HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-30-2011 Election Voter Information GuideCounty of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
Special Election
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Voter I nformation Guide
. This is a mailed ballot election. Your OFFICIAL BALLOT along with
this Voter lnformation Guide are contained in your Vote-By-Mail
(VBM) packet. There is no sample ballot in this booklet since your
OFFICIAL BALLOT is included. lf you desire a copy of the ballot
for your use, you can download one from
www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk or call781-5228 to request one to be
sent to you. This willbe the only'officialmailing
. The deadline for return of Vote-By-Mail ballots is 8:00pm, Tuesday,'
August 30, 2011. On Election Day you can return your ballot to any
Official Ballot Drop-Off Center (listed on the back cover of this
booklet) between 7:00am and 8:00pm. Ballots received after
8:00pm, August 30, 2011 WILL NOT BE COUNTED.
. Unable to return your ballot? lf you are unable to return your
ballot because of illness or other physical disability you may
designate only your spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild,
brother, sister or a person residing in your household to return it for
you by printing their name and having them sign their name on the
lines provided on the l.D, Return Envelope.
. Vote by Mail Look-Up on the Web: Check the status of your
returned VBM ballot on the lnternet at www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk
e\
$
\
G
$
\
Vote By Mail lnstructions to Voters
Use any black or blue colored pen or pencilto mark your ballot. Follow the
"lnstructions To Voters" on your OFFICAL BALLOT to vote on the
measures of your choice.
WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED VOTING:
1. Tear off the stub, fold the ballot, seal it in the LD. Return Envelope, read
Declaration of Voter and sign your name in the space provided - your
signature must look similar to the original signature on your Affidavit of
Registration - DO NOT PRINT YOUR NAME.
2. lf you are unable to sign, you must mark an "X" and have it witnessed by
one other person. No one else may sign for you. New legislation allows the
use of a signature stamp if it was used on your Atfidavit of Registration.
Contact the Elections Office a|781-5228 for more information.
3. Write your residence address as registered (not mailing address) and
the date on the lines provided.
4. Affix first class postage and mail your ballot by Thursday, August 25,
2011, or sooner, to ensure that it anives by Election Day - August 30,
2011. You may also return your ballot in person to the County Clerk-
Recorder's Office, 1055 Monterey Street, #D120, San Luis Obispo (8am to
5pm, Monday - Friday), On Election Day, you may return your ballot in
person at any of the Official Ballot Drop-Off Centers listed on the back
cover of this booklet between 7:00am and 8:00pm.
You may vote and return your ballot as soon as you receive it - you do not
have to wait until Election Day. However, be aware that once your voted
ballot is returned to the Elections Office, either in person or by mail, it is
considered "in the ballot box'and may not be retrieved.
Spoiled Ballot? lf you made a mistake, tore or defaced any portion of your
ballot, replace the spoiled ballot in the l.D. Return Envelope and follow the
instructions on the envelope to receive a replacement ballot either by mail
or in person.
VOTER'S PAMPHLET INFORMATION SECTION
The Following Pages Contain Voter lnformation Applicable to your Ballot
: ifiI|%MEASURES. ARGUMENTS, PRO&CON
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PROPOSED LAWSARE THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE A.11
RESOLUT|ON N0. 10264 (2011 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LIJF OEFPO bROCNNC rNE
SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITYA PNOPOSCO
CHARTER AMENDMENT AT AN ALL MAILED BALLOT SPECIAL MUNICiPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 30,2O11NS CIriiO
By RESoLUT|oN N0. 10263 (2011 SERTES)
. WH!|!!S, a SpecialAll Mailed Ballot Municipal Etection has been called on Tuesday,nrqy:!!9,_zo] 1 by Resorution No. 10263 (201 1 series), adopted on M ay it , zofi; and
, WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to lubmit a Charteiamendment to the
electoriate pursuant to the authority of Article Xiof the Constitution, tifl, 4, Division 2,
Chapter 3 of the Govemment Code, Division g, Chapter 3, Article g Gohmencing at section
9255) of the Elections Code of the State of California, CitV CfrarteiSeciions gO1 and 303,
and Ordinance Number 1559 (2011 Series); and
ryryEREA!' the City Council finds and declares that it is in the best interest of the City,
consistent with principles of sound management and fiscal responsiUitiry, and to the fullest
extent permitted by State law,,to vest in the duly elected Ciff iouncil final decision makinj
lulltotiry le.r.m{aggment of the City's contracts with the'Board of Administration of th!Califomia Public Employees Retirement System; and
WHEREAS, charter section 110b (Reiirement) cunenfly provides as follows:
The City Council shall be authorized to enter into a contnact with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of Califomia that shall
include all employees of rhe city of san Luis obispo, should G contract at any
time be broadened, the city council may have the contnact amended to provide
the improved coverage.
