The Consequences of Adopting an Out-of-Scope Ceasefire Resolution
Local resident social activist Jeffrey Gottesman speaks about a potential ceasefire resolution in front of the Grass Valley City Council
In the fall of 2024, Nevada City adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine. Members of the public are now pressuring the City of Grass Valley to do the same. Should the Grass Valley city council adopt a resolution on an international issue?
City councils serve as the governing bodies for their respective municipalities, and are responsible for addressing local issues such as public safety, zoning, and infrastructure. Their authority is superseded by state and federal law, defining their jurisdiction and scope of governance as limited to the city only.
However, city councils sometimes face pressure to vote on resolutions that extend beyond their realm of stewardship - resolutions that may relate to national or international matters or state-level concerns. While some argue that such actions serve as symbolic gestures, others assert that they are inappropriate, inefficient, and a distraction from core responsibilities.
City councils that do not refrain from voting on resolutions outside their jurisdiction face potential legal, financial, administrative, and ethical ramifications.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
One of the primary reasons a city council should not vote on resolutions dealing with matters outside its jurisdiction is that the council lacks the legal authority to enact, enforce, or meaningfully influence such matters. The jurisdiction of a city council is typically defined by a municipal charter and state laws, which outline specific functions and responsibilities. When a city council deliberates on a matter outside its scope, it risks violating these legal frameworks and overstepping its authority.
Potential legal consequences include:
Risk of lawsuits: Adopting resolutions that exceed municipal jurisdiction can lead to legal challenges. Residents, businesses, or advocacy groups may sue the city, arguing that it has misallocated resources or violated state laws. Before introducing a resolution, the city council might benefit from seeking advice from the city’s legal counsel to ensure that the issue truly is within the city’s authority.
Conflict with state or federal authority: When a city council takes a stance on issues governed by state or federal law, it may find itself in conflict with higher authorities. This can result in legal disputes or state intervention to override the city’s decision.
Violation of municipal code: Municipal charters often define clear boundaries for city governance. Voting on unrelated resolutions can violate these codes, undermining the legitimacy of the city’s authority.
Inefficiency and Misallocation of Resources
City councils operate within limited budgets and time constraints. Addressing non-jurisdictional resolutions diverts resources and attention from pressing local matters such as homelessness, road repairs, and fire hardening.
Financial and administrative costs include:
Wasted public funds: Even if the resolution does not include a request to use part of the city’s budget, it still presents a financial drain. Researching, drafting, and debating resolutions consume staff time and taxpayer money. Given that such resolutions have no enforceable power, the expenditure is wasteful.
Distraction from essential services: City councils are tasked with critical responsibilities such as maintaining the city’s infrastructure, ensuring public safety for residents, and managing the local economy. Time spent on extraneous resolutions is a distraction from these duties. Every hour spent discussing an out-of-scope issue is an hour not spent on road repairs, emergency services, or public health initiatives. Residents rely on city councils for tangible local improvements, not symbolic declarations.
Lack of expertise: City council members are elected to manage municipal affairs. They are not typically experts in national policy or international relations. By voting on resolutions outside their jurisdiction, they operate in an area where they lack both expertise and accountability. The resolution might be written based on limited knowledge. City council members may not have access to relevant data, expert testimony, or legal analysis when considering broader political matters.
The Perception of an Incapable City Council
When a group of residents requests such a resolution, it is often because residents do not realize they are making the request at the wrong level of government. Engaging in contentious, non-local issues can divide communities unnecessarily, encouraging political division where cooperation and focus on local issues is needed.
While some argue that passing symbolic resolutions can raise awareness, these actions often have little tangible impact and may even be counterproductive. One pitfall of symbolic resolutions is that they have no practical outcome because city councils do not influence federal policy. The resolution becomes performative - more to entertain and appease than to be useful.
The public may perceive the city council as inefficient if they prioritize symbolic gestures over concrete local improvements, especially when roads are in need of repair, causing more wear and tear on residents’ vehicles, and therefore higher personal cost.
Also, city councilors who focus their time and energy on international or other out-of-scope projects erode trust from their constituents, as they seem to be participating in politically-motivated stunts.
What Should a City Council Do Instead of Presenting an Out-of-Scope Resolution?
Instead of voting on out-of-jurisdiction resolutions, city councils can take more constructive approaches to influence broader issues.
They can encourage residents who give public comments about international issues to petition the authority at the relevant level of government for that issue. City councilors might educate their constituents and teach them about the roles of different levels of government.