, AND RENUMBERING OTHER
SECTIONS OF THE SAME CHAPTER." By unanimous consent, full
reading of Ordinance Number 1409 was waived. Chief Stearns
reported having obtained some statistical data from the City of
Long Beach since the last meeting relating to their adoption of
the daytime curfew in March, 1996, however noted that due to
computer problems it was not possible to obtain actual numbers
to go along with the percentages previously reported for the
city of Monrovia. He said he had been informed that prior to
enactment of the ordinance in Long Beach when six officers were
deployed to areas of the City it was not uncommon to encounter a
hundred or more truants where twenty is now considered to be a
high number, more specifically, on May 8th thirty-five were
detected, on May 16th there were three, and on May 24th there
were twelve by means of four one hour sweeps across the city,
and in contrast three sweeps during the weeks just prior to the
ordinance taking effect resulted in forty-four, sixty-six and
one hundred twenty-one truants. with regard to the daytime drop
in juvenile crime by thirty-eight percent in the city of
Monrovia, he mentioned that their Police chief advised that
those crimes were basically auto burglaries, auto theft,
larceny, and residential burglary, and Monrovia being primarily
a bedroom community much like Seal Beach those are the types of
juvenile crimes that would be expected to drop here as well.
The Chief introduced Officer Paap to explain an element of the
SANE program that relates to what is attempting to be done.
Officer Paap said one of the particulars of the program he
teaches fourth and fifth graders is refusal skills, pointing out
that there are consequences for their actions when they make bad
choices, an example of a bad choice would be cutting school and
getting into trouble. Officer Paap confirmed that when he
attended high school there were two truant officers on campus
and he knew w~at the consequences would be if he were to skip
school. Councilmember Hastings expressed her preference for
truant officers rather than the curfew. Having been introduced
by the Chief, Officer Mullins expressed his pleasure to
participate on the School Attendance Review'Board for the Los
Alamitos School District. He said through that process he met
9-9-96
three Seal Beach youths who were truant from school frequently
and not following school programs. He described the youths as a
sixteen year old girl who, shortly after appearing before the
SARB, was arrested for disturbing the peace, had been arrested
twice for vandalism, also for joyriding, and she said she was
not going to school because she didn't have to, the second youth
was a sixteen year old male who committed crimes during school I
hours in the past school year which consisted of one arrest for
commercial burglary, one for possession of marijuana, and twice
for minor possession of alcohol, the third youth was a fourteen
year old male who, since being before the Board, has been
arrested for commercial burglary, vandalism, residential
burglary, and last month was sentenced to the California Youth
Authority. Officer Mullins expressed his opinion that if there
had been something available that could have been used to combat
these truant ways possible some of these youths could have been
saved. The Chief noted that after the last meeting he and Mr.
Brown of the District Attorney's office had an opportunity to
speak with and listen to the concerns of a number of persons who
had attended the meeting, it was felt that they were all good
parents who were interested in the welfare of their children and
they made a number of good points to which revisions to the
ordinance have been prepared for consideration. The Chief
described the revisions as: 1) additional language to Section
lS-S.6(g), Exceptions to Curfew, to read "The minor is not a
resident of the school district and possesses a valid passport,
visitor's visa, or other form of identification to include a
note or other confirmation of parental permission, to establish
the minor is temporarily visiting within the City;" Section 15-
S.9(b)(2) and (3), Penalties for Minors, changing "and" to
"and/or" which in legal terms gives the hearing officers the
opportunity to tailor the penalty to the violation, whether it I
is a first offence or a historical offender, but not necessarily
all of the penalties; section lS-S.ll(b), Penalties for Parents
or Guardians, "and" changed to "and/or" for (1), (2), and (3),
because if there are no further unexcused absences from school
there is no need to ask anything further of the parents, the
problem has been resolved, again giving the hearing officer the
discretion to determine what penalties are appropriate on a case
by case basis. The Chief stated that the concern is that
parents know the whereabouts of their children, clarified that
the officers presently have the right to stop any juvenile that
is out of school during school hours whether they are with the
parent or not, and to the question posed to the parents in the
audience if anyone felt that their child had been harassed or
treated unfairly by the officers, no one came forward. He
stated that practices of the Department will not change under
the proposed ordinance, rather, responses will continue to be to
reported instances of juveniles drinking under the pier,
loitering in the residential neighborhoods, etc.
Mayor Forsythe inquired of Mr. Brown, District Attorneys Office,
as to what is attempting to be achieved by this ordinance. Mr.
Brown responded that the genesis of this proposal is the
coalition of superintendents of schools, pOlice chiefs, and
District Attorney of Orange County, and explained that what the I
ordinance is trying to achieve is similar to what Officer Paap
indicated, that there are consequences for being truant, which
there are not now because of the inability to sight, sound,
separate truants from criminal juveniles, this ordinance
actually cuts back the authority of the police, does not allow
the ability to arrest, only to cite, also allows a commissioner
to tailor a program for the minor, and the parent if necessary,
informing the student that if they are truant, leave school
without a valid reason, there are certain consequences. In the
case of a citation being issued and going through the court
system, Councilmember Hastings asked if that violation would
I
I
I
9-9-96
remain on the record of the youth. Mr. Brown responded that it
will not stay on their record, explaining that when the juvenile
completes whatever program may be imposed the record is expunged
when the juvenile turns eighteen or earlier. The Chief
recognized the presence of Ms. Kim Menninger of the Orange
County District Attorneys Office as having considerable
knowledge of the Education laws, etc. Mr. Brown added that Ms.
Menninger has extensive practical experience in the area of
truancy as well. Mr. Kelly Godfrey, Los Alamitos High School
Assistant Principal in charge of attendance, described a truant
as a student who misses a class and the parent or guardian says
that the student should have been in class, in that case the
student is marked as truant, however if the parent gives any
other reason for the student being absent it is not marked as a
truancy. He explained that students generally take six one-hour
classes at the School, attendance is taken by each teacher, each
hour, a computer slip of attendance is sent to the attendance
office, and when a student is marked absent for the first three
periods, two clerks commence calling the home or work to
ascertain why the student is absent, then each night a
computerized list is prepared of a~l of the students that were
absent, a recorded message is sent to the home requesting that
the parent call the next day as to why the student was absent,
and if the parent does not call within three days the student is
marked truant, at that point a teacher or administrator can
issue a Saturday study to the student for a period of two or
four hours. Mr. Godfrey said the average number of Saturday
students is about ninety, a clerk mails a notice home that the
student has been truant and has a Saturday study, a call is also
made to the parent advising of the study, about two-thirds of
the students scheduled for Saturday study attend, on Monday
those students that did not attend the Saturday study are placed
in on-campus suspension from classes that day, some students do
not like the on-campus suspension and rarely get in trouble
again yet some like it because they get out of classes, and
noted that the Education Code no longer allows suspension of a
student from school. He reported that about a fourth of a
percent of the students are truant all day, which is about five
to eight students, most of the truancy problems are the result
of a student missing one to three hours a day, generally a
loitering situation, yet there are students that leave the
campus at the end of lunch and miss classes for the remainder of
the day. He noted that habitual truants experience several
personal contacts by school personnel, notice to the student and
parents of Saturday studies are provided by telephone and mailed
notice, if those efforts do not resolve the problem it is then
referred to the SARB. He mentioned there are a number of forms
and slips for the students when they are legally allowed to be
Off-campus. Mr. Godfrey said it has been realized that there
are a number of students that come to Los Alamitos from other
schools, stand around the outskirts of the campus causing
problems and attempt to lure their friends Off-campus. He
expressed belief that the proposed ordinance will help curtail
students coming from other schools and give local authorities
more teeth in dealing with the students that are habitually
truant, and described a number of instances where the police
will pick up a truant, generally for loitering, return the
student to school, however within the hour the student will
leave campus again, and the response is generally that they do
not have to be in school. Mr. Godfrey spoke for approval of the
ordinance. Ms. Karen Lovelace, Principal of McAuliff Middle
School, stated that truancy results when a parent states that
they expect the child to be in school. She stated that policies
at McAuliff are quite similar to Los Alamitos High School,
attendance is taken for each of the seven forty-five minute
classes, the attendance patterns are checked every day, there is
a campus supervisor, there are conferences with parents when
9-9-96
even excused, non-excused, and tardies become patterns, when a
student is truant they are assigned one to one makeup time
either on Saturday or after school with the counselor, a second
truancy requires double time, a third truancy requires makeup
and involvement of the Student Attendance Review Board through
the Seal Beach and Los Alamitos Police Departments. Ms.
