The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/03/2014 13A Council General InformationBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 13.A. For Meeting of: June 03, 2014 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Council General Information Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk 1. Memo from Senior Assistant City Attorney Martinez regarding State Department of Corrections Work Crew 2. May 12, 2014 letter from Jo Miles regarding pools 3. May 7, 2014 letter from Joe Nation regarding Fresh Hop Ale Festival 4. 1st Quarter 2014 Municipal Court Office Statistics 5. May 20, 2014 Letter from Alliance Defending Freedom 6. City Meeting Schedule 7. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar 8. Preliminary Council Agenda Resolution: Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date info 5/29/2014 Type Cover Memo CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT 200 South Third Street, Yakima, Washington 98901 (509)575-6030 Fax (509)575-6160 MEMORANDUM May 28, 2014 TO: Tony O'Rourke, City Manager FROM: Cynthia Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: State Department of Corrections Work Crew Teresa Carlson of the State Department of Corrections has proposed that the City of Yakima utilize their Work Crew program. To entice us into trying out the program the Department of Corrections has offered us a six month trial period at no cost to us. The program is an alternative to jail. Defendants can exchange one day in jail for an eight hour shift on the work crew. The defendant goes home in the evening and is responsible for bringing his/her own lunch. The work is performed on County property or on properties that have contracted for work crew services. The program administrator will notify the court or a designated person when a defendant has signed up and completed the scheduled work crew hours. Once the no cost period expires, the State would charge $14-$16 per day, per inmate, to continue to utilize the program. The State would bill the City, not the inmate. We can recover the cost from the defendant and the Judges have discussed a system where the defendant would be required to pay up front to enroll in the Work Crew program. Teresa Carlson met with the Judges, Chief Rizzi and I to discuss the Program and the trial period offer. After she finished her presentation, although we questioned whether the program would be worth paying for, we decided that it was worth utilizing the program during the free period to see if savings could be realized. If the City chooses to move forward with this partnership, we would have to execute a memorandum of understanding which does include a mutual indemnification clause. Inmates are covered by worker's compensation through the Department of Corrections for any injuries that could result while they are performing the work. To: Subject: Date: Yakima City Council and City Manager Parks and Recreation Capital Construction and Rehabilitation Fund May 12, 2014 At the last city council meeting held 05/06/14, the number one priority voiced by Councilmembers Ensey and Adkison was preservation of the city's existing swimming pools. They are correct. Action needs to be taken. One possible solution could be done right away if the city council chooses to set up a swimming pool maintenance rehabilitation fund as part of its mid -year budget process without having to amend the city charter. For example, the current annual budget for capital improvements in the Parks and Recreation Division is approximately $100,000. The city council could authorize an increase to $200,000 or more to assure that existing swimming pools are kept in safe and reliable condition. A separate step could address the bond funding issue for construction of a new facility that could utilize $500,000 or more per year to be voted on by the public. It is suggested that as soon as it is known what type of facility is proposed and where it will be located, voters be asked to decide whether to fund it. At the same time, additional costs for annual operation and maintenance of a new facility could be voted on also. By dividing the process into two parts, citizens can be guaranteed well maintained existing swimming pools promptly. Voters will then have an opportunity to approve funding for a new facility at the ballot box after a description of the project and its location has been decided. It has been requested that these issues be discussed at the June 11, 2014 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and recommendations forwarded to the city council for consideration. Respectfully, Jo N Miles 405 Chisholm Trail Yakima, WA 98908 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA MAY 2 2014 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL 1 May 7, 2014 Tony 0' Rourke City of Yakima 129 N. Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Fresh Hop Ale Festival Mr. 0' Rourke, RECEIVED CITY or YAKIMA MAY 15 2014 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER On behalf of the Fresh Hop Ale Committee, we would like to offer our thanks for the City's assistance in providing a temporary home for the Fresh Hop Ale Festival. We are now focusing our efforts to invite 5,000 beer enthusiasts to downtown Yakima on October 4, 2014 for the 12th annual Fresh Hop Ale Festival. While our committee is planning the 2014 festival, we wanted to make you aware of our intentions to run a parallel path to create a separate Fresh Hop Ale Festival 501c3 by the end of 2014. As the festival was created as a funding source for the arts, our new organization would continue that mission by making the proceeds available to Yakima based arts organizations. We will also work to provide a small portion of the proceeds available to hops non profit organizations as the hop community has been critical to our 12 years of success. As we move through this process, we will make you aware of our progress towards the goal of creating a new non-profit organization. Thank you again for helping make sure the Fresh Hop Ale Festival continues as a successful community festival. Sincerely, Joe Nation Co -Chair - Fresh Hop Ale Festival Committee 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 MEMORANDUM June 3, 2014 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Tony O'Rourke, City Manager FROM: The Honorable Kelley Olwell, Presiding Judge Linda Hagert, Court Services Manager Debbie Baldoz, CPA SUBJECT: 1st Quarter 2014 Municipal Court Office Statistics The City of Yakima Municipal Court operation was created in late 1996 and has been an independent judicial arm of the City since January 1, 1997. The Court adjudicates all traffic infractions, misdemeanors, and gross misdemeanors cited in the City. The Court operates with two full time Judges, one of whom presides over the Court's activities, and a part time Court Commissioner. The City Council adopts the Courts budget annually; the Court is otherwise independent from City Administration. Following please find summary statistical reports for Municipal Court 1st Quarter activity through March 31, 2014. Detailed reports are available from the Office of the Municipal Court. Prior year totals for 2013 are included for comparison. The following summary information for each quarter includes: I. Municipal Court Infraction Statistics II. Municipal Court Criminal Statistics III. Public Safety Education Assessment (PSEA) Statistics IV. Collection Statistics -- Municipal Court Outstanding Time -Pay Contracts V. Outside Agency Collection Statistics DB 2014 1st Qtr MuniCt Page 1 Yakima Municipal Court -- 1st Quarter 2014 Municipal Court Infraction Statistics 2013 Prior Year Filings -- Proceedings During Year: Infractions Filed Violations Charged Mitigation Hearings Contested Hearings Show Cause Hearings Other Hearings On Record Total Dispositions During Year: 11,156 15,058 1,315 236 137 1,738 2014 Prior Qtrs. January February March 1,191 1,171 1,090 1,591 1,661 1,514 108 91 119 23 20 13 9 13 19 125 140 124 2014 YTD Total 3,452 4,766 318 56 41 389 29,640 Infractions Paid 2,537 Failure to Respond Committed Not Committed Dismissed Amended Total Disposed Municipal Court Traffic Infraction Revenues 157 4,782 150 1,750 22 9,398 3,047 3,096 2,879 188 228 273 16 19 22 434 418 444 16 12 14 165 184 142 1 2 0 820 863 895 $1,027,200 $0 $77,577 $85,884 $106,293 Budget $1,000,000 9,022 689 57 1,296 42 491 3 2,578 $269,754 $990,000 DB 2014 1st Qtr MuniCt Page 2 Yakima Municipal Court -- 1st Quarter 2014 Filings During Year: Citations Filed Violations Charged Trial Settings During Year: Non jury Trials Set Jury Trials Proceedings. „„ • Arraignments Non jury Trials Jury Trials Stipulations to Record Other Hearings Dispositions: Bail Forfeitures Guilty Not Guilty Dismissed Amended Deferred/Driver Prosecution Resumed Total Disposition Criminal Fines Revenue: DWI Penalties Criminal Traffic Non -Traffic Misdemeanor Recoupments Total Fines Total Budget DB 2014 1st Qtr MuniCt Page 3 II. Municipal Court Criminal Statistics 2013 Prior Year 4,274 5,150 11 1,613 3,698 3 13 6 5,183 0 3,515 2 1,866 201 598 87 6,269 $113,553 152,945 86,802 164,838 $518,138 $555,000 2014 Prior Qtrs. January February 2014 March YTD Total 244 211 254 709 302 258 328 888 0 156 202 0 161 203 0 0 1 0 421 426 0 0 159 476 203 608 0 0 228 249 0 0 109 99 5 6 58 2 402 $0 $6,513 0 9,980 6 412 0 0 1 2 1 1 427 1,274 0 0 189 666 1 1 93 301 8 19 35 145 4 12 330 1,144 $9,603 $10,039 $26,155 13,089 34,751 5,269 15,512 11,682 4,022 6,221 8,755 10,239 $0 $29,270 $37,745 11,579 30,573 $39,976 $106,991 $580,000 Yakima Municipal Court -- 1st Quarter 2014 III. Public Safety Education Assessment (PSEA) Statistics Public Safety Education Assessment (PSEA) Payments * 2013 Prior Year $1,469,420 2014 Prior Qtrs. $0 January $104,193 February $142,981 March $138,644 2014 YTD Total $385,818 * Required payments to State Public Safety Education. Revenue for these payments is included as part of the total fine. Revenue figures presented are net of these payments. IV. Collection Statistics -- Municipal Court Outstanding Time -Pay Contracts Outstanding Municipal Court Time -Pay Agreements** As of 3/31/14 $3,999,825 **After judgment the offender makes arrangements with the court to pay their outstanding fines. If the offender does not make a payment in 30 days and does not make an effort with the court to make other arrangements to pay, the account is considered in arrears. A final notice is mailed to the person in arrears. If ignored the account is then turned over to collection. The collection agency is mandated by the state of Washington to write off accounts still owing ten years after the judgment date due to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations covers all fines and restitution. V. Outside Collection Agency Statistics Outside Collection Agency: *** Accounts Assigned in Prior Years Accounts ,.2010 .......