HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2011, B1 - CONSIDERATION OF TIMING, SCOPE AND PROCESS FOR PLACING BALLOT MEASURES RELATING TO PENSION REFORM A council.
j acEnaa nEpout Im.N.b.81
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
J. Christine Dietrick, City Att
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TIMING, SCOPE AND PROCESS FOR PLACING
BALLOT MEASURES RELATING TO PENSION REFORM AND BINDING
ARBITRATION ON A FUTURE BALLOT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review information relating to the timing and logistics of placing two Charter amendments.
(one relating to pension reform and one relating to binding arbitration) on the June 2011
ballot, or a subsequent ballot, and provide staff direction by answering the following
questions:
a. Does the Council wish to place a ballot measure on a future ballot relating to pension
reform?
b. Does the Council wish to place a ballot measure on a future ballot relating to binding
arbitration?
c. Does Council wishes to place either measure on the.June 2011 ballot, or is a subsequent
ballot preferred?
d. What is the scope of any measure that the Council would like placed on a future ballot.
2. If Council wishes to place a measure or measures on the June 2011 ballot, assign a ballot
measure subcommittee to work with staff in drafting ballot language consistent with Council
direction.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City Charter currently includes two provisions that the Council has expressed an interest
considering for repeal or modification: Charter Section 1105 (Retirement), which contains a
voter approval requirement for benefits reductions under the City's current pension contract with
the California Public Employees' Retirement System; and Charter Section 1107, which requires
binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes between the City and the San Luis Obispo Police
Officers Association (POA) and the.San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523
(Fire Association). On February 15, 2011, the Council directed staff to place consideration of
options regarding this Charter provisions on a Council agenda to discuss the timeframes in which
ballot measures could be placed before the voters and the potential substance of measures on
which Council could provide direction to staff.
This report concludes that it is possible to prepare measures for consideration by the voters as
soon as the June 7, 2011 ballot. This report also outlines practical barriers to placement of
measures on the June 2011 ballot, including uncertainty about how and when the Governor may
B1-1
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 2.
proceed with a State election and uncertainty and challenges regarding the need to engage labor
groups in discussions about potential impacts on wages, hours and working conditions associated
with the placement of Charter amendments on the ballot. In this context, alternative dates on
which measures could be brought forward for voter consideration have been provided.
Finally, the cost and timing associated with election options are outlined, with costs ranging from
a low of approximately $49,000 to a high of approximately $136,000, not including costs that
could be associated with challenges to any particular course of action and supplemental staff
support for the City Clerk's Office.
BACKGROUND
During its February 15, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed staff to call a special meeting for
the Council to discuss its options for placement of Charter amendments regarding pension reform
and binding arbitration measures on an upcoming ballot. Based on Council direction, this report
outlines:
A. Background of the City's Charter provisions and actions in other cities;.
B. Elections timelines and logistics;
C. Substantive alternatives for possible form of measures;
D. Common practices related to ballot measures; and
E. Reasonably foreseeable costs of proceeding with the preparation and placement of a
measure or measures on a ballot.
1. Pension Reform—Charter Section 1105 (Attachment 1)
The City currently participates in the California Public Employees Retirement System (Ca1PERS)
via a contract with the Board of Administration of Ca1PERS to provide a defined benefit pension
to all covered City employees. These defined benefit plans guarantee a benefit amount based
upon a "formula" that considers retirement age, years of service credit, and final compensation
for two groups of employees: sworn fire and police employees ("Safety") and all other employees
("Miscellaneous").
The City Charter, Section 1105, provides as follows:
1.105 Retirement.
The City Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of California that shall
include all employees of the City of San Luis Obispo. Should the contract at any time be
broadened, the City Council may have the contract amended to provide the improved
coverage.
B1-2
1
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 3
The Council may terminate the contract or negotiate another contract with reduced
employee coverage with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System only upon authority approved by a majority vote of the electorate.
A review of the City Clerk's records on this provision suggests that the language, in its current
form, was implemented as partof a larger committee revision of the entire Charter in 1978. Prior
to that time, similar but less restrictive language existed in the Charter, as Section 1406
(Attachment 2), as follows:
The City Council is empowered to enter into a contract with the Board of
Administration of the California State Employee's Retirement System, as it now
exists or may hereafter be amended, making the appointed officials and employees
of the City of San Luis Obispo including the employees of the Public Library,
members of the Public Library, members of the said system. It is provided,
however, that the Council may terminate this contract with the Board of
Administration of the State Employees' Retirement System only upon authority
granted by an ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the electors of the City
voting on such a proposition at an election at which such proposal is presented.
There is no explanation in the Clerk's files of the changes made in the legislative history of the
Charter revision. Clearly, however, the current language is significantly broader in that it
requires voter approval not only to terminate the City's contract with CalPERS, but also to
implement certain changes to the contract resulting in"reduced employee coverage."
The language of the Charter is internally inconsistent and, without explanatory legislative history,
difficult to interpret. However, based on the analysis done this week, it appears that a change to
pension benefits-either via a new or amended contract with PERS would require a confirming
vote of eligible voters in the City. Iri this context, staff has reviewed the current Charter
language, as well as the prior language, in order to provide its best advice to Council on the
Charter requirements applicable to any two-tier pension reform measures. Given the ambiguity in
the Charter language, the safest and best opinion staff can provide is that the current Charter
language would require the additional step of voter approval prior to implementation of any two-
tier pension system negotiated in good faith with the City's labor groups..
2. Pension Reform Measures In Other Cities
The Cities of Pacific Grove, Menlo Park and San Jose all passed specific pension reform ballot
measures. Two of those measures have resulted in litigation that is not yet resolved.
In November 2010, the residents of the City of Menlo Park considered Measure L, which
proposed: "Shall the ordinance entitled `Measure to limit retirement benefits for new City of
Menlo Park employees (Except Sworn Police Officers) and to restrict City Council from
increasing benefits in the future without voter approval' be adopted?" Before the voters even had
the opportunity to vote on the measure, a lawsuit was filed to remove Measure L from the ballot
on the grounds that establishing compensation was a role solely for the City Council, and not
subject to the initiative process (Attachment 3). The City Attorney's impartial analysis also notes
B1-3
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 4 .
that provisions of the initiative could be inconsistent with the CalPERS program statutory
requirements. According to the media outlets, the court ruled that Measure L should be included
on the November 2010 ballot, but noted that the initiative could be in violation of state laws.
The lawsuit could be re-filed if the Measure passed. Measure L passed in November 2010.
There was no publicly available information regarding whether the lawsuit has been re-filed and
City staff has not yet received any response to a request for information from the Menlo Park
City Attorney.
