Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeasures S & T, Analysis, Arguments.r/ '/ ,,' /4 /;- f !" 4 ,:-,r. -=_-^-*:o-l(j Newspaper of tht Central Coast 3825 South Higuera . Post Office Box 112 . San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112. (805) 781-7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AD #5338089 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CLERKS OFFICE TFTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of San Luis Obispo ss. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily Sundays excepted at the City of San Luis Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice at which the annexed clippings is a true printed copy, was published in the above-named newspaper and not in any supplement thereof - on the following dates, to-wit AUGUST 5, 2000 that said newspaper was duly and regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code of the State of California. I certify (or deelare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. < (of Principal Clerk) Date: ,A.UGUST 5, 2000 AD COST $62.21 measures: Measure S Shall the San Luis Obispo City Charter be amended to pro- vide that disoutes about wages, hours ahd other terms and conditions oi emolovment thiat cannot be resolved by negot- iations between ihe'City and the Police Oflicers' Association anO tne fireliqhters' tjnion be subiect to binding arbitration lhat is linal without City Council or voter approval? MeasureT t s'nJilne' ;raxoaver's Fliohl.to Decide" be enacted, amendfng the, citv's Chaitei to ensire fiscal accountability to the San' Luis O'bisoo citizens bv requiting voter approval of any bind: ino arbitrdtiori award that imposbs a linanclal burden greater itrin the lncrease in the loial cost'ol.llving or the Cllyls linal otfer, whichever is greatbr, limlting binding arbftration.to 6al' arv 6nlv. and enactlnq other provisions to implement binding ar6itratidn il it is approved by Measure S? the hours of 7:00 a.m. and S:00 P.m. City Glerk 5338089 no. i, YES NO yEs Ssan 'Wru The polls will be open betwden Dated: August 2,2000 /s/ Lee Prlce,.CMC August 5,2000 Notice is hereby City of San Luis AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE S BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY ATTORNEY Under existing statutes, firefighters are prohibited from striking while performing their official duties, and police officers are similarly limited under case law. The City is also required by law to negotiate in good faith with the employee organizations representing public safety officers about wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. This measure would amend the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo relating to the resolution of labor disputes between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Police Officers Association and Firefighters' Association ("Police and Fire Associations"). Under existing law, when agreement is reached between the negotiating representatives, the agreement is put in writing and presented to the City Council. If matters remain in dispute and impasse is declared, the employee organization may request mediation, and if mediation does not resolve the impasse, advisory arbitration is conducted. If no agreement is reached and impasse procedures have been exhausted, the Council may adopt and implement the City's last best offer. This measure would require that all unresolved disputes pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for the Police and Fire Associations be submitted to an independent three-member board of arbitrators for a final and binding decision. This measure would also prohibit the City from changing or eliminating any existing benefit or condition of employment for the Police and Fire Associations unless such change is either the result of a negotiated agreement between the City and the affected association or ordered by the three-member board of arbitrators. The City and the affected association would each select one arbitrator. The third arbitrator would be selected in accordance with the procedure set forth in the measure. The arbitration would be conducted in accordance with certain provisions of the code of Civil Procedure. This measure would require that each of the parties submit a last offer of settlement on each of the disputed issues to the arbitration board. By majority vote, the arbitration board would select and award, on an issue by issue basis, whichever of the last offers the board found most nearly conformed with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, benefits, and terms and conditions of public and private employment (including, but not limited to changes in the consumer price index using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index, the wages, hours, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services in comparable cities, and the financial condition of the City and its ability to meet the cost of the award). The parties would have ten days after the arbitration award to privately meet and attempt to agree upon any modifications to the award. At the end of such ten day period, the arbitration award, as modifed by the parties, would be publicly disclosed and become binding upon the parties. ) Expenses of the arbitration would be borne equally by the parties. Expenses incurred individually by each party would be borne solely by the party incurring such expenses. City of San ARGUMENT IN FAVOR oF MEASURE s: "A Measure Amending The City Charter To require that Labor Dispufes Between The City Of San Luis Obr'spo and The Police Officers'Assocrafib n And Firefighters'Associafio n Be Resolved By Binding Arbitration." Police officers and firefighters risk their lives to assure that, in an