Lovelace said she felt a good job has been done with the chronic I
truants, last year there were nineteen students truant at once,
four were truant again, and one was referred to the SARB after
the fifth truancy, and confirmed that four of those nineteen
students were inter-district transfers. Last year there were
eight students that had period truancies, five of those were
located on-campus in the restrooms or in the school offices
because they had a problem. Ms. Lovelace said she personally
felt that anything that can be done to help build the atmosphere
that children should be in school is important, anything that
promotes a liaison with the Police Department is good for the
welfare of the children, and it is important for students to
know that there are consequences for truancy. Mr. Dave Dorrans
said he is the Chairman of the Attendance Review Board for the
Los Alamitos School District, stated the SARB deals with
habitual truants, students are referred to the Board once they
have four identified truancies whether they be full day or
partial day truancies. Once a student has been identified as a
truant the parents are notified by letter that there is a
problem and they need to contact the school, a second letter is
sent after another truancy, then the problem is referred to the
SARB, that Board meets at both the Seal Beach and Los Alamitos
Police Departments for the reason that truancy is a violation of
the law whereas the Compulsory Education Act in California
states that every person between the ages of six and eighteen
must be in school, State Education Code section 48200 identifies I
that Act, also states that it is the responsibility of the
parents to make certain the student is in school. Mr. Dorrans
noted that the SARB consists of representatives of the school,
the community, law enforcement, and sometimes a representative
of the Probation Department,' by the time the Board meets with
the parents it is generally evident that the student has a
number of problems, often family problems, there may be a lack
of parental control, and these are children that have been given
a number of opportunities and intervention before they ever get
to the SARB level. He said his personal frustration during the
ten years on the Board is the lack of a means for follow-up
enforcement procedures, stated he has filed a number of 601
petitions with the Orange County Department of Education through
the Probation Department, however Orange County does not have
truancy mediation procedures because of the lack of resources.
Mr. Dorrans said he felt that this ordinance will go far to help
provide motivation for the families to know where their children
are, to keep them in school, a safe place for children, where
the truant on the street may commit crimes and equally important
is that they are often prey for the older juvenile and may have
crimes committed against them. In response to questions posed
by Councilmember Hastings, Mr. Dorrans stated that the SARB
meets twice monthly on Wednesday mornings throughout the school
year, can usually consider a maximum of three cases per meeting I
given the time constraints, however this SARB is somewhat
different than in larger school districts in that it lacks
sufficient resources, counseling, etc., and about the only tool
available to the SARB is that students can be transferred out to
a county, court, or continuation school if they refuse to attend
classes, yet before that occurs there is an effort to work with
the family to resolve the problems. He noted that somewhere
between twenty to thirty-six cases are considered in a year,
probably eighty to ninety during his membership on the Board,
and as to the success rate to keep these children in school he
stated it would be lucky if six are saved in a school term, and
I
I
I
9-9-96
generally two or three of the children just disappear through
relocating from the district or whatever. He explained that an
unverified absence is when it is unknown why the student is not
in school, an unexcused absence is an unacceptable excuse under
the state ADA yet is not penalized with the exception of makeup
work, and confirmed that in the case of an unverified absence
there is an automatic dialing machine that calls the students
home in the evening, if the student answers, the call is
generally lost, however with budget cuts it is cost prohibitive
to hire individuals to make the calls, also, the habitual truant
will find a way around any school or family rules. Mr. Dorrans
confirmed that about two hundred fifty calls are made per night,
about ten percent of the school population.
Mayor Forsythe invited members of the audience to speak to this
item, those in favor then those in opposition to the proposed
ordinance. Mr. Matthew Duggan, Ocean Avenue, member of the Los
Alamitos School Board, said he did not want to reiterate prior
comments nor speak to the financial impact on the School
District as all are aware of the fact that the more children
attend school the more monies come to the District to fund
school programs, however there are three points he felt to be
important. Mr. Duggan stated his belief that government in
general has a responsibility to stand up not only for the rights
of adults but the rights of parents as well, it is the
governments role to support not only adults who vote but
children as well and children are somewhat of a minority that is
often overlooked, and in this case supporting this ordinance
supports children in general, secondly if one looks at the
census data for this country and what happens to kids that do
not finish high school, they are over-represented in the prison
population and the median income is about $12,500 per year, yet
for kids that finish high school the median income jumps to
$18,500 and over a normal worklife that equates to about a
quarter of a million dollars, that not only helps the individual
child who becomes a young adult and raises their own family, it
helps all taxpayers as it makes for successful adults in the
community. Mr. Duggan stated that he had been the director of
the Chemical Dependency Center at the Memorial Medical Center
and as such is familiar with working with children who have
dealt with difficult issues, and from that he has noted that
most children want to stay on the path of health, they want to
do what is right, yet there are times when they make poor
judgments. He noted that when children were released from that
Program for a weekend he would first tell them that he would be
testing them the following Monday, and after their objections
they would return with the comment that they had stayed away
from drugs because they knew they would get caught, from his
viewpoint that threat was just another weapon for them to stay
clean. Mr. Duggan said in this case there is an opportunity to
keep the children in school, to help the families, the city as
well, Monrovia is an example of a positive, the children stay in
school because they know they are going to get caught. Having
heard previous comments with regard to parents rights, he
concluded that when it comes down to parent rights versus what
is good for kids, he said he will always be on the side of the
kids. Mr. Joe Partise, Fern circle, said when he first heard
about this ordinance he did not see himself as being in support
however has since received further information and insight. He
stated that the people that are concerned about taking care of
their families, making certain that their children are in
school, are not the people who are being addressed by this
ordinance. He made a point of specifically commending those who
make the commitment of home schooling. Mr. partise expressed
concern however with a certain group of parents in this
community that are either unable or unwilling to make certain
that their children go to school and receive an education, those
J
9-9-96
children become discouraged with themselves and a burden to
society, and the community has let them down. He stated that
the Education Code is clearly not strong enough, there is a need
for a mechanism within this community that tells the student and