3. Binding Arbitration- Charter Section 1107
The City Charter, Section 1107 (full text included as attachment 4), currently includes a
provision requiring binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes between the City and the San
Luis Obispo Police Officers Association (POA) and the San Luis Obispo Firefighters
Association, IAFF Local 3523 (Fire Association). This provision was incorporated into the City
Charter in 2000, following voter approval of a citizen initiative (Measure S) sponsored by the
POA and Fire Association (57.3%voting yes) (Attachment 5).
Key Elements of Binding Arbitration in the City Charter. The City is obligated by State law to
negotiate in good faith on all matters related to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment with all of its employee organizations. The Charter amendment passed in 2000
provides for binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process if agreement cannot be reached
during negotiations with the POA or Fire Association. Under that process, any unresolved issues
are submitted to an outside panel of three arbitrators to make final and binding decisions.' For
each issue that remains unresolved at the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the City
presents its final proposal and the employee association presents its final proposal to the panel of
arbiters. The panel, by majority vote on each issue, is required to select either the City's proposal
or the employee association's proposal. The arbiter panel is not permitted to craft a compromise
or craft a "middle ground" resolution of any disputed issue. The City is then obligated to
implement the arbitrator's decision. This differs from the process applicable to negotiations with
other represented groups. Absent binding arbitration, State law provides that if agreement cannot
be reached and impasse is declared, the Council may unilaterally implement the City's last, best
offer. The City and POA reached impasse and thus, used the binding arbitration twice since its
adoption by the voters, most recently in 2008. The City and Fire Association have not used the
binding arbitration procedure.
Key Elements of the Alternative Binding Arbitration Measure in 2000. In response to the
qualification of Measure S, the measure by which the voters ultimately approved the existing
binding arbitration provision, the City Council placed an alternative measure on the ballot,
Measure T (Attachment '6). The measure would have adopted a system of binding arbitration,
but with several key differences from Section 1107. Measure T would have limited arbitration to
salary increases and excluded other matters from the scope of arbitration. The measure also
The Charter provides that parties may mutually agree to modifications to the process outlined,and the City and the
POA did so in 2008,when impasse was declared and binding arbitration pursued. The parties agreed to have the
issues heard and decided by a single arbitrator,selected from a list through a"striking"procedure,rather than by the
three person panel consisting of one arbitrator chosen by each side, in addition to the third neutral arbitrator chosen
through the striking process.
B1-4
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 5
precluded use of San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index. The measure failed (61.46% voting
no).
What Have Other Cities Done With Binding Arbitration? Of California's approximately 117
Charter cities, approximately 24 have binding arbitration provisions governing public safety
employees. In 2010, the cities of San Jose, Stockton, and Vallejo all introduced measures to
repeal or modify existing binding arbitration provisions similar to our Charter provision
(Attachments 7). The measures in Stockton and Vallejo passed, resulting in the repeal of binding
arbitration in those cities. San Jose's measure proposed modifications that required any award to
be based primarily on the City's ability to pay without reducing other services, prohibited any
award that would create an unfunded liability, required the proceeding and documents exchanged
to be open to the public and precluded an award of retroactive benefits. That measure also
passed.
DISCUSSION
Elections Timelines and Logistics
In short, it is technically possible for the Council to place measures on the June 2011 ballot.
Council could also opt to pursue placement of ballot measures on the November 2011 ballot, any
special election called by the governor or any special municipal election that the Council wishes
to establish by ordinance. It appears that these conclusions would be true for both a polling place
election and an all mail election established by ordinance. A more detailed analysis supporting
these conclusions follows.
Elections Code and Charter Provisions.. San Luis Obispo City Charter Section 301 provides that,
"Unless otherwise provided by ordinance hereafter enacted, all elections shall be held in accordance
with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, as the same now exists or may
hereafter be amended." Section 302 of the City Charter establishes November of even-numbered
years as the City's General Municipal Election date to fill elective offices. Charter Section 303
provides that "[a]ll other municipal elections that may be held by authority of this Charter, or of
general law, or by ordinance, shall be known as special municipal elections." Thus, the City may
call elections at any regularly established election date under the Elections Code. Additionally, the
Council could call an election for a date other than those specified in the Elections Code,if it adopts
an enabling ordinance providing for a different special election date. An amendment to the City's
Charter may be submitted to the voters at a special election called for that purpose, at any
established municipal election date, or at any established election date pursuant to Elections
Code Section 1000. However, the election must be called at least 88 days before the election
date. June 7, 2011, is an established election date pursuant to Elections Code Section 1000 and,
therefore, a Charter amendment election may be conducted on that date. The last day to call an
election for June 7, 2011, is March 11, 2011.
Thus, the City may choose to set an election to consider one or more charter amendments on the
following dates in 2011: (1) June 7, 2011, (2) November 8, 2011, (3) any other date that the
Governor sets for a special election, or (4) any other date established pursuant to an ordinance
adopted by the City Council. However, as noted above, the.City must call the election at least 88
B1-5
j
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 6
days before the election date. As it pertains to the June 7, 2011, election date, there is a practical
problem posed by the 88 day minimum time period. The City must call a June 7, 2011, election
by March 11, 20 1.1, and will likely not yet know if the State will hold its special election on that
date because the Governor is not necessarily bound by the same time constraints as the City.
Additionally, if the City wishes to consolidate the election with the County, and the County is not
otherwise holding a June 7, 2011, election, the City will need to request consolidation with an
election that the County has not yet called. The City Clerk will consult with the County Clerk on
this issue to determine if it would be possible for the County to hold, and not reject, any
consolidation request until the Governor and the State Legislature make a final decision on the
Governor's proposed election.
Once submitted, the Council may amend or withdraw measures from the June 7, 2011, ballot
until March 16, 2011. Thus, if the City Council calls a charter amendment election on or before
March 11, the Council will have a short amount of additional time to reverse itself if the
Governor decides not to proceed with his election on June 7, 2011, and the Council does not
wish to proceed. Should the Governor call the election for June 7, the City would be able to
consolidate with the.County. The City would also need to establish the same time line/calendar
as stated in the Elections Code. This is necessary to allow for orderly conduct of an election.
All Mail Ballot Options. The Elections Code provides for specific circumstances under which an
all mail ballot may be conducted and provides that mailed ballot elections may only be conducted
on specific dates. Generally, a mailed ballot election must be held on the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in May of each year, which is May 3, 2011, or the last Tuesday in August of each
year, which is August 30, 2011.