emergency, we are protected. They face grave danger every day. All they're asking for in return is fairness. This Measure provides for impartialarbitration to resolve all disputes overwages, hours and working conditions that reach an impasse. The process is straightfonrard and fair. No strikes. No lawsuits. No special elections. Just a final and binding decision that everyone honorc and implements quickly. Police and firefighters have been working up to a year or mone without contracts, a condition that affects no other collective bargaining unit in the city. Ethically, police officerc and firefighters can't strike, so they work without contracts. Current city practices require police officers and firefighters to sometimes work at below minimum safe staffing levels, allow bulletproof vests to "expire" without replacement, and ignore minimum sleep requirements priorto returning to work. These issues relate directly to the health and safety of the public. This measure would allow these issues to be raised during contract negotiations. Under binding arbitration: Any police officer or firefighter who participates in a strike will be subject to dismissal. a o a o City Hall and public safiety employees are required to negotiate in good faith on all wages, hourc and working conditions. Only issues that are not agreed to in negotiations go to an arbitration hearing , which is open to public. A three-member Board of Arbitrators is selected: one by city Halt, one by employees, and the third by agreement of the first two. lf they can't agree on the third member, they select from a list of expert arbitrators provided by the state Mediation and Conciliation Service. All costs of the Arbitration are shared equally by both parties. Police and firefighters deserve fairness. Vote,,Yes" on Measure S. sl Jack O'Connell, State Senator s\ Ron Dunin, former Mayor s\ Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician s\ Sam Blakeslee, Businessman s\ Mike Hogan, Firefighter a o ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE S The Unions say current bargaining is unfair. Nothing is farther from the truth: o San Luis Obispo police and fire are already among the highest paid in our County. o Police and fire safety employees average $75,000-80,000 per year in salary, benefits and overtime. Over the past ten years, including a recession, City police officers and firefighters received raises totaling 34% and 40%, significantly more than the23oh Consumer Price Index increase during that same time. Wages and benefits paid for police and fire in our city's 2000-2001 budget is already a whopping $7.6 million. Measure S is about money. The Unions want more of it, and they want it to come out of YOUR checkbook. Measure S hurts citizens by jeopardizingthe city's ability to provide essential services such as senior programs, street maintenance, and parks: Measure S takes the power to approve salaries away from officials who are accountable to San Luis Obispo taxpayers and gives it to outside bureaucrats with no knowledge of our financial condition. a a a Measure S allows our city to lose control over 507o of its General Fund operating budget. Currently, you can vote Councilmembers out of office if you're unhappy with their decisions. Even a l%o additional arbitrator's award could force the City to use emergency reserves, increase taxes, or reduce other city services-and we're stuck with it. Measure S allows arbitrators with no public safety experience to make important decisions on how public safety services are delivered. Do you really want someone other than your local police or fire chief making these decisions for you? Only 20 of 475 California cities have binding arbitration. Measure S threatens our quality of life and city services. Don't let out-of{owners make these decisions for you-vote NO on S. David Cox, Chairman of the Board, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce John R. Ewan, Council Member Kenneth E. Schwartz, Council Member Sandi Sigurdson, Non-profit Administrator Bill Storm, Senior Advocate REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN F'AVOR OF'MEASURE S Measure S isn't about fairness. Measure S is an irresponsible power grab by the Unions for more money. Who loses? We do. Police/fire salaries already comprise $7.6 million of our City's budget. SLO taxpayers already pay top police, firefighters and paramedics $85,000/year in salary, benefits and overtime. Measure S isn't fair-it's greedy. Don't be misled by false and misleading information. The facts: Truth: Measure S allows out-of-town arbitrators to use expensive cost-of- living indexes from affluent cities like San Francisco and Palo Alto in making final salary awards. Truth: Measure S costs taxpayers money. Measure S doesn't require mediation-a less expensive form of dispute resolution-before intervention by arbitrators. Even a+1%o arbitrator's award can cause dramatic cuts in other City services. Truth: Expensive delays in the bargaining process have been caused notby the City, but by the Unions' foot-dragging on salary issues. Truth: Measure S permits untrained arbitrators with no public safety experience to make important decisions about your safety-including emergency deployment, training and equipment. Truth: The Unions' allegations are absolutely false. The City has never required below-minimum staffing levels or faulty equipment to be used. In a recent poll, SLO residents identified traffic congestion, responsible growth management, parking, and social services as our City's most important priorities. More than 213's of our citizens rate our award-winning City services as good or excellent. These services will be reduced if Measure S passes. Save Our Services-vote No on S. David Cox, Chairman