The Council may terminate the contract or negotiate another contract with reduced
employee coverage with the Board of Administration of ne puntic Employees
Retirement system only upon authority approved by a majority vote of the
electorate.
.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to submit to thevoters a proposed amendment of Section itos to eliminate ihe charter requirement forvoter approval to terminate the City's contnact with the Califomia Fublic'Employees
Retirement System or to negotiate another contract to provide reduced .rpioy.. retirement
benefits, but expressly to stale that the City Council retains the authority to enter into
contracts with CaIPERS and remains subject to other applicable state laws and CalpERS
rules with regard to any actions to amend, ierminate or negotiate other contracts.
-^I0ry1TI1EREFORE, THE clTY coUNclL oF THE ctTY oF sAN LUts OBtspo
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWSI
sEcTlON 1: The city councir of the city of san Luis obispo hereby proposes on itsown motion that an amendment of section 110b of the charter of the'cty'of san Luiiobispo be submitted to the voters at the All Mailed Ballot Spe.iaf frrfunicipal Election onAugust 30,zA11 , to read as follows:
The arguments are printed as submitted by the authors
The City Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of Califomia that shall
include all employees of the City of San Luis Obispo, The City Council may
terminate or amend its contract or negotiate another contract to provide improved
or reduced employee benefits only in accordance with state law and as permitted
by the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System.
SECTI0N 2: That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order
submitted to the votens at the All Mailed Ballot Special lrlunicipal Election to be held on
Tuesday, August 30, 2011, the following question:
SECTION 3. That he City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to
file witten argumenb in favorof ffre measure in rccordance with Artide 4, Chapter3, Division 9
of ffte Elections Code of the State of Califomia and to change the argument until and induding
the date fixed by the City Clerk after whlch no argumenb for or against the rneasure may be
submitted to he City Clerk.
SECTION 4 That he City Council direcb the City Cbrk to fansmit a opy of the measure
to the City Attomey, who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing frre effect
of he measure on the existing law and the openation of the measure. The irnpartial analysis
shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for he filing of pdmary arguments.
SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution or 0rdinance Number
1559 (2011 Series), the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding
municipal elections.
SECTION 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTI0N 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of tris resolulion.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and Clerk-Recorder,
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and
on the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and
Mayor Max
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17t day of May 2011,
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE A.{1
Cunently, the City of San Luis Obispo contnacts with the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Califomia (-Ca|PERS") for the purpose of providing City employees and retirees
with retirement benefits. As a CaIPERS contracting agency, the City is required to comply
with the provisions of the Califomia Public Employees Retirement Law (-PERL"). PERL
establishes the authodty for public agencies to contnact with CaIPERS, establishes the
benefit formulas under which contracting agencies may choose to provide retirement
benelits to their employees, and dictates whether and how contracting agencies may
terminate or make changes to contnacb with CaIPERS affecting the retirement benefits of
employees or retirees of the contracting agency,
Similar to existing state law, City Charter Section 1105 provides that the City Council shall
be authorized to enter into a contract with CaIPERS to provide retirement benefits to
employees and to amend the contract to provide improved coverage. However, Section
1105 also provides that "[t]he Council may terminate the contnact or negotiate another
contract with rcduced employee coverage,..only upon authority approved by a majority vote
of the electorate," By that language, Section 1105 rcquires that the City Council hold an
election and obtain majority voter approval to terminate its contract with CaIPERS or reduce
employee covenage, Absent the voter approval requirement of Section 1105, the City
Council would be authorized to take these actions, in accordance with applicable state
retirement and labor relations laws, without majority voter approval,
lf approved, this measure would amend the City Charter to elirninate the requirement that
the City Council hold an election and obtain voter approval to terminate its contract with
CaIPERS or to negotiate another contract with reduced employee benefits, lf approved, the
amended Section 1105 would provide that the "The City Council may terminate or amend ib
contract or negotiate another contract to provide improved or reduced employee benefits
only in accordance with state law and as permitted by the Board of Administration of
PERS,' The amended Section 1105 would retain language acknowledging the Cit/s
obligations to comply with PERL and other existing and future state laws, but would vest
final authority over approval of all contracts between the City and CaIPERS in the City
Council, rather than the electorate,
This measure, if approved, would not terminate, alter, or amend any existing City contract
with CaIPERS and would not change any retirement benefit or formula cunently provided by
the City to its employees.