While the Elections Code only authorizes mailed ballot elections under limited circumstances;
the limits of the Elections Code do not restrict a charter city from authorizing mailed ballot
elections for other purposes. The conduct of local elections is a municipal affair and the San
Luis Obispo City Charter provides that the City may, by ordinance, deviate from the provisions
of the Elections Code. Thus, staff believes that the City could adopt an ordinance to allow for
mailed ballot elections. If the City does so, this ordinance should state under what circumstances
or on what dates mailed ballot elections are permitted. Council should also direct the City Clerk
to consider whether Council should adopt some or all of the procedures of Elections Code
Section 4100 et. seq. to govern the conduct of mailed ballot elections.
Substantive Alternatives for Possible Form of Measures
If Council's objective is to remove the voter approval requirement for reductions of retirement
benefits from Charter Section 1105, then itappears that it could be possible to place such a
measure on the ballot within the timeframes dictated for a June 2011 ballot. However, because
of alleged meet and confer obligations implicated in this context, placement of a more detailed
measure is probably not feasible.
B1-6
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 7
1. Two Tier Pension or Other Pension Reform Measures
Charter Repeal or Modification. If Council wishes to amend or repeal Charter section 1105 to
remove ambiguity or additional voter approval requirements for reductions of benefits within the
City's CaIPERS contract, Council should provide direction to staff in that regard. Either a repeal
measure or a modification measure is feasible for the June 2011 ballot. Options include
modifying the measure to require voter approval only for termination of the contract or repealing
the measure entirely. In the latter case, modification of covered benefits and the Ca1PERS
contract are already governed by state law. Absent a Charter provision with greater requirements,
the City would simply be governed by general law on those issues.
Specific Pension Reform Alternatives. The City has a legal obligation to bargain in good faith
with its employee groups on matters involving wages, hours, terms and condition of employment.
Moreover, Public Employees' Retirement Law requires negotiation of matters within the scope
of that law (pensions and certain benefits) prior to the Board's approval of contract amendments
affecting a reduction in covered benefits. While several agencies had ballot measures implicating
or modifying pension requirements placed on the ballot last year, it is clear that some of them are
currently embroiled in litigation on those matters. A comprehensive analysis of the precise
elements of the measures that are subject to challenge, the legal bases for the challenges, and an
informed assessment of the merits of those measures and legal challenges was beyond the scope
of what staff could accomplish since the last Council meeting and would require significant staff
time. The interaction between various laws governing pensions and labor negotiations relating to
this relatively new type of ballot measure is complex. Should the council decide on a Charter
amendment to embed a certain benefit level into the Charter, there is a high risk of litigation in
this area as cities and their labor groups attempt to get clarification. As a result of this
uncertainty, staff does not feel it could prepare a quality, legally supportable ballot measure
targeted at affecting a concrete pension reduction in time for the June 2011 ballot. If Council
wishes to have further consideration given to such a measure, Council should provide staff with
direction on the objectives Council would be seeking to achieve through such a measure (i.e.
greater employee contributions to pensions, revision of the defined benefit structure, withdrawal
from PERS, modification of the retirement formula, etc.). Council should also provide direction
on the timeframe in which Council would like to have such information returned to them.
2. Binding Arbitration
Council should note that staff has heard from representatives of both the POA and Fire
Association asserting that state law requires the City to meet and confer with its labor groups
prior to Council placing a measure on the ballot regarding binding arbitration. It is not clear at
this point whether any disputes surrounding this issue could be resolved in the timeframe
necessary to meet the June 7, 2011 election timelines. Assuming that the City could resolve any
issues regarding compliance with potentially applicable State law requirements prior to calling a
June 7, 2011 election by March 11, 2011, there are several options available.
1. Repeal. If Council wishes.to pursue an outright repeal of Charter Section 1107,
the drafting of such a measure is very clear and does not require further detailed
direction from Council.
B1-7
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 8
2. Modification. If Council wishes to modify, rather than repeal Charter Section
1107, Council should provide direction to staff as to the precise provisions that
should be modified. Staff has provided two examples of possible modification
measures, from which Council may draw in providing its direction(San Jose and
Measure T). Other possible modifications that could be considered include: a
majority or supermajority Council award approval or rejection provision, rather
than voter approval; providing the arbitration panel with greater discretion to craft
compromise or"middle ground" awards, rather than simply choosing the proposal
of one party or the other without modification; defining more precisely the factors
that must be considered as part of an award; or limiting the application of the
Section to sworn police and firefighters, rather than extending the protection to
non-sworn personnel within the bargaining units. There is a potentially limitless
combination of factors that Council could direct to be included in a modification
measure. However, the more complicated the desired modification becomes, the
more difficult it becomes to draft in a legally sound and thoughtful way in a short
time frame.
Common Practices Related to Ballot Measures
Prior to a decision to place a measure on the ballot many local agencies conduct public opinion
research to determine the community base of support and/or areas of greatest interest before the
outset of the elections process. Agencies also may undertake community outreach efforts to
provide an educational foundation about an anticipated measure and facilitate broad-based and
centralized, common access to factual and historical information on an issue. Such research and
development of educational resources obviously could not be done in a timeframe to
accommodate the June 2011 ballot deadlines. Thus, if Council wishes to undertake such
activities with regard to either potential measure, Council would need to identify a subsequent
election date or consider potential special municipal election dates. Contracting with a
professional public opinion research firm typically costs about $25,000 and takes 60 to 90 days to
complete. If an educational effort is undertaken, the City could expend public resources for this
purpose ranging from no added funding up to $125,000, depending on the scope of the effort.
Lastly, in some cities an ad hoc stakeholder committee has been formed in order to advise the
City council on possible amendments and other aspects for their consideration concerning ballot
measures. The costs associated with these efforts usually include staff time and minimal related
costs, such as the expenses of copying, mailing, subject matter expert consultants, and food or
refreshments.
FISCAL IMPACT
A special election, conducted for the City by Martin & Chapman, election contractor, is
estimated to cost from $67,500 (All Mail Ballot) to $81,500 (Polling Place). This would be an
all inclusive cost that would cover the printing, postage, and mailing of ballots, consulting,
polling place supplies, ballot counting equipment, etc. Compensation for poll workers is not
included in this estimate, but staff is working to gather these costs.
81-8
i
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 9
The County Registrar of Voters Office has given an estimate of $49,000, if the County was to
conduct only printing and mailing of the ballots. The cost estimate for conducting an all-
inclusive election, including poll worker compensation and training is $136,100. If the County
conducts an all mail ballot election the cost would decrease by approximately 40%to $81,660.
The estimates above do not include City staff time, or additional assistance in the City Clerk's
office. In addition to contracting with Martin & Chapman during the April 2005 Special
Election, the City contracted with a retired City Clerk to assist with the internal operations of the
election. That was an additional cost of$21,000. It is likely that, regardless of whether the City
was to conduct the election itself or consolidate with the County, there will be additional staffing
costs incurred in the City Clerk's office. This ranges from $10,000 to $25,000.