of the Board, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce John R. Ewan, Council Member Kenneth E. Schwartz, Council Member Sandi Sigurdson, Non-profit Administrator Bill Storm, Senior Advocate ReeurrAL ro AncUMENT Acrurusr Mensune S The argument against San Luis Obispo's police officers and firefighters would be compelling if any of it were true. Problem is, this argument is typical of City Hall's treatment of our public safety personnel: when the facts aren't on the bureaucrats' side, they make them up. City Hall claims the average annual pay of police and firefighters is $80,000. When the standard benefit package and routinely required overtime pay is removed from this equation (calculated on a typical tenured public safetyemployee),theaVerageannualpretaxincomeis closer to $43,000. This is less than most bureaucrats make in the city's parking and sanitation departments. Average salaries are so low for SLO police and firefighters that more than 80% can't afford to live in the city. City Hall should be embarrassed lnstead, bureaucrats who've never spent a day in the field demean public safety personnel because they seek fairness and respect at the bargaining table and safer working conditions on the street. This is shameful. ln some 30 years of binding arbitration for California's public safety employees, taxes have NEVER been increased as a result. Binding arbitration is routinely agreed to by most people who buy property because it's a simple, inexpensive, proven method of conflict resolution. Measure S requires City Hall to bargain honestly. The bureaucrats' real objection is that Measure S provides neutral oversight of their actions. No wonder they're against it. You CAN fight City Hall! Vote "Yes" on Measure S. s\ Jack O'Connell, State Senator s\ Ron Dunin, former Mayor s\ Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician s\ Mike Hogan, Firefighter AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE T BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY ATTORNEY Measure T is a Charter amendment placed on the ballot by the San Luis Obispo City Council. This measure is in response to Measure S, an initiative Charter amendment sponsored by the Police Officer's Association and Firefighter's Association which would require that unresolved labor disputes pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment for the Police and Fire Associations be submitted to binding arbitration. This measure would only go into effect if it receives voter approval and if Measure S is also enacted by the voters. In such an event, any across-the-board salary increases resulting from an arbitration decision which is greater than the City's last offer of settlement will not become effective unless approved at an election by a majority vote. Arbitration would be limited to across-the-board salary increases only, and would not include other issues related to working conditions, management rights, employee discipline or other employee benefits, including the assignment or deployment of personnel. The measure specifically provides that the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index (CPD shall not be used as a factor by the arbitrator. Finally, mediation between the parties would be required prior to initiating a binding arbitration proceeding. If any provision or portion of the measure is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other portion, provision, or application of this measure. City City of San Obispo J D a a ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE T Measure T guarantees that we--the citizens of San Luis Obispo--have accountability and control over the quality of public safety services and how tax dollars are spent. Binding arbitration takes the power to approve salaries away from officials who are accountable to the public and familiar with our community, and gives it to outsiders with no knowledge of our City's financial condition. rr?If an out-of-town arbitrator is used to approve salaries, our City loses contro|,1over 50olo of our General Fund operating budget. Even a lYo additional arbitrator's award could force the City to use emergency reserves, increase taxes, or reduce other city services such as parks, senior services, and libraries. An arbitrator with no public safety experience could even make important decisions on how public safety services are delivered. We don't need or want binding arbitration. However, if binding arbitration is passed, Measure T guarantees safeguards for you, the taxpayer: Measure T protects your services and the City's financial health. Measure T prevents unnecessary disputes by requiring mediation before an outside arbitrator can be used. Measure T gives San Luis Obispo voters the right to approve an arbitrator's salary award if it is higher than the City's final settlement offer. Measure T protects your health and safety by insuring that important public safety decisions other than salaries, such as, emergency deployment, training and equipment will continue to be made by your local police and fire chiefs. The citizens of San Luis Obispo should decide what our City's priorities should be before any taxes are raised, or important services cut. Do you really want outside bureaucrats to make these critical decisions for you? Vote YES on Measure T, the Taxpayers Right to Decide. Cydney Holcomb, Neighborhood Advocate Jan Howell Marx, Council Member Pierre Rademaker, Local Business Owner Dave Romero, Council lVlember Dodie Williams, Former Council Member o o il{, ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE T: "A Resolution of the City Council Of the City of san Luis obispo, California, ordering the Submission of a proposed charter Amendment (The Taxpayers' Right