the parent that if they do not go to school there will be a
penalty, which in turn will reduce crime in the community and at
the same time help this category of students. Ms. Susan Thom, I
Balboa Drive, stated she is a former police officer with the
city of Signal Hill, an attorney, and sits as a Judge ProTem in
the Long Beach Municipal Court. Ms. Thom said she could see
nothing wrong with requiring students to take advantage of the
free education that the taxpayers provide for them, and noted
the comment that there is a financial benefit to society when
they obtain that education. She mentioned the policy developed
in Long Beach requiring uniforms, the response to that similar
to this issue, students claiming that their civil liberties were
being violated, that they no longer had the freedom of
expression, the parents too claiming that the children should be
allowed to do what they want to do, that they should be free
spirits and they should not be stifled, in turn the Civil
Liberties Union sued the School District, yet the court found
that there was an overwhelming compelling interest that the
uniforms would be of such benefit that the policy should go
forward. Long Beach now has uniforms through 8th grade, next
year through 12th grade, and it has been discovered that by
encouraging the students to take pride and take responsibility
the crime rate has gone down both in school and out of school,
the attendance has gone up, and in this case Seal Beach is
requiring children to take responsibility and know there is a
penalty if they do not attend school. She noted that
traditionally children do not want to do homework, their chores, I
abide by the rules, but that is part of growing up, yet deep
down they all want limits which gives them safety, security, and
the ability to say no to their peers as they know there is a
penalty if they do wrong, which is called taking personal
responsibility. She said as elected officials there is nothing
wrong with making sure that the children are in school, that
they are safe and protected and they are getting what they are
entitled to, the education that they need to be productive
members of society, the ordinance provides that tool. Ms. Thom
offered that this ordinance will not merely apply to the
children of this community but those that come from other areas
as well, if this ordinance is not adopted the citizens will be
the first to complain if it is their property that is
burglarized or vandalized, this ordinance will provide the
police and the schools the means to be competitive in the 90's
to face the tough realities of these times and sometimes it
takes tough steps to accomplish that. Ms. Barbara Wright,
Crestview Avenue, thirty-nine year special education teacher,
stated that the kids need positive reinforcement, they need
consistency, and need to know their limits to reach their
potential, this ordinance provides that. Ms. Carla Watson,
Catalina Avenue, noted the societal changes since she was in
school and when there was truancy officers, yet there are no
longer funds for that purpose. She stated she has been a
teacher in Long Beach for over twenty years, was opposed to the I
uniform proposal initially however went along with that program
primarily because of the gang problem, as she is one who feels
that ones rights must be cautiously guarded. Ms. Watson said
however that she supports this proposed law to give the police
the necessary tools to address the truancies, to deal with the
gangs, if the ordinance is not adopted a message will be sent
that Seal Beach is a wide open city, and if this law poses
problems the police can be retrained to administer it, and
although she does not like to see children brought into the
criminal justice system unnecessarily, they do need to be
responsible for their actions. Ms. Laura Kettington, 7th
9-9-96
I
street, masters candidate in regional planning, read an article
from the League of California Cities Mayors and Councilmembers
Executive Forum held in July. She preempted the article by
stating that the parents in the audience and others are
concerned citizens in this highly involved community and the
issue is not with the ninety percent of parents and dedicated
students that participate in the many programs that the
community has to offer, rather, it is the children that are on
the edge, that mayor may ~ot be members of this community, the
two hundred fifty students a day that are chronically
delinquent, those ninety students at saturday sessions that are
repeat offenders, and pointed out that the police are not going
to be looking for the responsible parents or their children,
they are going to be protecting the community at large. She
read excerpts from the article relating to the efforts of the
City of Rosemead to address the issue of youth crime and
delinquency through a program developed and known as the Youth
Effectiveness System, emphasizing the concern for the community,
the child and the parents through the daytime curfew. Ms.
Kettington concluded that if we are going to error, let's error
on the side of caution. Ms. Wendy Rothman, Seal Beach,
expressed her support for the proposed ordinance, and criticized
fliers that were distributed to residences and businesses alike,
full of scare tactics, threatening boycotts of the businesses,
and insulting to the city's police department.
I
Mr. Rex Wegter, 4th Street, resident, teacher, father of two,
and a pastor, expressed concern with the proposed ordinance as
written, stated everyone wants safe streets, their children to
have a good education, them to be safe, the proper balance of
love and discipline, also stated support for the police and the
Los Alamitos School system. He questioned the cost of this
ordinance to personal freedom, the ordinance would allow a child
to be cited for attending a church function without proper
authorization, asked for some assurance that a child will not be
stopped for being out of school for a family activity, conveyed
concern with imposing fines or mandatory counseling, and stated
his responsibility as a parent should be adequate for his child
to be out of school. He said he understands that a number of
cities are rejecting such ordinances, the question to that is
why. He claimed this is a loss of parental rights, asked that
the ordinance be rejected unless there are further assurances
for the parents. Ms. Robin Rodell, FUllerton, noted the
numerous hours she spent on this issue during the summer. She
made reference to Education Code Section 48205 with regard to a
lawful excuse to be out of school also to a requirement for
public school parents to obtain permission in writing from the
school principal. She said this can not be looked at just in
terms of Seal Beach, one must look at the big picture, and
claimed that she was informed that within four years every city
in the country would have a daytime curfew. She claimed that a
home schooled student in Norwalk was cited for skateboarding
outside his home during school hours, Visalia rejected the
ordinance after public pressure, in that case the probation
department had prepared signs for all businesses requiring that
the school district be notified of any student frequenting a
business during school hours, signs in the Long Beach and
Norwalk Thrifty stores advise that students can be taken into
custody for being on site, the first offense for a parent in San
Diego charged with insufficient control under the daytime curfew
law carries a fine of $250 and jail sentencing of up to six
months for a second offense, in New Jersey a business operator
who allows a student in their establishment can receive a ninety
day jail sentence and a fine of up to $1,000, and requires a
permission slip for a child to be within one hundred yards of a
neighbors home, the philosophy in Monrovia was that no child
should be out during school hours even if they were off track
I
9-9-96
students, and made reference to the lack of knowledge of a Los
Angeles police officer of the provisions of the Education Code
who prepared a well known study relating to this issue. Ms.