Staff would also recommend anticipating challenges to various procedural steps throughout the
election process in the event Council elects to move forward. While staff will minimize outside
legal costs as much as possible, there may be circumstances in which staff will require the
assistance of outside counsel, either to balance internal workload or to address specialized
elections issues or challenges. Legal costs could be substantial.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Take No Action. The Council could take no further action regarding the City's binding
arbitration or retirement Charter provisions. Taking no action on the retirement provision does
leave ambiguity as to the required course of action with regard to any pension benefit reductions
or contribution increases that subsequently may be negotiated.
Z. Table the Matter. The Council could take no action at this time but reconsider its options if
and when a grassroots community effort emerges to amend the City's Charter relating to binding
arbitration and/or pensions.
3. Public Opinion Research. The Council could direct staff to enter into a contract with a
consultant to complete formal public opinion research regarding binding arbitration and/or
pension reform and return to Council with the xesults, which the Council could then use to
determine whether or not to take any further steps regarding a possible vote on the Charter
provision. Staff would estimate costs of such a survey at approximately $25,000, consistent with
prior similar efforts.
4. Stand Alone Election. The Council could choose not to complete public opinion research, but
decide to schedule a special election sometime between the June 2011 and November 2011 dates.
S. Consolidated Election. This is the same as Option 4 above except to defer the election to the
next regularly scheduled election in November 2012.
6. Pursue Only One Measure. Council may choose to defer or reject the placement of either
potential measure on a ballot and direct staff to proceed with preparation of only one measure for
placement on a ballot.
B1-9
Ballot Measure Consideration Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Charter section 1105
2. City Charter section 1406 from 1955 City Charter
3. Documents related to City of Menlo Park's initiative
4. City Charter section 1107
5. Measure S Materials
6. Measure T Materials
7. Documents related to initiatives from the Cities of San Jose, Stockton and Vallejo
B1-10
Charter Page 1 of I
ATTACHMENT
Section 1105. Retirement
The City Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of California that shall
include all employees of the City of San Luis Obispo. Should the contract at any time be
broadened, the City Council may have the contract 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 the Public Employees'
Retirement System only upon authority approved by a majority vote of the electorate.
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/SanLuisObispo/SanLuisObispoCH.html 2/18/9A-11
AITACHMENL
SAN LUIS OBISPO CHARTER PAGE 23
SECTION 1406. RETIREMENT, STATE SYSTEM.
, The City Council is empowered to enter into a contract with the
!e f Board of Administration of the California State Employee's Retirement
System, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended, making the appointed
officials and employees of the City of San Luis Obispo including the employ-
ees of the Public Library, members ,of the Public Library, members of the
said system. It is provided; however, that the Council may terminate this
contract with the Board of Administration of the State Employees' Retire-
ment System only upon authority granted by an ordinance adopted by a
majority 'vote of the electors of the City voting on such a proposition
t at an election at which such proposal is presented.
ARTICLE XV - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SECTION 1500. EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHARTER.
This Charter shall take effect from the time of the approval of the
same by the legislature.
SECTION 1501. GENERAL LAW APPLICABLE.
All general laws of the State applicable to municipal corporations,
now or hereafter enacted and which are not in conflict with the provisions
of this Charter or with ordinances or resolutions adopted in pursuance of
this Charter, shall be applicable to the City.
SECTION 1502. VALIDITY OF CHARTER.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Charter
is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or void, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining separable portions of this Charter.
The people of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declare that they would have
adopted this Charter and each section, sub-section, clause or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or void.
SECTION 1503. VIOLATION OF CHARTER AND ORDINANCES.
The violation of any provision of this Charter or of any ordinance of
the City shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and may be prosecuted by the author-
ities of the City in the name of the people of the State of California, or
may be redressed by civil action, at the option of said authorities. The
maximum penalty upon conviction for the violation of any provision of this
Charter, or of any ordinance of the City, shall be a fine of not exceeding
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for a term of not exceed-
ing one year or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person sentenced to
imprisonment for the violation of a provision of this Charter or of any
ordinance may be imprisoned in the city jail;. or in the county jail of the
county in which the City of San Luis Obispo is situated.
SECTION 1504. INCOME FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES.
All income derived from the operation and management of any public
utility by the City shall be devoted exclusively to the payment of the
expenses of operating, maintaining, improving or bettering such public
utility, and to the payment of any debts and interest thereon which may
have been incurred for the acquiring, improving, operating or maintaining
of such utility.
B1-12
ATTACHMENT 3
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION REFORM ACT FOR NEW, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
(EXCLUDING SWORN POLICE OFFICERS) IN THE CITY OF MENLO PARK,
CALIFORNIA.
SECTION 1.Title
This measure shall be known as the New Public Employee Pension Reform Act (excluding
sworn police officers) In the City of Menlo Park, and may be cited below as the Act.
SECTION 2. Findings and Declaration of Purpose
The People of the City of Menlo Park find and declare that:
(a) Government has an obligation to provide fair and secure pension benefits to its
employees;
(b) At the same time, government has a responsibility to its employees and to taxpayers to
ensure that such benefits are reasonable and adequately funded;
(c) Existing public employees have a right to receive the pension and other similar benefits
that were promised them upon employment. Thus, this Act does not eliminate, limit or
affect existing defined benefit pension plans for current public employees or retirees and
their families;
(d) However, it is widely accepted that the current system of pension benefits is too costly,
unreasonable and cannot be sustained without jeopardizing the future financial health of
cities and the services cities provide;
(e) It is widely accepted that public employees receive pension and other benefits that are
considerably better than the private sector, have pay that is better than or comparable to
the private sector, and have unusual job security;
(f) It Is responsible and prudent for the people to impose limitations on pension benefits
offered to new public employees under existing defined benefit plans or any new plan;
(g) Therefore, the people of the city of Menlo Park hereby enact
the New Public Employee Pension Reform Act (excluding sworn police officers) in the City of
Menlo Park to provide for fiscally fair and responsible pension for new public employees
hired by the City of Menlo Park on or after the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 3. The Public Employee Pension Reform Act For New, Public Employees
(Excluding Sworn Police Officers) In The City Of Menlo Park, California shall be
added as Ordinance_to the Municipal Code of the City of Menlo Park.
The defined benefit pension plan for new employees (with the exception of sworn police
officers) shall be changed as follows:
(A) The pian shall provide for a full retirement age of new employees(with the exception of
sworn police officers) as no less than 60 years of age. New employees may be provided a
pension benefit beginning no sooner than five years prior to the retirement age specified
above at a lower rate than the amount to be received at 60 years old if this would reduce
net costs to the City.