� Assigned in .............._ —..... ...... ..... Accounts Assigned in 2011 Accounts Assigned in 2012 Accounts ............. Assigne .., in 2013.... Accounts Assigned in 2014 Total Assignments Dollars Collected Since Assignment (Cumulative less purged) (as of 3/31/14) Collection Performance Court Accounts *** Net of cancellation DB 2014 1st Qtr MuniCt Page 4 2014 and Prior Years $22,244,648 4,031,148 5,872,899 4,205,268 3,570,127 866,156 $40,790,246 $8,397,897 20.59% ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM FOR FAITH FOR JUSTICE May 20, 2014 Mayor Micah Cawley Yakima City Council 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA MAY 272014 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL Re: A LEGAL UPDATE ON THE LEGALITY OF PUBLIC INVOCATIONS Dear Mayor Micah Cawley: In recent years, the historical and cherished American tradition of opening public meetings with prayer has come under attack. Community activists and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, have demanded that public invocations be censored or silenced in communities across the country. The Yakima City Council has faced these challenges. Fortunately, On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the law and held that opening public meetings with prayer is constitutional. We write to update elected officials and concerned citizens about Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Supreme Court decision that protects public prayer and the rights of prayer givers to determine how they pray. 572 U.S. , 2014 WL 1757828 (May 5, 2014). By way of introduction, Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance -building, non- profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith. Our organization exists to educate the public and the government about important constitutional rights, particularly the freedom of religious expression. Alliance Defending Freedom has been called upon to assist and successfully defend many public officials nationwide. As the legal team that successfully defended the Town of Greece, New York before the Supreme Court, we are uniquely qualified to report on the Court's 15100 N 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone 800 835 5233 Fax 480 444 0025 AllianceDefendingFreedom org decision. This letter provides a detailed legal analysis concerning public invocation practices and concludes with an offer of free legal assistance. I. LEGAL ANALYSIS In his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796, President Washington famously admonished: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity."1 It is both lawful and wise for public officials to respect and cherish our religious heritage and to invoke God's protection and guidance over their public work and our nation. There is simply no question that a public deliberative body may open its meetings with an invocation, even one that includes a prayer that expresses a distinctive faith perspective. Public prayer has been an essential part of our heritage since before this nation's founding, and our Constitution has always protected that activity. Despite concentrated efforts by activist groups to have prayers silenced or purged of distinctly Christian references, the Supreme Court has—for the second time now—declared that opening prayers do not run afoul of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. A. The Legality of Public Invocations is Beyond Dispute. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that official proclamations of thanksgiving and prayer, and invocations before the start of government meetings, are an essential part of our culture and in no way a violation of the Constitution. This has been a consistent principle in First Amendment jurisprudence, and the Supreme Court has directly addressed the practice of public prayers on two occasions. The first is Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), where the Court approved the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each day of its sessions with a prayer given by a government official, a chaplain paid with taxpayer dollars. In Marsh, Chief Justice Burger concluded: The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. 