Sherie Wallace, FUllerton, said it was her impression that the
intent is to protect the children in the gray area or on the
edge, that at the cost of privilege to all students who are
supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. She stated her I
five children would be in violation of this curfew every day by
simply going to the school they are currently enrolled in, three
are in regular classrooms, two are in home school classes. She
said she has listened to the terms used to protect the on the
edge student, to the students that are being targeted, those
terms used by attorneys, police officers, the District Attorneys
office, and the intent and reasoning for this ordinance seems to
stem from the lack of funding for probation, to which she
claimed there are already enough laws and probationary means to
cause a problem to go to the court system if that is what is
necessary, however is not being used simply because there is no
funding for the probation process, instead the move is towards a
citation process. Ms. Wallace claimed that the term target is
used in reference to the hardened truant criminals and if they
commit a crime she stated they should be arrested for the crime,
also, under the ordinance a student can be taken back to the
classroom to which she asked if teachers are more qualified to
deal with hardened criminals in their classrooms than are the
police department, also asked if three or four more truancies
helps to prosecute a murder or grand theft auto crime. As to
the Monrovia statistics she asked if anyone has reported or
discussed the surrounding statistics of surrounding areas. She
questioned if there is any guarantee that discrimination will
not occur, without identification the discretion lies with the I
police officer, and in the case of non-English speaking, low
income families, asked how the fines are going to help
communications and good community relations. Ms. Wallace
claimed that this law would violate their family philosophy and
the teachings of their children to support and respect the roll
of the police officer, the officer the one to be sought in times
of need, and if adopted their children will need to be retrained
with a defensive attitude that causes them to be constantly on
guard and carry a pass or identification card. She asked that
the ordinance not be passed. Members of the audience were
requested to speak to the ordinance proposed for Seal Beach
rather than those adopted in other communities throughout the
country. Mr. Mark Blank, Fullerton, claimed that the curfew
ordinances affect all of Orange County, his prime concern is
that this will allow a pOlice officer to stop any minor on the
street and cite them unless they have some type of excuse. He
stated that the teachers know the names and addresses of truant
students, possibly the Education Code, or this ordinance, should
be changed as this is a matter of civil liberties. Mr. Blank
made reference to comments in the media that there is a common
thread between gang members, truancy and dysfunctional families,
which he claimed was a personal observation for which there is
no empirical evidence. He asked the percentage of truants that
actually commit crimes, is there evidence that the truants are
causing crimes, noted frequent reference to this study or that I
study yet when asked for no one can produce the study or it does
not say what it purports to say. He claimed that passage of
this ordinance does not guarantee solving the problem, and asked
that evidence be obtained and reviewed before taking action.
Council requested that residents of Seal Beach be allowed to
present their comments prior to those from other cities and
preferably residents that had not spoken previously. Mr. Fred
Cianciolo, Electric Avenue, expressed support of the police
department, specifically the benefit of the new senior volunteer
and reserve programs, and the idea of truancy officers or
volunteers at the schools to curb problems. He expressed
I
I
I
9-9-96
concern that his son may be stopped when he is out of school on
occasions of visits from his mother and possibly not having a
permission slip, concern with victimizing the good kids and home
schooled students as well. He spoke for an alternative of
truant officers or volunteers at the schools. Mr. Dennis Geis,
4th street, spoke against the proposed ordinance and the fines
it proposes, stating there are people who will not be able to
afford such fine. He said he was a gray area student, yet he
was helped by Mr. Dorrans and graduated, his problems were
family related, and claimed the Council was not listening to the
speakers. Ms. Pam Potter, Seal Way, made reference to a
newspaper article showing the days when there will be no school,
short schedules, etc. for the Los Alamitos District, to which
she noted that days off vary by district and by school, and
questioned how the ordinance could be enforced. Ms. Potter
noted that it is already illegal to drink under the pier, no
matter ones age, to loiter on or around school grounds, and
anyone observed in the area of a garage is already suspicious.
She claimed this could be an issue of unequal enforcement unless
all children are checked, stated that she allowed her son, an
honor student, a day out of school when desired. She cited
schools, police and parents as caring for those students that
are the problem, they have been targeted and things are being
done to help them, this ordinance will do little more than scare
the parents and students alike. Ms. Potter stated this is an
issue of civil rights and can not be legislated. Mr. Dave
Potter, Seal Way, said he basically concurred with the comments
of Councilmember Hastings at the last meeting, his objection to
the ordinance is a loss of freedom and a questionable gain. He
made reference to the comment of the District Attorney
representative that although this law may impinge on some it
will help others, to which he claimed it is wrong to take away
freedoms of some, he also noted that although the Chief assures
that there will be no policy change, this appears to make it
easier for the police to question someone because the citation
process is relatively simple, and further, the Chief will not be
with the City forever and there is nothing in the ordinance that
says the procedures and practices will not change in the future.
Mr. Potter claimed that the School District does not really
recognize the students that have done well in other areas, to
attend a sports competition as an example is not an excusable
absence, therefore the law would be broken to make such absence
excused and to do what is felt the student deserves. with
reference to visiting children who often stay with their family,
he said he would doubt that they would bring paperwork that
would explain they are home school students from out of State.
Mr. Potter deemed that the term 'just another tool' sounds like
selective enforcement, if current law is not being enforced then
possibly Orange county should develop facilities so that it can
be. He noted concerns expressed by Mayor Forsythe as to the
lack of school programs for students that this ordinance
supposedly targets, stated he had no knowledge of that however
felt that should be a separate issue to be brought before the
School Board independent of this ordinance. Having heard
information relating to other cities, Mr. Potter stated their
demographics and problems are different from those of Seal
Beach, and noted that law enforcement often asks those who are
not the problem to give up freedoms, and in his opinion we
should not do that. Dave and Maryann Buffett, Seal Beach,
stated this ordinance is seen as a threat to the privilege of
home schooling, which they have done for fourteen years. He
claimed there are potentially as many problems with the proposed
law as there are people in the audience, stated it appears that
the Council has made up its mind, and although everyone may have
an opinion he did not believe that the Council was elected to
enforce its opinion on the public. He said other than the few
who spoke in support of the ordinance everyone else present is
9-9-96
against it, today fifteen business people indicated that they do
not want the ordinance, two favored it, yet most people did not
know what the ordinance was about. Mr. Buffett asked that the
ordinance not be approved until people know what it is, stated
it is a bad law that will be difficult to remove once it is
enacted, claimed that existing truancy laws do have teeth and if
a facility or rooms are needed to sight, sound, separate the
youths then that should be done. He claimed that one can not
trust individual conduct, only the law, only good laws should be
upheld. Mr. Buffett stated they are members of the Home
Schooling Legal Defense Association, those lawyers deal with
constitutional issues only, and offered to provide copies of a
communication as to why the proposed ordinance will not stand up
in court, addresses constitutionality, preemptory law, curfews
that have been struck down, etc. Mr. Buffett spoke for
enforcing current truancy law, and utilize monies that would
otherwise be used for prosecution purposes to buy or rent a
facility for sight, sound, separation. Mr. Dwayne Youngbar, 4th
Street, reported having spoken to his brother, a police chief,
about this ordinance, whose question was why are we bothering
with this in that there are already truancy laws. He stated
that it behooves the District to enforce those laws because of
the ADA, the issue appears to be the money that comes in when
the students are in school, this would likely be a law that will
not be upheld in that it abridges individual liberties, yet
protects a small group of people for their liberties. Mr. Mike
Mundy, Ocean Avenue, stated he attends private school where days
off and holidays are different from Los Alamitos, questioned why
he should have to worry about walking around or going surfing on
those days, and said crime can be stopped and students can be
required to attend school without this ordinance. Mr. Jim
Ferset, Huntington Beach, said he had a resolution from Villa
Park stating that the curfew ordinance would never be considered
for that city, and claimed their reasoning was that it was
comparable to hitlerism. He claimed under this ordinance he,and
his four children would be forbidden to go to the park to play
during school hours because they could be issued a citation.