1
B1-13
(B) To enhance the ability of the City to fund and pay retirement pension benefits for new
public employees as and when due, from and after the effective date of this Act, the City
may not provide retroactive increases in retirement pension benefits for any current
employee or new employee under any existing or new defined pension plan.
(C) The plan may not provide annual retirement pension benefits to any employee
(Excluding Sworn Police Officers) that exceeds 2 percent multiplied by the number of full
years of employment and then multiplied by the employee's average base salary.
(D) For purposes of subdivision (C), a new employee's annual average base wage shall
include only the portions of compensation as defined under CalPERS rules and regulations.
Further, the base wage for pension calculation will be based on the highest annual average
base wage of the employee over a period of three consecutive years of employment by the
City of Menlo Park.
(E) The employees'affected will pay the percentage of their salaries as defined under
CalPERS rules and regulations towards retirement unless the City's contribution fails below 7
percent, in which case the City may pay part of the employee contribution such that the
employees' and City's contribution are effectively equal. If the contribution rate for the city
is again 7 percent or more, the employees'contribution will rise to the 7 percent level.
(F)The City may modify the limitations imposed by this Act only upon approval by a
majority of voters In a regularly scheduled election.
(G) Definitions as used in this section:
(1) "Defined benefit plan" or"the plan" is the plan used by the City of Menlo Park
(currently CaIPERS) and means a plan providing a retirement pension benefit
determined by a formula based on factors such as age, years of service, and
compensation.
(2) "New public agency employee" and "new employee" mean a person who becomes
an employee of the City of Menlo Park (excepting sworn police officers) on or after
the effective date of this Act. Retirement benefits promised by other jurisdictions
prior to such employment will not be affected.
(3) "The City" means the City of Menlo Park, California..
(4) The "Act"means the Public Employee Pension Reform Act For New, Public
Employees (Excluding Sworn Police Officers) In The City Of Menlo Park, California.
(5) "Sworn Police Officer" means all persons duly and regularly appointed under civil
service rules and regulations and sworn in as provided by law to perform the duties
of a regular police officer In the organized police department of a municipal
corporation.
(H) Nothing herein shall terminate, amend, modify or in any way limit or affect the
retirement pension benefits, vested retiree health care benefits, disability, death or other
benefits provided for current and retired employees of public agencies. Nothing in this
Section shall be construed to require the termination or closure of any existing defined
benefit plan.
2
ATTACHMENT 3
(I) Nothing herein shall terminate, amend, modify or In any way affect the sole and
exclusive fiduciary responsibility of the California Public Employees Retirement System.
(J) Nothing herein affects any existing agreements.
(K) No contract that violates this Act may be entered Into or executed by the City.
SECTION 4. Severability
The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act or its application is held
invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect.
without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 5. Effective Date
This Act will be effective upon approval by majority vote of the voters of Menlo Park, the
passage of the prescribed time under law for It to become effective, and at the expiration of
labor agreements (excluding labor agreements with sworn police officers) that are in effect
with the City at the time of approval by majority vote.
3
B1-14
CalifomiaCityNews.org: JudpP Rejects Unions' Lawsuit Against Citize*+-Drafted Pension... Page 1 of 2
CaliforniaCityNews.org ATTACHMENT
September o1,2010
Judge Rejects Unions'Lawsuit Against Citizen-Drafted Pension Reform Initiative
in Menlo Park
Recently we relayed that two unions in.Menlo Park were suing to get a pension reform initiative removed from the
ballot.Specifically,the Service Employees International Union and the.American Federation of State,County and
Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit against the city for approving a ballot measure that was written by a citizens'
group.In an update regarding the litigation,a Superior Court judge in San Mateo County has rejected the unions'
lawsuit and consequently the initiative will remain on the ballot. However,the judge did note that the unions
could re-file a lawsuit after the election in November,which the labor groups will undoubtedly do.The citizen-
drafted pension reform initiative from the Citizens for Fair and Responsible Pension Reform is known as Measure
L and its supporters submitted 2,788 signatures to qualify.The unions were opposed to the measure because they
argued it violated state law because the city council—not citizens—are supposed to make key decisions about
compensation.However,Mercury reports:
"After hearing arguments at a hearing Aug. 12,Miram ruled Friday that the unions failed to prove city
councils have the"exclusive"role of establishing compensation.That doesn't mean the initiative doesn't
violate existing state laws,Miram said,only that it isn't so clearly illegal to deserve being yanked from the
ballot."
Despite the litigation,the city council recently voted unanimously to defend the initiative and its decision to place
it on the ballot.The unions contend that the measure"wrongly scapegoats employees",is misguided,and violates
labor laws. For now,it will be up to voters in November,and if the measure passes, new hires will be eligible to
retire at age 6o instead of 55. Read more here.
Posted by jbrown at 10:29 AM in Campaigns&Elections, Legal,Pension Reform I Permalink ShareThis.
Digg This I Tweet This! I Like l
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6aooe39824d7c488330134869cddf2970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Rejects Unions'Lawsuit Against Citizen-Drafted Pension Reform
Initiative in Menlo Park:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Posted by:
This is only a preview.Your comment has not yet been posted.
PostEdit
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below.This
http://califomiacitynews.typepad.com/californiacitynewsorg/2010/09/judge-rej ects-unions-... 2/17/20'1 15
CaliforniaCityNews.org: Judge Rejects Unions' Lawsuit Against Citizen-Drafted Pension... Page 2 of 2
prevents automated programs from posting comments. ATTACHMENT 3
Having trouble reading this image?View an alternate.
a
Continue
http://californiacitynews.typepad.com/californiacitynewsorg/2010/09/judge-rejects-unions-... 2/17/2p 16
ATTACHMENT �}-
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
1107 Impartial and Binding Arbitration for San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
and San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association,IAFF Local 3523,Employee
Disputes.
(A) Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo that
strikes by firefighters and police officers are not in the public interest and should be prohibited,
and that a method.should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes that might
otherwise lead to such strikes.
(B) Prohibition Against Strikes. No City of San Luis Obispo firefighter or police officers shall
willfully engage in a strike against the City. Any such employee against whom the City brings
charges of failing to report for work as part of a strike shall be subject to dismissal from his or
her employment in the event the charges are sustained upon conclusion of the proceedings that
are required by law for the imposition of disciplinary action upon said employee.
(C) Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized representatives,
shall negotiate in good faith with the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and/or the San
Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, as the exclusive representatives of
representation units comprised solely of employees of the police department and/or the fire
department, as such units are currently constituted or as they may be amended through
negotiation or arbitration as provided in this section, on all matters relating to the wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of City employment. Unless and until agreement is reached
through negotiations between authorized representatives of the City and said employee
organization or organizations or a determination is made through the impartial arbitration
procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit, term or condition of employment for
employees represented by the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and/or the San Luis
Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, shall be altered,eliminated or changed.