1 Washington's Farewell Address 1796, YALE LAW LIBRARY LILLIAN GOLDMAN LAW LIBRARY, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th century/washing.asp (last visited May 15, 2014). Id. at 786. The Court noted that the final language of the Bill of Rights was agreed upon just three days after Congress authorized opening prayers by paid chaplains. Id, at 788. Clearly then, "[t]o invoke Divine guidance on a public body ... is not, in these circumstances, an `establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment ...." Id. at 792. When analyzing a public holiday display in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675 (1984), the Supreme Court again affirmed that "[o]ur history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders." Justice O'Connor opined that such official references encompass "legislative prayers of the type approved in Marsh ..., government declaration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, printing of 'In God We Trust' on coins, and opening court sessions with 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'" Id. at 693 (concurring opinion). She explained, "Those government acknowledgments of religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society." Id. The Supreme Court has now—for a second time—directly addressed the validity of opening public meetings with prayer. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. , 2014 WL 1757828 (May 5, 2013), the town was sued because volunteer citizens opened the town council's meetings with prayer. Most of the volunteers chose to deliver prayers that were distinctly Christian. The suit aimed to silence the prayers or mandate censored prayers that were generic and void of any references that are distinct to a particular faith. But the Supreme Court upheld the town's practice and again affirmed that "[a]s practiced by Congress since the framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society." Id. at *7. B. Prayers cannot be religiously censored. For the past decade, secularist groups have used federal lawsuits, the media, and an aggressive letter writing campaign to intimidate government officials into either abandoning the cherished American tradition of seeking Divine guidance or censoring prayers. The Supreme Court has now definitively spoken—holding that the Constitution not only allows such prayers, but that it precludes government from censoring them. 1. Avoid theological line drawing. Some activist groups have contended that all references to a distinctive faith, such as Christianity, must be removed from public prayers. Indeed, this was the chief complaint in Town of Greece. Id. at *5. In response, the Court stated: "To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech." Id. at * 10. The Supreme Court has now made clear that the Constitution prohibits such censorship: Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian. Id. at *11 (emphasis added). This explicit statement reiterates warnings that the Court has issued in prior cases. See Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962) (noting the government cannot dictate the content of prayers); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 588 (1992) (recognizing that mandating "nonsectarian" prayer involves a dangerous element of governmental control over public prayers). In addition to the Court's direction, a review of historical and present day practices demonstrates the nature of constitutionally permissible public prayers. For example, in both Marsh and Town of Greece, the Supreme Court noted approvingly the prayer offered at the first session of the Continental Congress on September 7, 1774 by the Rev. Jacob Duche. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 787; Town of Greece, 2014 WL 1757828, at * 12. Rev. Duche included these words in his prayer: Be Thou present; 0 God of Wisdom, and direct the councils of this Honorable Assembly: enable them to settle all things on the best and [surest] of foundations: that the scene of blood may be speedily closed: that Order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and Truth, and Justice, Religion, and Piety prevail and flourish among the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and Our Savior, Amen.2 The content of Rev. Duche's prayer is virtually indistinguishable from the content of the typical opening prayer at any public meeting in America today. So in addition to the high court's announcement of legal precedent, state and local governments can look to the 2 September 7, 1774, FIRST PRAYER IN CONGRESS: BEAUTIFUL REMINISCENCE (Washington, D.C. Library of Congress); WILLIAM J. FEDERER, AMERICA'S GOD AND COUNTRY: ENCYCLOPEDIA OF QUOTATIONS 137 (Coppell, TX Fame Publishing, Inc., 1994), GARY DEMAR, GOD AND GOVERNMENT: A BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDY 108 (Atlanta, GA American Vision Press, 1982); JOHN S.C. ABBOTT, GEORGE WASHINGTON 187 (New York, NY Dodd, Mead & Co., 1875, 1917). practices of the U.S. Congress for guidance. The legislative prayers offered in Congress often make clear references to a specific deity, such as Jesus.3 2. Honor the purpose of the prayer The government