Noting the adeptness of children to deter phone calls and
notices from school now, questioned if anyone believes that a
citation that might be issued would ever be delivered to the
parents by the student. He claimed that this ordinance does not
target bad kids it targets good parents, his understanding was
that the police are supposed to enforce the laws not write them.
Mr. Steven Kocino, San Juan Capistrano, said there seems to be a
premise by the school people and the government that these are
'our' kids, to which he objected, stating they are the children
of the parents, not the government, and that he was tired of
hearing from elected officials that it 'takes a village' where
in fact it takes a family. He read a statement of a former
presidential candidate, current president of the Declaration
Foundation, Alan Keyes, his belief a matter of principle that
matters such as curfews and other issues to maintain local order
should be decided at the local level, his belief also that when
making these decisions local communities should avoid things
that would sacrifice the respect of parental rights of
all....with regard to irresponsible behavior of some or a
few....one of the hallmarks of free society is a law abiding
citizen who goes about unchallenged by State authority, secure
in the presumption of innocence without proof of just
cause....given this fact people should not resort to curfews
without clear and urgent need, etc. Mr. Kocino recommended
against adoption of the proposed ordinance. He reminded that it
is the role and responsibility of the parents to educate their
children, the government role is to support the parents, the
schools are there to support families and help them to educate
their children. Mr. Robert Entery introduced his wife Kelly,
Huntington Beach, stated this ordinance affects and imposes on
I
I
I
I
I
I
9-9-96
his family rights, on visits to family members who reside in
Leisure World, on his wife in her home schooling. He said this
ordinance will compound the problems, the more regulations the
more people will be dependent upon them, it will not help those
having problems, and stated he is one who went through the SARB
program and the juvenile justice system, if one wants to be a
truant or a criminal they will be no matter. Mrs. Entery asked
for a vote against the proposed ordinance. Ms. Carol
Blankfield, Huntington Beach, said she wished to rebut some of
the statistics that have been mentioned. She reported having
spoken to Mr. David Hattman, Assistant Superintendent of the Los
Alamitos High School District who she said informed her there
were relatively few unexcused absences in the District and at
the High School, less than one-half of one percent of the
students are considered truant. She commented that everyone who
spoke in support of the ordinance is either with a police
department, the school district, or a teacher, yet this is an
issue about parents and their children. She indicated an
understanding of the problems confronting the police, suggested
that the focus be on the truants, and in turn suggested that
uniforms be required if that helps to reduce crime and
absenteeism as in Long Beach, claiming that this curfew is not
only on the children it is also on the parents. Ms. Blankfield
commended the record reported by Ms. Lovelace where only one of
nineteen truants needed to go through the SARB program, then
questioned why the need for the curfew. To a comment of the
SARB chairman that every student needs to be in school, she
corrected that statement by saying every child needs to be
educated, as there are approximately 100,000 students in Orange
County on any given day that are not supposed to be in school,
with reference to the 601 petitions, she asked how many, and to
the thirty truants that appeared before the SARB during the
year, six were saved, Ms. Blankfield cited that as a success, in
other words there is a system that works well for the great
majority of the children, there is a handful that it does not
work for, and a curfew law will do nothing for that. As to a
comment of Mr. Brown that there are no consequences, she
disagreed, citing the provisions of the Education Code, and
asked if a probation can be imposed on truants without them
going to jail. Ms. Lucy Grisma, Placentia, stated she has been
an attendance clerk at El Dorado High School and it is always
the same students that are truant, and that is just a handful.
She offered that in Placentia the PTA is going to discuss this
issue for a couple of months then the PTA parents will address
their recommendations and concerns to the Council rather than
imposing the desires of the Council. Ms. Grisma inquired as to
the negatives of the curfew law in the cities of Monrovia and
Rosemead, and questioned the need for more 'teeth'. Mr. Ted
Wegter, 4th Street, a Junior at Los Alamitos High School, said
he takes difficult classes and occasionally his family allows
him to take a day off from school to rest or a family day, and
he would not want to make a false statement that he was sick.
He stated he did not support the ordinance. Mr. Robert Elliott,
11th Street and Los Alamitos High School student, said if there
is a teachers planning day off from school he did not want to
have to carry papers around with him, and if the target is the
bad kids, asked how one is going to determine who they are. He
stated the ordinance is wrong. Mr. Bill Embry, Island View
Drive, commended the students for their comments. Having some
legal background through his employment with a large
corporation, Mr. Embry stated that when a law is enacted it must
be specific, everyone needs to know what the law is, a law is
also not what is written on paper, rather, it is the
interpretation of the law by the person enforcing it, therefore
it must be precisely known what the law will do. Mr. Tony
Espezito, Rossmoor, expressed his concern with the curfew
proposal in that his children will need to transit either the
9-9-96
cities of Los Alamitos or Seal Beach, stated he does not want
truant students on the streets of the cities however statements
have been made that the School District has aptly and adequately
identified the truant children, they know the problems of these
children, they can deal directly with them, therefore why do all
of the children need to be penalized for these few, as this
curfew requires that anyone between the ages of six to eighteen I
be off the streets between 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. with very few
exceptions. He urged that the ordinance not be adopted. Ms.
Rachael Wegter, 4th Street, stated she felt insulted and
saddened that the entire crime rate is being blamed on minors.
She noted the statistics from Monrovia sounded impressive
however asked if the problems could have been dealt with in
another manner, also that Seal Beach is not Monrovia and the
situation here does not require such drastic measures, stated
she felt passing this ordinance will inflict a great deal of
distrust and friction between the police officers and minors,
and a citation will not resolve the truancy problem or motivate
students to stay in school any more than the Saturday classes,
and if the City really has the interest of students in mind the
root of the problems should be dealt with. She offered that if
a student is going to be truant they can simply stay in Los
Alamitos where there is no such ordinance. Ms. Wegter urged
that the ordinance not be adopted. Ms. Laura Brecht, 6th
Street, expressed her pleasure to be living in Seal Beach,
commended the school system for doing a fine job, and noted her
involvement with the PTA's. She voiced her opinion that this
ordinance should be in effect in Los Alamitos as that is where
there are loiterers around the middle schools and the high
school. As to the mention of two hundred fifty calls per day to
students for being absent, she noted that many of those are
merely for being tardy, only a handful are actually truant. She I
said she did not support the ordinance, felt it was short
changing the students, the children get an adequate eduction,
the parenting is adequate, the families are affluent, most
having educational degrees, the schools are doing a good jOb and
should use the tools that they have. Ms. Alice Youngbar, 4th
Street and Los Alamitos graduate, asked if she too would be
stopped along with the Los Alamitos students when she is home
for college breaks, inquired how it is going to be known that
all of the truants are going to be out on the street, offering
that many of the truants can simply stay at home after the
parents leave for work. She claimed the curfew ordinance is
discriminatory and the wrong students are going to be stopped.