(D) Impasse Resolution Procedures.
(1) All disputes, controversies 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 Arbitrators upon the
declaration of an impasse by the City or by said employee organization. Upon declaration of
impasse by either party, the City and employee organization shall each exchange a written last
offer of settlement on each of the issues remaining in dispute. Written last offer of settlement
shall be exchanged between parties within two days of the 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 Arbitrators within three (3) business days
after either party has notified the other, in writing, of the declaration of impasse and the desire to
proceed to arbitration. 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 the declaration of impasse. This third member shall serve as the neutral
arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. In the event that the City and the employee organization
cannot agree upon the selection of the neutral arbitrator within ten (10) business days from the
date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, either party may then
request the State Mediation and Conciliation Service of the State of California Department of
Industrial Relations to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experienced as
Printed from Folio Views Pagel
B1-17
ATTACHMENT
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
labor arbitrators. If the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot
agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of the seven (7) to act as the third
arbitrator, they shall have five (5) business days to alternately strike names, with the City's
arbitrator striking first, from the list of nominees until one name remains and that person shall
then become the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board of Arbitrators.
(3) Any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article shall be conducted in conformance
with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The
Board of Arbitrators shall hold public hearings, receive evidence from the parties and cause a
transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The Board of Arbitrators may adopt by unanimous
consent such other procedures that are designed to encourage an agreement between the parties,
expedite the arbitration hearing process, or reduce the costs of the arbitration process.
(4) In the event no agreement is reached prior to the conclusion of the arbitration hearings,the Board
of Arbitrators shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Board of
Arbitrators may establish, but not to exceed thirty(30) business days,a last offer of settlement on
each of the remaining issues in dispute. The Board of Arbitrators shall decide each issue by
majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds most nearly
conforms to 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 the following: changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services
using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index, as reported at the time impasse is declared for
the preceding twelve (12) months, the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of
employment of employees performing similar services in comparable cities; and the financial
condition of the City of San Luis Obispo and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the
Board of Arbitrators.
(5) After reaching a decision, the Board of Arbitrators shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy of
its decision to the parties.The decision of the Board of Arbitrators shall not be publicly disclosed
and shall not be binding until ten (10)days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten(10)
day period the parties shall meet privately, attempt to resolve their differences, and by mutual
agreement amend or modify the decision of the Board of Arbitrators. At the conclusion of the ten
(10) day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision
of Board of Arbitrators, as it may be modified or amended by the parties, shall be publicly
disclosed and shall be binding on the parties. The City and the employee organization shall take
whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the arbitration award. No other actions
by the City Council or by the electorate to conform or approve the decision of the Board of
Arbitrators shall be permitted or required.
(6) The expenses of any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article, including the fee
for the services of the chairperson of the Board of Arbitrators and the costs of preparation of the
transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. The expenses of the
arbitration, which the parties may incur individually, are to be borne by the party incurring such
expenses. Such expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of calling a party's
witnesses, the costs incurred in gathering data and compiling reports, and any expenses incurred
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 the San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association which is
Printed from Folio Views Paget
B1-18
ATTACHMENT
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
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 supersede 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, hours or other terms 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.
Printed from Folio Views Page3
B1-19
i
ATTACHMENTS
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE S
A Measure Amending The City Charter To Require That Labor Disputes Between
The City Of San Luis Obispo And The Police Officers' Association And Firefighters' Association
Be Resolved By Binding Arbitration.
Section 1107 Impartial and Binding Arbitration For San Luis Obispo Police Officers
Association and San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, Employee
Disputes.
(a) Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo
that strikes by firefighters and police officers are not in the public interest and should be
prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes
that might otherwise lead to such strikes.
(b) Prohibition Against Strikes. No City of San Luis Obispo firefighter or police officers shall
willfully engage in a strike against the City. Any such employee against whom the City brings
charges of failing to report for work as part of a strike shall be subject to dismissal from his or
her employment in the event the charges are sustained upon conclusion of the proceedings that
are required by law for the imposition of disciplinary action upon said employee.
(c) Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized representatives,
shall negotiate in good faith with the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and/or the San
Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, as the exclusive representatives of
representation units comprised solely of employees of the police department and/or the fire
department, as such units are currently constituted or as they may be amended through
negotiation or arbitration as provided in this section, on all matters relating to the wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of City employment. Unless and until agreement is reached
through negotiations between authorized representatives of the City and said employee
organization or organizations or a determination is made through the impartial arbitration
procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit, term or condition of employment for
employees represented by the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and/or the San Luis
Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523,shall be altered, eliminated or changed.
(d) Impasse Resolution Procedures.
(1) All disputes, controversies 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 Arbitrators upon the
declaration of an impasse by the City or by said employee organization. Upon declaration of
impasse by either party, the City and employee organization shall each exchange a written last
offer of settlement on each of the issues remaining in dispute. Written last offer of settlement
shall be exchanged between parties within two days of the declaration of impasse.
B1-20
ATTACHMENT 5
(2) Representatives designated by the City and representatives of the employee organization shall
each select and appoint one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three (3) business days
after either party has notified the other, in writing, of the declaration of impasse and the desire to
proceed to arbitration. 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 the declaration of impasse. This third member shall serve as the neutral
arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. In the event that the City and the employee organization
cannot agree upon the selection of the neutral arbitrator within ten (10) business days from the
date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, either party may then
request the State Mediation and Conciliation Service of the State of California Department of
Industrial Relations to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experienced as
labor arbitrators. If the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot
agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of the seven (7) to act as the third
arbitrator, they shall have five (5) business days to alternately strike names, with the City's
arbitrator striking first, from the list of nominees until one name remains and that person shall
then become the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board of Arbitrators.
(3) Any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article shall be conducted in
conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure. The Board of Arbitrators shall hold public hearings, receive evidence from the parties
and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The Board of Arbitrators may adopt by
unanimous consent such other procedures that are designed to encourage an agreement between
the parties, expedite the arbitration hearing process, or reduce the costs of the arbitration process.
(4) In the event no agreement is reached prior to the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the
Board of Arbitrators shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Board
of Arbitrators may establish, but not to exceed thirty (30) business days, a last offer of settlement
on each of the remaining issues in dispute. The Board of Arbitrators shall decide each issue by
majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds most nearly
conforms to 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 the following; changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services
using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index, as reported at the time impasse is declared for
the preceding twelve (12) months, the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of
employment of employees performing similar services in comparable cities; and the financial
condition of the City of San Luis Obispo and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the
Board of Arbitrators.