cannot create a theological litmus test for regulating public prayers. However, the Supreme Court has identified limits for public prayers in order to ensure that invocations serve the purpose for which they are given. Town of Greece, 2014 WL 1757828, at *11 ("The relevant constraint derives from its place at the opening of legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values long part of the Nation's heritage."). In particular, the Supreme Court stated that the government should avoid a practice that "over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion." Id.; see also Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-95 ("The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."). This simple and easily applied rule avoids any theological inquiries and is consistent with the proper decorum for conducting public business. In summary, legislative prayers—even distinctly Christian ones—are clearly constitutional and "deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country." Marsh, 463 U.S. at 786. C. Deliberative public bodies at all levels of government can open public meetings with a prayer. The first time the Supreme Court considered prayers in public meetings, it did so in the context of a state legislature, but the Court did not limit its holding to state-wide or national public bodies. In fact, the Court opened its analysis by noting that "[t]he opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of the country." Marsh, 463 U.S. at 786 (emphasis added). The Court considered historical practices of the U.S. Congress and extended its rationale to any "public body" entrusted with making laws and setting policies for a community. Id. at 792. Now, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that local public bodies may open their meetings with prayer. See Town of Greece, 2014 WL 1757828, at *14-17 (approving opening prayers at a town council meeting). Public officials at all levels of government have the liberty and the right to embrace this American tradition and benefit from seeking Divine guidance and blessing on their endeavors. D. The identity of the prayer giver is not limited. s See, e.g., Newdow v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 285 n.3 (D.D.C. 2005) (acknowledging that "the legislative prayers at the U.S. Congress are overtly sectarian"). Courts across the country have approved varying sorts of public invocation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Marsh, approved a practice of using a chaplain to deliver a public invocation before a deliberative body. 463 U.S. 783. In Town of Greece, the Supreme Court approved volunteer members of the community offering the invocation. 2014 WL 1757828. Numerous courts have also affirmed the practice of inviting local clergy to deliver a public invocation. See Pelphrey v. Cobb Cnty., 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008); Rubin v. City of Lancaster, 710 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2013). And in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1152 (2005), and Turner v. City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, 534 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1099 (2009), courts specifically approved practices in which the invocations were delivered by the elected officials. In the wake of the Town of Greece decision, several groups challenging public prayers have suggested that the legal analysis differs when prayers are offered by elected officials, but no court in the country has agreed with that contention. The Supreme Court found no legal distinction between prayers offered by a government employee in Marsh and prayers offered by volunteer citizens in Town of Greece. And two courts of appeals have already found that prayers are not unconstitutional simply because they are offered by elected officials. These cases demonstrate that deliberative public bodies are free to adopt a practice that best meets the needs of the local community. II. OFFER OF PRO BONO ASSISTANCE Alliance Defending Freedom has consulted with many state and local government leaders across the nation to assist in crafting solutions to the recent challenges to public prayer brought by the ACLU and others. And Alliance Defending Freedom is prepared to continue assisting public bodies in developing policies and practices that rightly preserve the American tradition of opening legislative sessions with prayer. Alliance Defending Freedom is willing to work with any government body to craft invocation policies that pass constitutional muster. For that reason, Alliance Defending Freedom will consult—free of charge—with deliberative bodies in the development of invocation policies. Alliance Defending Freedom will also provide a free legal defense to any local governmental bodies working cooperatively with us if their invocation policy is legally challenged. A sample policy that incorporates practices already approved by federal courts can be downloaded at http://alln.cc/praver-policy. It is our hope that the information provided in this letter