A 'yes" vote would amend the City Charter to eliminate the requirement that the City
Council hold an election and obtain majority voter approval to terminate or amend its
contracts with CaIPERS to provide reduced employee benefrts.
A "no" vote would reject the amendment of the City Charter and retain the requirement that
the City Council hold an election and obtain majority voter approval to terminate or amend
its contracts with CaIPERS to provide reduced employee benefrts.
s/ J. Christine Dietrick
City Aftorney
City of San Luis Obispo
ShallSection 1105 (Retirement)of the San Luis Obispo Charter, which
authorizes he City Council to enter into a contract with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), be
amended to provide that the City Council may terminate or amend its
contnact or negotiate another contract to provide improved or reduced
employee benefib only in accordance with state law and as permitted by
the Board of Administration of PERS?
No
Yes
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A.I1
The San Luis Obispo City Courrcil uryes you to vote YES on Measure A. lt will provide
Council the flexibility to negotiate lower pension benefits for new employees, negotiate
greater pension cost shadng with all employees, and create other cost containment options,
Now, Council has to wait for an election to make pension changes and implement cost
savings measures.
Pension cosb are out of control, Five yearc ago, San Luis Obispo spent $4.9 million on
pensions. Last year, we spent $7.9 million. ln five years, without conective action, the City
will spend at least $10.5 million, 200/o of our General Fund. That's more than we cunently
spend on our Fire Department, Public Works, or Parks & Recreation,
Why are pension costs so high? Because pension brmulas are too high. Police officers
and lirefighters can retire at age 50 with pensions that equal up to 90% of their highest year
of eamings. Other employees can retire at age 55. A 30-year police officer retiring today
receives a pension of at least $93,000. A 30-yearfirefighter, at least $70,000. A 3O-year
administnative assistant, $44,000. There are cunenfly fifteen retired City employees
receiving pensions worth over $100,000 a year.
Most residenb have only Social Security,and their own savings to rely on. The standard
Social Security rethernent age is now 66 and the cunent average annual benelit just
$14,000.
Measurc A does not change City Council's commitment and legal obligation to provide
pensions to employees. But it does allow Councilflexibility to negotiate lower pension costs
and rcasonable pension benefits in order to actieve long term fiscal sustainability. This is
why it enjoys the support of a broad coalition of city residents.
The San Luis Obispo City Council urges you to vote YES on Measure A.
To leam more, visit wwwCitizensForSlO.org
s/ Jan Man, Mayor
s/Andrew Carter, Council Member
REBUfiAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A.{1
Measure A, if apprcved, will take away your right to vote on the public employee pensions
negotiated with all city employees. Cunent law requires that when City Council prcposes
changes to pensions that votens have the right to democntically approve or deny their
proposal, Now the city council wants to take away your voice and rights to approve their
spending plans, including first responders and firefighters.
The truth about firefighter retircment benefits:
'/ SLO Firefightens do not receive social security benefits. This is a cost savings to
the city (the city does not pay the 6+% payrolltax), but also rneans this popular
benelit available is not available to firefighten.
r' SLO Firefighters work a 56 hour work week - 40% more than the aveftlge full-time
worker, including 2448 hour shifts and are "open" 365 days a year,
'/ SLO Firefightens often have early retirement ages due to the extremely dangerous
and strenuous nature of the job, which leads to high rates of injury and illness,
percentage of disability and early life expectancy) in exchange for increased salary
or other benefits.
r' Younger firefighters always pay morc into the retirement system than cunent
retires did, ensuring longterm viability.
Measurc A does not change the cunent pension system for city employees and firefightens -
it simply takes away residents' rights to vote to approve or deny proposed changes. Don't
give up your dght to vote - Vote No on Measure A
s/ Erik S. Baskin, President, IAFF 13523 San Luis Obispo City Firefightens
s/ Jack O'Connell
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A.1 1
Measure A is a mean-spirited political maneuver to potentially restrict benefits to our public
safety workens. The SLO City Council wants sole authority to dictate and change pension
benefits and take away your right to vofe on retirement benefits available to our first
responders, firefighters, police officers and city employees, By changing cunent law in
which voters decide on future pension policy changes, the city will be gambling with its
ability to be competitive and able to attract, train, and retain the critical public safety officers
and other personnel that makes our community such a remarkable place to live and work,
Moreover, giving the City Council sole authority to dictate changes in pension plicies and
taking away voters' rights to decide issues which will affect our city's future budgetary healfr
sets a dangerous precedent.