(5) After reaching a decision, the Board of Arbitrators shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy
of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Board of Arbitrators shall not be publicly
disclosed and shall not be binding until ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During
that ten (10) day period the parties shall meet privately, attempt to resolve their differences, and
by mutual agreement amend or modify the decision of the Board of Arbitrators. At the
conclusion of the ten (10) day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the
parties, the decision of Board of Arbitrators; as it may be modified or amended by the parties,
2
B1-21
ATTACHMENTS
shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding on the parties. The City and the employee
organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the arbitration
award. No other actions by the City Council or by the electorate to conform or approve the
decision of the Board of Arbitrators shall be permitted or required.
(6) The expenses of any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article, including the
fee for the services of the chairperson of the Board of Arbitrators and the costs of preparation of
the transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. The expenses of the
arbitration, which the parties may incur individually, are to be borne by the party incurring such
expenses. Such expenses include, but are not limited to, the expense of calling a party's
witnesses, the costs incurred in gathering data and compiling reports, and any expenses incurred
by the party's arbitrator. The parties may mutually agree to divide the costs in another manner.
(7) The proceedings described herein shall supercede the dispute resolution process for the San
Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and the San Luis Obispo Firefighters 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 supercede 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, hours or other terms 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.
3
B1-22
ACHMENT 5
MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
May 30,2000
To: Mike Hogan andAlwk McCullough
From: Jeff Jorgense ity Attorney
Subject: Ballot Title and Summary for Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment(Second
Submittal)
Attached is the Ballot Title and Summary for the second submittal of the binding arbitration
Charter amendment pursuant to Elections Code Section 9203. The City is currently reviewing its
legal options and the validity of the proposed Charter amendment,particularly in light of your
obligations under current agreements with the City. Inasmuch as the preparation of the Ballot
Title and Summary pursuant to Elections Code Section 9203 is a ministerial act, it is being
provided at this time. However, the City does not waive any of its legal rights or remedies to
enforce those agreements or to otherwise challenge the validity of the proposed amendment or its
operative effect.
In order to prevent any confusion, or use of the previous petition submitted for filing on May 25,
2000, it is strongly recommended that the form of the new petition be structured and identified in
such a way as to preclude the possibility of use of the previous petition or signatures.
On a minor note, there is one small typo on the"enactment"clause which should be corrected.
(A copy of the clause with the typo highlighted is attached for your information.)
JGJ/sl
Attachment
cc: John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Ann Slate
Richard Whitmore
B1-23
I I.
—ay�e�r�/j�;Q; a9aaaJ(��yq S
�1 B/ PCHMENT r
A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and
points of the proposed measure:
A MEASURE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER TO REQUIRE THAT
LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
THE POLICE OFFICERS'ASSOCIATION AND FIREFIGHTERS'
ASSOCIATION BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION.
This measure would amend the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo relating to the
regulation of labor disputes between the City and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers
Association and the San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association.
This measure would add provisions to the Charter,similar to existing state law,prohibiting
police officers and firefighters from engaging in strikes and requiring the city to negotiate
in good faith on matters relating to wages,hours and other terms and conditions of
employment.
This measure would prohibit the City from altering,eliminating or changing any existing
benefit,term or condition of employment unless such change was either the result of a
negotiated agreement between the City and the Police Officers' Association and/or the
Firefighters' Association,or ordered as a result of the binding arbitration process
discussed below.
This measure would require that all unresolved disputes pertaining to wages,hours or
terms and conditions of employment for police officers and firefighters shall be submitted
to binding arbitration before a three-member Board of Arbitration. The City and the
employee organization would each select one of the arbitrators. 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 Board. The Board would hold public hearings and
receive evidence from the parties. By majority vote,the Board would select whichever of
the last offers the Board found most nearly conformed to those factors traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination of wages,hours,and other terms and conditions of
public and private employment(including but not limited to changes in the consumer price
index for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose,the wages,hours,benefits and terms and
conditions of employment of 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 award of the Board to privately meet and attempt to
agree upon any modifications to the award. At the end of the ten day period,the award,
including any modifications agreed upon,would be publicly disclosed and become binding
B1-24
ff
TACHMENT
on the parties,and no action by the City Council or the voters to conform or approve the
Arbitrators decision shall be permitted or required.
Expenses of the arbitration would be borne equally by the parties. Expenses incurred
Individually by each party,as specified in the measure,would be borne solely by the party
incurring such expenses.
The binding arbitration process discussed above would supercede any existing dispute
resolution process,Employer-Employee Resolution,Personnel Rules and Regulations, and
Memorandum of Agreement or any written policy or procedure relating to wages,hours or
other terms and conditions of employment to the extent it is in conflict with this measure.
B1-25
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.
B1-26
S
Expenses of the arbitration would be home equally by the parties. Expenses incurred
individually by each party would be borne solely by the party incurring such expenses.
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
B1-27
ARAN�������� S
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE S:
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 impartial arbitration to resolve all disputes over wages,
hours and working conditions that reach an impasse. The process is
straightforward and fair. No strikes. No lawsuits. No special elections. Just a final
and binding decision that everyone honors and implements quickly.
Police and firefighters have been working up to a year or more without contracts,
a condition that affects no other collective bargaining unit in the city. Ethically,
police officers 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 prior to 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.
• City Hall and public safety employees are required to negotiate in good faith
on all wages, hours 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 Nall, one by
employees, and the third by agreement of the first two. If 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.
s1 Jack O'Connell, State Senator
s1 Ron Dunin, former Mayor
s\ Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician
sl Sam Blakeslee, Businessman
s\ Mike Hogan, Firefighter
B1-28
AITACHMENT
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR 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+l% arbitrator's award can cause dramatic cuts in other
City services.
Truth: Expensive delays in the bargaining process have been caused not by
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 2/3'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
B1-29
AflALIHMENT
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE S
The Unions say current bargaining is unfair. Nothing is farther from the truth:
• San Luis Obispo police and fire are already among the highest paid in our County.
• 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 the 23% 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 jeopardizing the 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.
• Measure S allows our city to lose control over 50% of its General Fund operating
budget. Currently, you can vote Councilmembers out of office if you're unhappy with their
decisions. Even a 1% 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 foryou?
Only 20 of 475 California cities have binding arbitration. Measure S threatens our quality of life
and city services. Don't let out-of-towners 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
B1-30
1
IT, CM
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE 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 safety
employee), the average annual pretax income is 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.
Instead, 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.