To Decide) Regarding Yoter Approval Of Certain B inding Arbitration Decisions Relating To Labor Dispute s. " Thls so-called (Taxpayers R€ht To Decide" Msasure is a produet of City llall and it's bureaucrats. It's designed to destroy the Citizen Initiative, Measure S. irstead of a frnalo binding and impartial process, City Hrll proposes to substitute an arbitration dscision with Special Elections on labor contracts. Elections that will further delay the process and result in suhstantial taxpayer expeffre. Hall's measure and its potential delays would do nothing to impruve the performance police ollicers and firefighters. The costs of Speciat Etections will not improve the City's financial health. Instead of negotiation on allwages, hours and worHng conditiong City IIail wants to limit arbitratlon to salary only. City Hall's measure would uot allow arbitration of critical ilssues invglviry w_orking conditions, such as mlnimum safe stafling levels and rcplacement of expired bulletproof v€sts, leaving such iesue$ unresolved. City Hall claims that they are intercsted in othe highest standsrds for public service,. They also claim thoy are interested in the *financial health" of the City. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. This City Hall sponsored Measure doesn't try to help out the taxpayers. The Administratorc slmply don't want to lose any of their porver and contml. The Citizen's Initiativg ltleasure Sn assurcs that City Administrators witl not abuse their Prrwer when they ncgotiate with your potice oflicers and firelighters. City Hall,s coupter- arbitration measune would just allow Cify Administratons to conduct business as usual, What is really at stake is C,ty llall's beloted effort to undermine Measure S, the citiaen- inltiated measure. Polls show thrt citizens in San Luis Obispo and throughout California overrhelmingly favor an impartial process for resolving police ofricer anl firetighter lisputes for all wtgosr houre and working conditlons Why? Bocause it's fair rn-d it's impartial. Vote (Not on Measnre T s\ JackO'Connelln State Senator s\ Ron Dunin, former ltdnyor: s\ Dn Rene "Rick'Bravo, Pedirtriclan s\ Allen C. Haile, University Administrator s\ Mike lfogan, Flrefighter $b{ ReeurrAL ro AncUMENT lru FnvoR oF Mensune T MeasureTisafraud The only reason it was placed on the ballot is to try to deceive voters into defeating Measure S, the honest measure which brings fairness and respect to the city's police officers and firefighters. Measure S was placed on the ballot by more than 6,400 city voters who signed petitions supporting the city's police officers and firefighters. Measure T, on the other hand, was placed on the ballot by City Hall with little notice, during a "public hearing" which took place midday on a Friday to help insure it received as little public scrutiny as possible, and without the support of the public safety personnel it purports to regulate. Measure T is a dishonest attempt to fool voters into believing City Hall bureaucrats care about your police officers and firefighters. They don't. The bureaucrats know this. Police officers and firefighters know it. You should know it, too. Measure T guarantees nothing to the citizens of San Luis Obispo except a continuation of the one-sided, top-down style of labor management that has resulted in endless contract disputes, unsafe working conditions, and low pay for all but a few management employees in the Police and Fire Departments. Measure T is little more than a job-security recipe for bureaucrats who know nothing of the daily reality experienced by your public safety employees. Measure T is phony. Don't fall for it. Say no to political games. Say "Yes" to S. Say "No" to T s\ Jack O'Connell, State Senator s\ Ron Dunin, former Mayor s\ Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician s\ Allen C. Haile, University Administrator s\ Mike Hogan, Firefighter RECEIVED AUG - 7 2000 8LO CITY CLERKREBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT OPPOSING MEASURE T The Unions are engaging in scare tactics, misleading the public about their Measure S power-grab and our Measure T, the Taxpayers' Right to Decide. Here are the facts: Fact: Measure T was developed at the request of citizens concerned about the City losing conhol of over 50% of its General Fund Operating budget as dictated in Measure S. Fact: A citizens' committee of business leaders, neighborhood represent- atives, senior advocates, and policy experts helped develop Measure T. Fact: Measure T saves money and prevents protracted disputes by requiring mediation before an outside arbitrator is used. Fact: Measure T requires voter approval if arbitrators refuse to recognize local public spending priorities. Union-backed Measure S allows arbitrators to use expensive cost-of-living indexes from cities like San Francisco and Palo Alto for salary awards. Fact: Measure T allows important safety decisions to continue to be made by our Police and Fire Chiefs. Measure T prevents untrained arbitrators with No public safety experience from making decisions on emergency deployment, training and equipment. Fact: More than 200 California cities have gone on record to oppose binding arbitration, a 10-1 margin over cities that have approved it. Measure T protects our award-winning services from capricious, irresponsible salary awards-not by preventing arbitration, but through safeguards. Remember-even a +Lo/o arbitrator's award can force the City to reduce other services, such as parks and senior services. Wouldn't you want to have safeguards before such a step is made? Vote Yes on Measure T. Cydney Holcomb, Neighborhood Advocate Pierre Rademakero Local Business Owner Dave Romeroo Council Member Dodie Williams, Former Council Member