This measurc would allow the City Council to remove all employees from the Public
Employees Retirement system (PERS) without cause, PERS is the public pension system
used by nearly all govemment employees in Califomia. Due to the large number of
participanb, PERS is able to provide comprehensive beneftts to city employees at a
significantly reduced rate versus private open market plans. lfs considered the standard in
Califomia municipalities and is significantly funded by employee ontributions, Participation
in the state standard plan allows the city to provide competitive benefits to ensure that we
continue to attract dedicated and well-trained first responders, firefighten, police, and city
employees.
Our firefighters are not just city workers, they are our neighbors, our friends, our children's
coaches and contributors both on and off the job to our commuility's safety and well-being.
Support your dedicated public safety pensonneland keep the power to make future pension
decisions in the hands of voters, not the City Council. Vote No on Measure A,
s/ Jack O'Connell
s/ Erik S, Baskin, President, IAFF 13523 San Luis Obispo City Firefighters
s/ Sheni Stoddard, RN, Director Region 3, Califomia Nurses Association/National Nurses
United
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A.1{
can you retire at age 50 with an annual pension worth up to g0% of your highest year of
eamings? San Luis Obispo police and firefighters can,
lf not 50, can you retire al 55? All other city employees can.
can you retire with a pension over $100,000 ayeafl Fifteen city employees akeady have.
ln the past seven years, pension costs have quadrupled - rising from $1.7 to $7.g million.
The city needs pension reform.
Without it, pension costs will continue to skyrocket and bleed the city budget, requiring
additionalcuts in basic services,
without it, pension costs will soon jump to more than $10.5 million, consuming 20% of the
budget. That's more than we cunently spend on basic services like Fire, Public Works, or
Parks and Recreation.
lf the ratio of pension costs per employee had remained constant, pensions would cost San
Luis Obispo $2.5 million loday, not $7.9 million. That's a savings of $5.5 million, more than
enough to balance the city budget.
Measure A will give our elected representatives - our City Council - flexibility to negotiate
reasonable pension benefib for new employees.
It will allow Council to implement cost savings quickly, without waiting for an election. We'll
be able to do what SLO County, Mono Bay, and Santa Mada have already done.
It will NOT strip city employees of their pensions. lt is NOT an attempt to leave the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS); steep financialpenalties make that impossible.
Measurc A makes common sense.
Vote YES on Measure A.
s/ Lauren Brown, Retired scientist
s/ April Strong, Physical therapist
s/ Dan Hinz, Retired military
s/ Amy Kardel, Working mother
s/ Russ Levanway, Smallbusiness owner
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE B.1I
RES0LUTI0N N0.10265 (2011 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ORDERING THE
SUBMISSIOI{ TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITYA PROPOSED
CHARTER REPEAL MEASURE AT AN ALL MAILED BALLOT SPECIAT
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 30,2011
AS CALLED By RESoLUT|oN N0. 10263 (2011 SERTES)
WHEREAS, an All Mailed Ballot Special Municipal Election for the purpose of placing
two city measures before the voten has been called on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 by
Resolution No. 10263 (2011 series), adopted on May 17,2011;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to submit a Charter repeal measure to
the electorate punsuant to the authority of Article Xl of the Constitution, Title 4, Division 2,
chapter 3 of the Govemment code, Division 9, chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at section
9255) of the Elections Code of the State of Calihrnia, City Charter Sections 301 and 303,
and Ordinance Number 1559 (2011 Series); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares trat it is in the best interest of the City,
consistent with principles of sound management and liscal responsibility, and to the fullest
extent permited by State law, to vest in tr\e duly elected Cig Council final decision making
authority overand management of the city's empbyee agreements goveming wages, houn
or terms and conditions of City employment; and
WHEREAS, City Charter Section 1107 ("lmpartial and Binding Arbitration for San Luis
Obispo Police Officers Association and San Luis Obisp Firefighters Association, IAFF
Local 3523, Employee Disputes") cunenily mandates an"impasse resolution procedure for
disputes between the city and its public safety employees over wages, houns or tenms and
conditions of City employment, which diffens from the usual dispute resolution proc€ss
established by state law for public employees, and which removes final decision making
authority over such disputes from the city council, as set forth in relevant part below:(D) lmpasse Resolution Procedures.(1) All disputes, contovenies and grievances pertaining to wages, hours or
terms and conditions of City employment which remain unresolved after good faith
negotiations between the City and said employee organization shall be submitted to a
three-member Board of Arbitnators upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by
said employee organ2ation. upon declaration of impasse by either party, the city and
employee organization shall each exchange a written last ofier of settlement on each of
the issues remaining in dispute. Written last offer of settlement shall be exchanged
between parties wihin two days of Sre declaration of impasse,(2) Representatives designated by the City and representatives of the