Ms. Kathy Duffy, Westminster, read an excerpt from the Education
Code that upon the fourth truancy a student is classified as a
habitual truant, and within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court may adjudge such people to be a ward of the court, and if
they are a ward of the court there are requirements for either
community service, a fine, attendance at court approved truancy
prevention programs, suspension or revocation of driving
privileges, also an authority to pick up the youth to be taken
to a non-secured youth service or community center designated by
the school or district for counseling prior to returning the
minor to their home or school. To the downside of the Monrovia
ordinance, she gave an example of two teenage home schooled I
girls that also work afternoons at the local public school as a
crossing guard and as a first grade reading instructor, and
while walking to the school they have been stopped twice thus
far. She concluded that if selective enforcement, that is
unconstitutional, otherwise enforcement will be for all, and
children like she described are going to be hurt. Dr. David
Rosenman, 8th street, said he had been informed that currently
about fifty percent of the kids stopped by the Police Department
do not live in Seal Beach or Los Alamitos, rather they live
elsewhere, therefore to use the truancy issue alone' is a false
solution, should be looked at carefully, however setting limits
I
I
I
9-9-96
does in deed work whether it be through the truancy system or a
program such as this. Ms. Bernice Loemheim, Fullerton, stated
people are present from other areas because Seal Beach may be
setting a precedent, Seal Beach will be looked at as to what it
does or does not do relative to this ordinance. She reported
having come from a study session relating to this issue in
another city and wished to present some points she felt were
relevant. She stated as a parent of two public school children
she would not want a habitual truant in the classroom,
questioned if the teachers are capable of dealing with that
situation, the real issue is funds, funds are needed to make
these children accountable, not to police them, house arrest
them, or deem them to be criminals, there needs to be people to
call their homes and do the follow up, a one on one program to
encourage these children, the desire to learn has to be innately
there, not forced. She made reference to a statement that one
can tell what children are suspicious, that they look a certain
way, which she deemed to not sound like probable cause,
questioned if all children look like they should be in school,
which ones will be stopped, is this an issue of discrimination,
maybe not now but in future years what type of individuals are
going to be enforcing this ordinance. She requested that this
issue be dropped. Ms. Debbie Brown, Garden Grove, encouraged
the Council to not take an action on this item tonight, that the
information given be considered and other options discussed.
Ms. Marie Wheyling, Fullerton, member of the Committee for
Correspondence, said she has not had an opportunity to read the
Seal Beach ordinance however from what she has heard it sounds
like tyranny. She stated she did not like curfews, America is a
free country, and if there is a problem with truancies, those
laws should be used and made to work rather than penalizing all
of Seal Beach. She urged that this ordinance not be passed, the
.people are here because they need to cry out for freedom, the
American culture needs to be saved. Ms. Christine Burtrum, 16th
Street, expressed her opinion that this law is taking away
freedoms, it is about freedom, not about truancy, laws are being
forced on Seal Beach children while trying to take care of the
problems of others from outside the city. She asked that
thought be given this ordinance before it is voted on. Ms.
Nancy Grgas, 15th Street, stated her support for the proposed
ordinance, another tool for the police to use for children to be
safe and stay in school. She reported having been a probation
officer for fifteen years, stated when the laws changed the
probation departments could then no longer deal with truants and
run-aways, they had to commit a crime to be detained, and said
since then it is sad to see how many of the children have
deteriorated, if there are not rules and established boundaries
the children will just keep testing. She spoke favorable of the
Police Department dealing with this issue sensibly, likewise if
the students know they can receive a citation for being truant
maybe truancies will be less, they will stay in school, they
will not be cited if there is a good reason to be out of school,
and mentioned that a similar law is working well in the city of
Long Beach. Ms. Grgas urged adoption of the ordinance. Mr.
Roger Elliott, 11th street, expressed appreciation to the
persons appearing at this meeting from the city of Fullerton,
citing this law as having a potential snowball effect. He noted
that the basis for considering the curfew ordinance is the
result of similar enactment in other cities, the local ordinance
is now somewhat vague however in the future it will likely be
reevaluated and the intensity will increase rather than
decrease. He said after listening to the testimony he is now
definitely opposed to this ordinance and urged that its
consideration be dropped as the problem is minor in this
community, the problem is the result of those who come into town
from other areas. He asked that the negatives versus the
positives be considered. Mr. Randy Hines, Sandpiper Drive,
9-9-96
stated his children attend school outside the community, their
days and school year are different, one child is a 4.0 student
and as a parent he allows him to be out of school if desired,
and from his personal viewpoint requested that the ordinance not
be adopted. Ms. Marion Sauterhome, Long Beach, offered her
experience as a former teacher, family therapist specializing in
teen age problems, truancies, behavioral, etc., as well as
working with a police academy. She cited the ordinance as
awkward and places the police in an awkward position. She
mentioned that she gave up her practice two years ago to teach
her students as a result of frustration with over-crowded
classrooms, classes at her private school are from 9:00 a.m.
until 3:00 p.m., the ordinance in Long Beach is in effect from
8:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m., was passed without any discussion or
knowledge of it, and businesses are posted that a minor can be
arrested if on-premises during school hours. She stated her
belief that the intent was to establish some accountability
however the ordinance does not provide that in the long run,
will cause more problems than it is worth, therefore as someone
from a city that has this type of ordinance, suggested that due
consideration be given. Ms. Laura Wegter, 4th Street, mentioned
having been interviewed by Channel 4 news this date relating to
this ordinance, made reference to her family's letter in the
local paper last week pointing out concerns with the ordinance,
news articles that she claimed dealt with the subject matter
very gently, and stated that those present expressing their
concerns with this issue should be taken seriously. She said
she informed the television commentator of seventeen telephone
calls she made this date and no one knew of this proposed
ordinance, under the State Code she has advised the school of
allowing her children to be out of school for a truthful reason,
even if that means an unexcused absence, however under the
ordinance proposed she would no longer be able to do that. Ms.
Wegter questioned the ordinance language that does not allow
parents to give permission, and stated further that those
addressing the Council are doing so on behalf of the rights of
every child and their family, and concluded that it is wrong to
penalize the kids.
I
,
I
It was the consensus of the Council to declare a recess at 9:52
p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:17 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe
calling the meeting to order.