will be helpful in explaining the reasons why governmental bodies can and should continue the tradition of opening their public deliberations with invocations. We encourage each deliberative body to codify its invocation practices with a constitutionally sound written policy. Please do not hesitate to contact us if Alliance Defending Freedom can provide any further information or assistance, or if we may help respond to any challenge or threat of litigation with regard to religious acknowledgement or expression in your community. As a not-for-profit organization, our services are provided pro bono. Very sincerely yours, Brett B. Harvey Senior Counsel Alliance Defending Freedom ife 00, lounon David A. Cortman Senior Counsel Alliance Defending Freedom Information is general in nature and provided to educate the public and public officials. For community specific legal advice, contact Alliance Defending Freedom at www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org. Meeting Date/Time 0000rrrrrmrrwmrrrwmwllww Mon. June 2 10:00 a.m. 1:30 p.m. Office Of Mayor/City Council Preliminary Future Activities Calendar Please Note: Meetings are subject to change Organization Meeting Purpose Participants ding, Location 0OIIIIOIOIpIMIMIM011111111111111M0101 11101011011111011011,1 �.�� MmWMmM1 MMMIW1111111 Tue. June 3 12:00 p.m. 6:00 «.m Fri. June 6 8:00 a.m. TuIIIIM e. June 10 8:30 a.m. Council Media Briefing Council Economic Development Committee Scheduled Meeting Scheduled Meeting 111111111111111110111 IMIW MM. Miscellaneous Issues City Council Meeting uw o�NIm1 . Sister City Meeting TPA Meeting 12:00 p.m. Miscellaneous Issues Wed.. June MIM IMMMMM VUM�M MMS M�MM� M1u�01uMMOM00000M M10o M 11 3:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Thur. June 12 1:00 p.m, Yakima Planning Commission Parks & Recreation Commission Harman Center Board Meeting 3:00 p.m, Homeless Network Coalition Meeting 5:30 p.m. YCDA New Vision Board meeting 4111111110110161MM10111111111111111111111111116161 11101011011 Mon. June 16 10:00 a.m. Council Media Briefing 10M0M WWWPoWWWPoWWWWIWWWWWWIM010P WOWYW M....,.. ..,..., . .: .IOMIMUMMWIWOMIWWIM AA0101 Tue. June 17 12:00 p.m. 5:45 p.m. 6:00 ..m Wed. June 18 9:30 a.m. 3:30 •,m. Thur. June 19 2:00 p.m. Miscellaneous Issues City Council Executive Session Citv Council Meeting MI Emergency Services Board Meeting Arts Commission Meeting Council Built Environment Committee meeting Ensey Cawley, Coffey, Dittmar Scheduled Meeting Council Chambers Scheduled Meeting MIMIMMOMM001010000011110100010010VM Cawley, Coffey Council Adkison Scheduled Meeting Cawley Cawley, Coffey, Ettl WINIMMiaPIMMU Scheduled Meeting Board Meeting Scheduled Meeting Board Meeting Ensey Adkison Adkison Coffey, Lover Adkison Scheduled Meeting Scheduled Meeting Scheduled Meeting Scheduled Meeting Board Meeting Scheduled Meeting Scheduled Meeting 011011011011011011011011011011011011111111111011110161111111111111111110110111111111101101111111111111111111111111111111111111111M Cawley, Coffey, Ettl Council Council Lover Adkison Coffey, Ensey, Lover Council Chambers 2nd Floor Conference Room 1011011110111101111011011011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111MM TBD Council Chambers 010100001010101101011101101010101011011111011010101010101 2nd Floor Conference Room Convention Center TBD Council Chambers Council Chambers 1001101101 Harman Center Neighborhood Health New Vision 0000000000000000IIIMMMIIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIIIIIIIOIOIOIIIIIIIIK Council ChambE TBD Council Chambers Council Chambers MWMMWWMMOWOWI%GXNMNYtiW51HEW'dIWYIOYIWWMWI11111110110M% Emergency Mgmt. Office 2nd Floor Conference Room 11111111111 2nd Floor Conference Room CITY MEETING SCHEDULE For June 2, 2014 — June 9, 2014 Please note: Meetings are subject to change Monday, June 2 10:00 a.m. City Council Media Briefing — Council Chambers 1:30 p.m. Council Economic Development Meeting — 2R1 Floor Conference Room Tuesday, June 3 10:00 a.m. County Commissioners Agenda Meeting — Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting — Council Chambers Wednesday, June 4 Thursday, June 5 9:00 a.m. Hearing Examiner — Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. Bid Opening —1St Floor Conference Room Friday, June 6 8:00 a.m. Sister City Meeting — 2nd Floor Conference Room DRAFT PRELIMINARY FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA June 17, 2014 (T) 5:00 p.m. Executive Session — Council Chambers 6:00 p.m, Business Meeting — Council Chambers • Final Contract Payment for Columbia Asphalt & Gravel, Inc. - 2013 Citywide Street Resurfacing (Standard Motion V -B -Accept the project and approve the final payment) • Resolution authorizing Construction Services Agreement with Huibregtse, Louman Associates and the Yakima Air Terminal. Public Hearings • Public Hearing to consider: A) Adoption of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 2015 to 2020 and amend the Metropolitan Transportation Plan: and B) Amend the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element. 5/29/2014 9:28 AM