employee organization shall each select and appoint one arbitrator to the Board of
Arbitnators within three (3) business days after either party has notified the other, in
witing, of the declaration of impasse and the desire to proceed to arbitnation. The third
member of the Board of Arbitrators shall be selected by agreement between the City's
and the employee's organization representative within ten (10) business days of thd
declaration of impasse, This trird member shall serve as the neutnal artitiabr and
Chairperson of the Board. ln the event that the City and the employee organization
cannot agree upon the selection of ttre neutral arbitrator within ten (10) business days
from the date that eitner partv nas notified ttre other that it has declared an impasse'
either party may then
"d;titdq+t_Mediation
and Conciliation Service of the State
of califomia Department of lndustrial Relations to proyidg a list of seven (7) persons
who are qualilied *O r*p.ti.n*O .i f.not arbitrators' lf the arbitratons selected by the
city and the employee organizaion cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of
such list on one of ttte se'*n tZl to act as tni tnirO arbitrator, they shall have five (5)
business days to anematerv #i6 n.ttr, *r3l.th.t City's arbitrahr striking first' from the
list of nominees untit one riaile i.t.int and that person shall then become the neutral
arbitrator and Chairpenson of the Board of Arbitrators'--ibj.' - dt lutr.tion proceeding convened pursuant to.this Article shall be
conducted in conformanie witi.t, iulj.cito, and-governed u1 tittg 9.of Part 3 of the
C.iii..ir C.Oe of Civil P*;J..i".'The Board of Arbitrators shall hold public hearings'
receive evidence trom ine parties and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be
prir"o. in, Board ;i Afuit rt " may adopt by unanimous consent such other
lri.Ouirr tnat are designed to encourage an ag,reehent between the parties' expedite
[f', ,rLitotion hearing pti.ets, or reducethe costs of the arbitration process'
(4) tn tne eveni ni .g*rcnt is reached prior to the conclusion of the
arbitration hearings, ne Board ot-Atoitt too shall direct each of the parties to submit'
within such time limit as inJ goarO of Arbitrators may establish, !u| nof to exceed thirty
i3dfiij;;r; days, a last offer of setlement on each of the remaining issues in dispute.
The Board of Arbitrators-sr,aiioe.ioe each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever
last offer of setilemeni ilth.t issue it finds most nearly conforms to those factors
traditionally taken into consiUeiation in the determination oi wages, hours' benefits and
terms and conditions fiilli; ;d private employment, including;. but not limited to the
irirrtrirg, .t"nges in the average consumer priie index for goods and services using
the san Francisco-oakland-san Jose index, as reported at the time pPasse is declared
for the preceding nn fu.-tiil months, the wages, hours, benefits a,nd terms and
conditions of emptoyment'oi'emptoyees perforiring similar services in comparable
cities; and tne nnanciai'coniition ,iitt'. City of San luis Obispo and its ability to meet
the costs of the decision of the Board of Arbitrators'
"'" iul
- " iftil;;;r'i.g . dt.itig., the,Board of Arbitrators shall mail or otherwise
oetiier a true copy ot i15 oeiiiion to tre parties. The decision of the Board of Arbitrators
shall not be publicly ffib*d and shall not be binding until ten (10).days afterit.is
delivered to tne parties.-ffiil thrit* (10)day period ihe parties shall.meet privately'
;tilpi to ;sofve tnei,-Oitfe[nces, anb 6y niuiuat agreement.?o.y or modify the
decision of the Board of Rrlitratons. nt the conclusion of the ten (10) qay period, which
may be extended UV tnutu.i tgteement between the parties, the decision of Board of
Arbitrators, as it may nr n*oin.o or amended bythe parties, shall be plblicly disclosed
and shatt be binding ;; ihil;tttt The C'rty.and tre employee organization shall take
whatever action is *;;;rry tr rany out and effectuate the arbitration award. No other
actions by the C1y c**iiot lV the'electorate to conform or approve the decision of the
AoarO of Arbitrators shall be permitted or required'
(6) rn, .*prnsrJ of rnv itlitration proceeding convened pursuant to this
Article, including the i.. t.tne sewitet of ttre chairperson of ttrq B99rd of Arbitrators
and the costs of prep'aratron of the transcript of the pioceedings shall be bome equally
by fte parties. The expenses of the arbitration, which the parties may incur individually,
are to be bome by the party incuning such expenses, Such expenses include, but are
not limited to, the expense of calling a party's witnesses, the costs incuned in gathering
data and compiling reports, and any expenses incuned by the party's arbitrator. The
parties may mutually agree to divide the costs in another manner.(7) The proceedings described herein shall supersede the dispute resolution
process for the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and tre San Luis Obispo
Firefightens Association which is set forth in Sections 13.2 and 14,1 of City of San Luis
Obispo Resolution No. 6620, to the extent that such language is in conflict with this
amendment, Furthermore, the proceedings described herein shall supensede any
language within the Employer-Employee Resolution, the Personnel Rules and
Regulations, any Memorandum of Agreement with the employee associations or any
written policy or procedure relating to wages, houns or otherterms and conditions of City
employment, to the extent that such language is in conflict with this amendment,
However, nothing in this section shall preclude the parties from mutually agreeing to use
dispute resolution processes other than the binding arbitration process herein set forth.