At the request of the Mayor, Chief Stearns responded to some of
the comments. The Chief offered that he has listened to the
comments on both sides of this issue, has respect for all
speakers, and noted that after thirty-one years as a police
officer, working with juveniles and the schools, the request is
that the Police Department be entrusted with another tool. He
reiterated that the officers have the right under current law to
stop children that are out of school, participating in other
activities, etc. however that is not occurring. To the comments
that the Department should use the tools that they now have, and
although they can and have, there are no consequences for an act
therefore there is no requirement to comply, the hands of the
Police Department and School District are tied as to doing I
anything further, and considerable time is spent dealing with
the same juveniles over and over again. He noted the mention
that many of the problems in this City are the result of
children coming from other cities, a statistic that he would not
dispute, however pointed out that there are a number of
dysfunctional families that do reside in this community, people
who abuse their wives and their children, this ordinance another
tool that allows contact with the children, whether they are
cited, whether there is counseling or whatever, to determine why
they are out of school, and he agreed with the statement that
truancy is often an underlying result, in cases of neglect or
I
I
I
9-9-96
abuse as an example, children do not want to be at school or at
home. As to concern expressed with regard to possible abuse of
the ordinance, the Chief noted that there has never been abuse
of current laws, and he would ask the Council to place faith in
himself and the Department and if there is ever an abuse then
the Chief and the Department are to be held accountable, also
noted that this is a municipal ordinance, not a state or County
law, therefore the Council has the ability to rescind as well as
adopt the ordinance. He confirmed that the ordinance adopted by
the city of Long Beach has a definite impact on Seal Beach as
the majority of students that come to this community and cause
crimes are from the City of Long Beach. The Chief stated he has
been assured by the District Attorney's office that no matter
where the juvenile is from this is a municipal court system
issue, and there are cooperative agreements with the Los Angeles
County Court system and the school districts as well.
To a question as to what occurs when a citation is issued by
Seal Beach to a resident of Long Beach and that person chooses
not to appear, Mr. Brown responded that the jurisdiction over
juveniles is either where the offense is committed or where the
juvenile resides, therefore as to the scenario presented the
petition could be filed either with West Orange County Municipal
Court in Westminster, the Juvenile Court in Orange, or Los
Angeles County, and it is presumed could be transferred to the
residence jurisdiction. To the presumption by some that all
minors on the street will be stopped, question was posed as to
what would trigger a stop, to which the Chief responded that
first of all there are responses to called for services from a
resident or business owner, loitering or suspicious presence as
examples, reports of minors drinking or using drugs under the
pier another example, and to the question of impact if Seal
Beach adopts the ordinance and Los Alamitos does not, given the
shared school district, the Chief explained that if a youth from
Los Alamitos or elsewhere is stopped Seal Beach would have the
right to contact the school or police department whether or not
they adopt the ordinance. Question was posed as to where the
police will look for truants given the fact that the school may
know they have left the campus but not necessarily where they
have gone, also with the understanding that the juvenile
criminal must the kept sight, sound, separated from the juvenile
truant yet there is no orange County facility to do so,
suggestion was made to find a location in this community. A
question was relayed as to the legality of the proposed
ordinance, if it will result in litigation, and whether or not
the Monrovia ordinance has been tested in court. Ms. Kim
Menninger responded that Monrovia has had the law for the
longest period of time in this State and as yet has not been
challenged, and of all the citations written only two people
have been documented as having paid the fine, the others have
gone through counseling and those cases have been dismissed
because the juveniles have gone back to school. She mentioned
also that the city attorneys from almost every city in orange
County have reviewed this ordinance, certain changes have been
made to the draft in response to queries by some of them,
collectively about thirty city attorneys, since then it has been
generally accepted and felt it will withstand any constitutional
challenge, they are also aware of the Home School Legal Defense
letter that posed questions with respect to constitutional
issues, those issues specifically addressed by the various city
attorneys and found to not have merit. A question was posed as
to whether of not the traffic commissioner will have the
authority, upon receiving testimony, to waive a fine, etc. Ms.
Menninger said of the hypothetical scenario referenced, that if
a trial were desired, testimony would be taken and given
consideration, however again pointed out that it is a false
premise to think that one can do whatever they wish with their
9-9-96
child during a school day, and based upon the comments made by
parents it appears that their problem is with the current state
Education Code, which is an issue that can not be dealt with at
the local level as it is necessary to abide by state law, yet
another ordinance can be developed around what exists, in this
case a citation process is added in addition to the current
arrest process. Reference was again made to provisions of the
state Compulsatory Education Code, also to Section 15-5.7 of the
ordinance, Daytime Curfew - Responsibilities of Parent or
Guardian, which was read in addition to Section 15-5.4, Daytime
CUrfew - Established, and it was noted that a number of parents
seem to feel that they are being denied their parental right to
take their children out of school, however it was again pointed
out that it is this specific municipal ordinance that needs to
be addressed and tailored to Seal Beach, without reference to
what has been or will be done in other communities. A question
was posed to Mr. Dorrans, as to whether parents can keep their
children out of school for reasons that are not set forth in the
Compulsary Education Code. Mr. Dorrans responded that the State
Code lists the reasons for students to be excused from school
which are basically illness, quarantine, medical appointments,
religious instruction, etc., and explained that the policy at
Los Al High School is essentially that if a parent calls and
states their child will not be in school that day there are a
number of different ways of handling those situations, it is not
based upon ADA, there are personal requests for absences that
are allowed if the parent chooses to take the student out of
school, there are categories of excused and unexcused absences,
an unexcused is not a truant situation, a truancy is basically
when the parent says that the student should have been in school
and provides no excuse for not being. Question was posed as to
how many unexcused absences make a child a truant, to which Mr.
Dorrans noted an unexcused absence and a truancy are two
different things, the absence is not considered a truancy
because it is known that the parent authorized the absence, the
same would hold true in the case of numerous absences and in
such cases the school would commence working with the family as
to why the student is not in school or the situation could be
brought before the SARB. To a scenario where a child is
returned to school, against the child's desire to be there, is
disruptive in the classroom, etc. Mr. Dorrans stated he did not
have statistics however he did not believe that truancy and
disciplinary problems necessarily correlate, some truants have
been known to be nice and generally not disruptive, and
sometimes they can be turned around if the are in school, and
likewise there are students that attend every day that are very
disruptive. Mr. Dorrans again confirmed that the Compulsory
Education Act requires that children between the ages of six to
eighteen must be in school. To the comments that the existing
truancy law needs to be enforced, it was noted there is no means
to enforce due to the lack of facilities, lack of monies to
provide facilities, and question posed as to the specifics of
why the truancy law does not work. Mr. Dorrans again stated
there is no authority to enforce the truancy law, it can be
brought before the SARB, a 601 petition can be filed, however
the Probation Department neither has the staff, time or money to
deal with 601's, at this point the ultimate threat to a student
would be a transfer to a County or court school. A member of
the audience noted that if the State enacts these laws, then why
do they not provide funds to enforce them, to which the response
was that the State mandates thousands of things on local
government without providing any funding, they also take away
other State sources of funding. Question was posed as to what
happens in the case of a family not having the funds to pay the
fine(s), to which Ms. Kim Menninger stated that the court system
can make a finding that the financial situation does not allow a
person to meet the requirements and may change a fine to
I
I
I
9-9-96
I
possibly community service. An explanation was requested as to
the criteria for sight, sound, separation of a building, does
that include overnight detention, etc. Ms. Menninger said her
understanding from talking to Probation is a requirement for a
separate roof, walls, facilities, staffed twenty-four hours for
the period it is utilized, which includes over-nights, male and
female attendants, and depending on the County need, they have
no idea how large of a facility would be required, and it must
be kept in mind that the current juvenile facility was built for
four hundred fifty persons, houses five hundred twenty almost
daily, and further keeping in mind the approximate twenty-three
thousand registered gang members in Orange County. She noted
also that the cities of Orange and Garden Grove have set up
truancy centers for daytime housing, counseling, etc. the cost
of which is at least $50,000 annually. As to the comments that
parents do not want to be driving down the street and be stopped
because their child is with them, an understanding was stated
that the police officers will not be looking for that type of
situation. The Chief confirmed that to be correct, and again
emphasized that there is a right to make such stops now to
inquire why a young person is not in school if that were felt
necessary.