Nor, does it preclude the parties from negotiating, and submitting to the arbitration
process set forth herein, a grievance process, which includes a form of binding
arbitration that differs from the one, set forth herein,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to submit to the
voters a measure to repeal Section 1107 of the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo in its
entirety, the approval of which would result in the City's public safety employees being
govemed by the same State law dispute resolution procedures applicable to other
represented public employee groups,
NOU THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWSI
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby proposes on its
own motion that a measure repealing in its entirety Section 1107 ("lmpartial and Binding
Arbitration for San Luis 0bispo Police Officers Association and San Luis Obispo Firefighters
Association, IAFF Local 3523, Employee Disputes") of the Charter of the City of San Luis
Obispo be submitted to the voters at the Special All Mailed Ballot Municipal Election to be
held on August 30, 201 1.
SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order
submitted to the voters at the Special All Mailed Ballot Municipal Election on Tuesday,
August 30, 2011, the following question:
Yes
Shall San Luis 0bispo Charter Section 1107 ('lmpartial and Binding
Arbitration for San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and San Luis
Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, Employee Disputes")
be repealed in its entirety, leaving resolution of disputes over wages,
hours, or working conditions, which remain unresolved after good faitr
negotiations between the City and the two covered organizations, subject
to the same State law procedures for impasse resolution that govem
other
No
SECTION 3. That tre City Council authorizes any and all membens of the City Council to
file writen aryumenb in favor of fre measure in accordance witr Article 4, Chapter 3, DMsion 9
of tre Elections Code of the State of Califomia and to change the aryument until and including
the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no argumenb for or against the measure may be
submitted to the City Clerk.
SECTION 4. That the City Council direcb the C'rty Clerk to fansmit a copy of he measure
to tlre City Attomey, who shall preparc an impartial analysis of the measure showing the efiect
of he measure on the existing law and the openlion of the measure, The impartial analysis
shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in ttris resolution or Ordinance Number
1559 (2011 Series), the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding
municipal elections.
SECTION 6. That notie of fre time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authodzed, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shallcertify to the passage and doption of this resolution,
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the San Luis 0bispo County Board of Supervisors and Clerk-Recorder.
Upon motion of Council Member Smith, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and
on the following vote:
AYES: Council Membens Carpenter, Carter, and Smith and Mayor Man
NOES: Vice Mayor Ashbaugh
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of May 201 1 .
IMPARTIALANALYSIS OF MEASURE 8.11
Under existing state law, cities are required to negotiate in good faith with employee
organizations representing public employees regading wages, hours, and terms and
conditions of employment, lf matters subject to negotiation cannot be resolved, impasse
may be declared, and the parties may agree to non-binding mediation to reach resolution. lf
no agreement is reached after impasse has been declared, and applicable state law
impasse procedures have been exhausted, the goveming body may implement its last, best
and final offer made during negotiations. Under existing state law, firefighters and police
officers are prohibited from striking.
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Resolution Number 6620 (1989
Series), establishing local requirements for impasse resolution with City employee groups,
ln 2000, the City of San Luis Obispo voters adopted initiative Measure S. That measure
added Section 1107 to the Chailer of the City of San Luis Obispo goveming the rcsolution
of labor disputes between the City of San Luis Obispo and its Police Officers Association
and Firefightens Association ("Police and Fire Associations"). Section 1107 requires
impasse resolution procedures different from those prcvided under state law and Resolution
Number 6620, Section 1107 requires disputes regarding tvages, hours, or terms and
conditions of employment that cannot be resofued tlrrough negotiations be submitted to an
independent three-member board of arbitrators for a final and binding decision.
Section 1 107 requires each party to submit a last offer of seftlement on each disputed issue
to the arbitntion board. By rnajority vote, the board selects and awards, on an issue by
issue basis, whichever party's last offer the board finds most nearly conforms with those
factons traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, houns, benefits,
and terms and conditions of public and private employment. The parties have ten days
after the arbitration award privately to attempt to agree upon any modilications to the award.
At the end of such ten day period, the arbitration award, as modified by the parties, is
publicly disclosed and becomes binding upon the parties. No further action of the Council
or the electorate is permitted or required.
Section 1107 prohibits the City from changing or eliminating any existing benefit or condition
of employment for the Police and Fhe Associations, unless such change is either the result
of a negotiated agreement between the City and the Associations or ordered by the board
of arbikators.
lf approved, this measure would repeal Section 1 107 and rcmove from the City Charter the
requirement that unresolved disputes between the City and the Police and Fire Associations
be submitted to an abitration board for final and binding decision. The City and the
Associations would be subject to existing state and local impasse resolution procedures.
A nyes" vote removes from tre City Charter the requirement trat unresolved disputes
between the City and the Police and Fire Associations be submitted to an abitration board.
A *no" vote retains in the City Charter the requirement that unresolved disputes between tlre
City and the Police and Fire Associations be submitted to an arbitration board,
sl J, Christine Dietrick
City AttornE
City of San Luis Obispo
ARGUMENT IN FAVOROF MEASURE B.It
Mandatory binding arbitration is unfairto local residents.
It lets an out-of-town arbitrator dictate pay and benefits for San Luis 0bispo police and
firefightens. The arbitnator doesn't live here, doesn't know our community, and doesn't need
to consider what must be cut from the budget to finance the award, The arbitrato/s
decision is final and can't be overtumed.
lthen residenb voted in binding arbitration, they couldn't have imagined the cornsequences.
Now they know, alltoo well.
ln 2008, an out-of-town arbitrator gave San Luis Obispo police an unbudgeted $4 million
increase over four years - that's a 30% pay raise when inflation was only 11%, Many
officen got an additional22o/o naise for years of service. The on-going annual cost of that
award is $2.5 million, which represents more than half the City's cunent structunal budget
gap.
Due to the awad, City Council had to eliminate $1,6 million in street and sidewalk
improvements, $600,000 in flood protection projects, $300,000 in parks and open space
projecb, and $500,000 in public sifety projects, including hrrro hoped for neighborhood
police officens. Higher per officer pay meant fewer officen on the streel.
Before the award, San Luis Obispo police were the highest paid in the counff. Now, they're
paid more than Los Angeles police.
Califomia courts have ruled binding arbitnation unconstitutional for general law cities, Only
Charter cities, like ours, can adopt it, Only 21 of 482 Califomia cities have adopted binding
arbitration, ft has recently been repealed by the votea in two cities. You can make that
three, if you vote YES on Measure B.
Binding arbitration takes decisions about the City's budget out of the hands of local elected
ofiicials responsible to you, the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Restore local decision making
and local fiscal responsibility. Vote YES on Measure B.
To leam more, visit www.CitizensForSLo.org
s/ Jan Max, Mayor
s/Andrew Carter, Council Member
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B.I1
Binding arbitration is a fair prccess that protects both our community and our first
responders. lf the city and public safety responders are unable to reach a contract
agreement, including working conditions, staffing levels or compensation, either party may
request an independent third-party arbitrator to resolve the dilemma. This ensures that
critical ftre and police resources are not intenupted and the community remains safe and
protected. Arbitraton must consider the city's ability to pay employees based on revenues
and fiscal reserves, as well as using cities with similar cost of living, staffing ratios, and
other factors for comparison purposes.
Binding arbitration does not cost the city money, and repealing it will not impact the city's
budget, The Ciry Council wants you to believe that our fiscal shortfall is due to dedicated
public servanF who risk their lives protecting our families and property, while they decided
to spend over $110,000 on an unscheduled special election.
Firefighters and police officers continue to sacrifice pay and benefit increases and work with
city govdmment to be part of the solution as the city heals ib budget gap. Don't be fooled
by this attempt by the City Council, voters spoke loud and clear when they voted to adopt
binding arbitration in response to recent extended impasses between the city and public
safety, Let's work togetrer to restore our economh vitality, and ask the City Council to
continue to make our cornmunity's safety their top priority - Vote No on Measure B.
s/ Erik S. Baskin, President, IAFF 13523 San Luis Obispo City Firefighters
sl Jack O'Connell
s/ Don A. Emst
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE 8.1{
Binding arbitration is an efficient resolution tool that was enacted by a significant majority of
SLO City voters in 2000 and defines a fair negotiating prccess for our first responders.