I
Mayor Forsythe noted that the one concern that has come up
repeatedly is parental rights, which she too deemed to be very
important. She made reference to section 15-5.5 which now reads
"The curfew set forth in Section 15-5.4 of this Chapter shall
not apply when the minor is accompanies by his or her parent,
guardian, or other adult person having authorization in writing,
granting care and custody of the minor" which eliminates the
provisions of the Education Code that are more restrictive, as
that is not the intent of the ordinance. Mayor Forsythe
emphasized that this ordinance will allow a parent to be with
their child and give permission for that child to be out of
school, to basically know the whereabouts of ones child, where
at the present time students can leave the campus because they
know there are no consequences, the habitual truants are a
different situation, there is concern also for the safety of
those students who ditch school mid-day to go off with their
friends. She emphasized that this ordinance does not impact the
rights of home schooling parents. Mayor Forsythe noted that the
parental rights and permissions have been addressed, there is
provision in the ordinance that if a student receives a citation
because the student is truant there is an opportunity for that
student to have a perfect attendance, and if the attendance is
good they may return to court for relief from the fine, the
ordinance does not require businesses to display fliers, in fact
literature that was distributed to the business community within
the last couple days that stated that businesses could be fined
if a truant were found on the business premises, which is not
true, and it will be the responsibility of the Police Department
to maintain the holiday and days off schedules for the various
schools. If a person is opposed to curfews, does that apply to
the 10:00 p.m. nighttime curfew as well. Mayor Forsythe cited
the need of all children to have an education, stated school
teaches much more than math and reading, it teaches discipline
and teaches structure, and if the children get the message that
no one cares, that does not seem to be the message that they
should be getting, they need to learn to be where they need to
be. If this ordinance is not adopted for Seal Beach and other
cities do adopt it, Seal Beach is going to be on the receiving
end of those children that do not want to be in their own
community because a like ordinance has been adopted in their
City, and in turn Seal Beach will not have the tools to take
them off the streets. A member of the audience claimed that
this ordinance is being considered under the threat of youths
from other communities coming to Seal Beach yet it is the Seal
I
9-9-96
Beach youth that will suffer. Councilmember Campbell inquired
of Ms. Lovelace as to what penalties apply to unexcused
absences, and the status of wearing gang clothing. In the case
of unexcused absences, Ms. Lovelace explained that the school
does not receive ADA, the teacher has the right to not allow
make up work or a make-up test, also, a dress code was put into
place at McAuliff about two years ago, the students are not
allowed to wear gang clothing, no caps, and since implementing
the dress code discipline rates have decreased. To an inquiry
as to how one knows what is going on at city Hall, Councilmember
Campbell mentioned that agendas are posted, there are notices in
the newspaper, and a responsibility of the citizenry is to
follow what goes on. She noted that many people grew up in this
lovely community, continue to l~ve here, they have parental
responsibilities and values, those values are then passed on to
their children, yet unfortunately there are families that do not
take care of their children the way others do, and they can not
pass on values to their children because they themselves have no
values, which is lending to the gang problem, the increase in
the number of gangs, and the number of youths in gangs, which is
a problem the city is trying to address. She relayed instances
of drug and alcohol use on the High School campus that she had
been informed of, and likened the curfew ordinance to laws
governing the operation of vehicles, one does not get stopped
unless a violation is called to attention. Mayor Forsythe
expressed belief that the message of doing nothing is much more
devastating than imposing the curfew ordinance.
If adopted, Mayor Forsythe requested an indepth review of the
proposed ordinance at the end of a three month period,
addressing how the ordinance is being enforced, the impact on
the children, etc., and if anyone has a concern with the manner
in which a child is approached the Council should be contacted.
Councilmember Campbell asked for clarification as to Section 15-
5.5, "...when the minor is accompanied by his or her parent,
guardian, or other adult person having authorization in
writing...", is it the "other adult person" that needs written
authorization or the parent. Councilmember Hastings asked if
this item could be postponed, or passed and not implemented
pending review and consideration by the League of Cities. Chief
Stearns said he would prefer that the ordinance be allowed a
school year test, rather than a period of three months, possibly
apply a sunset clause, and then provide the Council with an
indepth report of actual cases, community and school district
feedback, etc. Mayor Forsythe stressed the importance of having
a report back to the Council in no longer than a three month
period.
Forsythe moved, second by Brown, to approve the introduction and
first reading of Ordinance Number 1409 as amended and that it be
passed to second reading, subject to the understanding that
there will be a review of this matter every three months and if
the process is not satisfactory it can be reconsidered.
Councilmember Hastings asked if there is a willingness to
subject ourselves to more restrictions and laws in the effort to
solve societal problems, something she is unwilling to do, as
one law is usually cause for another, and because of that she
would vote against the first reading, however expressed her
belief that the motion was fair and spoke for the quarterly
review as well.
AYES:
NOES:
Brown, Campbell, Forsythe, Fulton
Hastings Motion carried
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
There were no City Manager reports presented.
I
I
I
9-9-96 / 9-23-96 / 9-24-96
I
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Hastings stated she wanted assurance that there
will be a full complement of twenty reserve police officers by
the first of the year. The Chief advised that progress is being
made towards that goal, and commended the reserves and the
senior volunteers for their services. Councilmember Hastings
noted that the day of the next meeting, September 23rd, is Yom
Kippur, and asked for Council consideration of moving the
meeting to another day to accommodate the Jewish residents of
Seal Beach. No objection to the request was raised, and
Tuesday, September 24th was suggested. Councilmember Campbell
announced her Town Hall meeting at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the
North Seal Beach Community Center. Councilman Brown noted
Rossmoor Country Fair and the Police Substation ribbon cutting
ceremony to be held on Saturday, September 21st. Mayor Forsythe
announced a Bolsa Chica Fund Raising Event on September 21st as
well.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Oral Communications.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to
cancel the regular meeting of September 23rd and adjourn that
meeting until Tuesday, September 24th at 6:30 p.m. to meet in
Closed Session if necessary. By unanimous consent, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:18 p.m.
I
I
C erk and ex-off1C10
f Seal Beach
Approved:
_~~ ")"J/c-r/_h
Ma or
Attest:
o
Seal Beach, California
September 23, 1996 and
September 24, 1996
I
The regular City Council meeting of september 23rd, 1996 was
canceled pursuant to direction of the city Council at the
September 9th, 1996 regular meeting and adjourned until Tuesday,
September 24th, 1996, subsequently, due to a conflict with
meeting days, the September 24th meeting was canceled and
readjourned to Monday, September 30th, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. to meet
in Closed Session if deemed necessary and open session at 7:00
p.m.