Prior to binding arbifation, first respondens, lirefighters and police often went years with
unresolved contract issues, There was no incentive for both sides to fairly negotiate to
reach a timely and just resolution and impasses that affect public safety dragged on
extensively leaving the public vulnerable,
Our priority is keeping the community safe and ensuring that first responders, flrefighters
and police are able to respond quickly and appropriately to all emergencies and protect the
health and safety of our community, Binding afiitration allows the city or the firefighten or
police officers to request an outside arbitrator who must consider factors like the city
finances, the last offers at the bargaining table, and other issues that affect response times
and public safety if a resolution cannot be reached in regular negotiations. That prcvides
the city, the firefighters and cops a level playing field and incentive to negotiate contracts
that affect our community's ability to react and respond to emergencies efficienfly and in
good faith.
Now the Ctty Council wants fo ovenide an initiative passed by the voters of SLO and s
spending over $100,a00 of taxpayer dollars on a special electian, which only wonsens the
city's fiscal woes and the results of which won't affect the budget at all. Please continue to
support your firefighters and cops and tell the city to stop playing games and get to work on
solving our real fiscal problems like helping our city's economic recovery, Public safety
workers will continue to be partners in solving the budget deficit, but playing games with our
community's health and safety cannot be tolerated. Vote No on Measure B,
s/ Jack O'Connell
s/ Erik S. Baskin, President, IAFF 13523 San Luis 0bispo Ci$ Firefighters
s/ Don A. Ernst
s/ Sheni Stoddard, RN, Director Region 3, Califomia Nurses Association/National Nurces
United
s/ Katcho Achadjian, Assemblyman
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B.1 1
Do you make more than you would if you worked in Los Angeles? San Luis 0bispo police
officers do.
Did you receive a 30% cost of living increase between 2006 and 2009? SLO police officers
did, ln fact, many received increases ol57To when years of service were included.
This, in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression,
Why? Because of mandatory binding arbitration,
An outof-town arbitrator gave police these enormous increases even though inflation was
only 11%, our police were already the highest paid in the county, and unemployment was
skyrocketing as the economy crashed.
You'd think binding arbitration was "faifl if you received these huge raises. lf you had to pay
for them, you wouldn't, All city residents had to pay, and we're still paying - an extra $2.5
million yearly.
Did the out-oftown arbitrator consider the City's ability to pay? No, not short of bankruptcy.
He didn't care what had to be cut to cover these increases - $1,6 million in streets and
sidewalks, $600,000 in flood protection, $300,000 in parks and open space, and $500,000
in public safety.
Did binding arbitration make our community safer? No. lt meant fewer police officens on
the street because the City had to cancela planned nighttime neighborhood police patrol.
Binding arbitration is unfair to local residents. We urge you to repeal it. Thafs the only way
to restore local decision making and insure long{erm financialstability for San Luis Obispo,
Vote YES on lileasure B.
s/ Dave Romero, Former Mayor
sl Ken Schwartz, Former Mayor
s/ John Ewan, Former Council Member
s/ Paul Brcwn, Former Council Member
s/ Christine Mulholland, Former Council Member
Replacement ballots will be available at these locations in case your ballot
is lbst or misplaced.
San Luis Obispo Grange Hall
2880 Broad Sf.
San Luis Obispo
Zion Lutheran Church
1010 Foothill Blvd
San Luis Obispo
Countv Clerk-Recorder
1055 illonterev St D120
San Luis Obisilo
REASONS WHY YOUR BALLOT WOULD NOT BE COUNTED
1. lt arrives after 8:00 p,m. Election Day, August 30,2011 '
Postmark is not acceptable.
2. The l.D. Return Envelope is not signed,
3. The signature on the LD. Return Envelope does not match the
signature on the voter's Affidavit of Registration.
4. The ballot is returned by someone other than the voter or voter's
authorized agent.
5. The ballot is returned without the LD. Return Envelope.
6. Your ballot contains distinguishing marks (i.e. your name or
notations other than to indicate your vote)
ASSISTANCE FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED VOTER: FOTthE VISUAIIY
impaired, audio tapes of the Ballot Measures are available from the
Elections Department, 781-5080.
AUTOMARK: The AutoMARK ballot marking device willonly be available
for use at the County Clerk-Recorder's Office at 1055 Monterey Street in
San Luis Obispo, beginning August 8 (8a.m. to 5p.m.) through Election.
Day, August 30,2011 (7a.m.-8p.m.). The marking device is designed to
assist voters with disabilities, such as vision or dexterity impairments, in
marking their ballots. Call for more inform ation, 7 81 -5228.
Cono. United Church of Christ
11245 Los Osos Valley Rd
San Luis Obispo
Creekside MH Park- CommunitY Rm
3960 S. Hiouera St.
San Luis O"bispo