In 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.
s1 Jack O'Connell, State Senator
s\ Ron Dunin, former Mayor
s\ Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician
s\ Mike Hogan, Firefighter
B1-31
ATTACHMENT
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE T
A CHARTER AMENDMENT ADDING SECTION 1106 TO THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
IMPLEMENTING THE TAXPAYERS' RIGHT TO DECIDE
Section 1106. The Taxpayers' Right to Decide
To protect the public health, safety and welfare, to ensure responsible fiscal authority,
and to require the highest standards of public safety employee performance, the binding
arbitration established by Section 1107 of this Charter shall be subject to the following
provisions notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained within that Section:
(A) To protect the financial health of the City, any decision resulting from arbitration
that would result in the payment of an across-the-board salary increase greater
than the City's last offer of settlement made pursuant to Section 1107 (d) (4), will
not become effective unless and until approved by a majority vote of the voters.
The City Clerk and City Council shall expeditiously take all steps necessary to
submit the matter to the voters. The City Council shall not be required to call a
special election for the approval of arbitrated agreements more than once a year
and may consolidate such elections with elections held for other purposes.
(B) Arbitration shall be limited to across-the-board salary increases only. To provide
the Police Chief, Fire Chief and other city management with the ability to
maintain the highest standards for public safety service, other issues besides
salary related to working conditions, management rights, employee discipline and
other employment benefits, including the assignment or deployment of personnel,
will not be subject to arbitration.
(C) The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index (CPI) shall not be
used as a factor by the arbitrator.
(D) Mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution and as described in
Resolution 6620, 1989 series, shall be a requirement prior to binding arbitration.
(E) If any provision or portion of this measure or the application to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other portion,
provision, or application of this measure.
B1-32
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 (CPI) 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.
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
B1-33
ATTA(AliVE T
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.
If an out-of-town arbitrator is used to approve salaries, our City loses control over 50% of our
General Fund operating budget. Even a 1% 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.
C Measure T prevents unnecessarydisputes 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 Member
Dodie Williams,Former Council Member
B1-34
ATTACHMENT �
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE T
Measure T is a fraud.
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
s1 Allen C. Haile, University Administrator
s1 Mike Hogan, Firefighter
B1-35
ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE T:
This so-called "Taxpayers Right To Decide" Measure is a product of City Hall and
it's bureaucrats. It's designed to destroy the Citizen Initiative, Measure S. Instead
of a final, binding and impartial process, City Hall proposes to substitute an
arbitration decision with Special Elections on labor contracts. Elections that will
further delay the process and result in substantial taxpayer expense.
City Hail's measure and its potential delays would do nothing to improve the
performance and morale of police officers and firefighters. The costs of Special
Elections will not improve the City's financial health.
Instead of negotiation on all wages, hours and working conditions, City Hall wants
to limit arbitration to salary only. City Hall's measure would not allow arbitration
of critical issues involving working conditions, such as minimum safe staffing
levels and replacement of expired bulletproof vests, leaving such issues
unresolved.
City Hall claims that they are interested in "the highest standards for public
service". They also claim they 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 Administrators simply don't want to lose any of their
power and control.
The Citizen's Initiative, Measure S, assures that City Administrators will not abuse
their power when they negotiate with your police officers and firefighters. City
Hall's counter-arbitration measure would just allow City Administrators to conduct
business as usual.
What is really at stake is City Hall's belated effort to undermine Measure S, the
citizen-initiated measure. Polis show that citizens in San Luis Obispo and
throughout California overwhelmingly favor an impartial process for resolving
police officer and firefighter disputes for all wages, hours and working conditions.
Why? Because it's fair and it's impartial.
Vote "No" on Measure?
s1 Jack O'Connell, State Senator
sl Ron Dunin, former Mayor
sl Dr. Rene "Rick" Bravo, Pediatrician
sl Allen C. Haile, University Administrator
s1 Mike Hogan, Firefighter
B1-36
_j. P � (57
VC �
REBUTTAL 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 control 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+I% 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 Rademaker, Local Business Owner
Dave Romero, Council Member
Dodie Williams, Former Council Member
B1-37
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF SAN JOSE
B1-38
City of San Jose Measure V— November 2, 2010 Election —.
City Attorney7s 1mpartral'Analysrs ' `' _ °
Measure V would amend Charter Section 1111 to change the mandatory arbitration
process for police and fire department employee disputes.
Currently, Section 1111 requires that unresolved disputes about wages, hours, or terms
and conditions of employment between the City of San Jose and the applicable police
or fire employee organization be submitted to a three member Arbitration Board. The
City and applicable employee organization each select one arbitrator and they jointly
select the third as the neutral arbitrator who serves as the Board's chair. If the parties
cannot agree on the neutral arbitrator, they strike names from a list provided by the
State. - After the arbitration hearing, the parties submit a last offer on each issue, and
the Board, by majority vote, decides each issue by selecting the last offer that most
nearly conforms to factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours and other terms of public and private employment. Section 1111 lists a
number of.these factors, including the City's financial condition and its ability to pay the
award's cost, but does not specify a priority.
This measure would change the arbitration procedure as follows:
If the parties cannot agree on the neutral arbitrator, then either party may request
the Santa Clara County Superior Court to appoint a retired Superior Court judge.
Arbitration hearings must be open to the public and documents submitted are
public records, unless provided otherwise by law.
State law governing arbitrations shall apply only to the extent that they do not
conflict with Section 1111.
This measure would also change the factors considered by the Board. The Board must
determine which party's last offer satisfies certain financial factors, is in the best interest
and promotes the welfare of the public and most nearly conforms to the traditional
factors. The primary factors, however, are the City's financial condition and its ability to
pay for compensation (defined to include wages and benefits) from ongoing revenues
without reducing services. Further, substantial weight must be given to the rate of
increase or decrease in compensation for other City employees.
The Board could not issue an award that would (1) increase the projected cost of
compensation at a rate that exceeds the rate of increase of certain revenues averaged
over the prior five fiscal years; (2) retroactively increase or decrease compensation for
service already rendered, excluding base wages; (3) create a new unfunded liability for
which the City would be obligated to pay; or(4) interfere with the discretion of the Police
or Fire Chiefs to make operational or staffing decisions.
T-20844X682987 6 1
B1-39
City of San Jose Measure V— November 2, 2010 Election ATTACHMcArf
This measure would also allow court action for failure to comply with Section 1111.
Lastly, the measure provides that if a court determines that any portion of Section 1111
is not valid or enforceable, then Section 1111 will be inoperative and there will be no
compulsory arbitration for police and fire employee disputes.
A"yes" vote is a vote to approve the changes described above.
A"no" vote is a vote to maintain the existing Section 1111.
/s/
Richard Doyle, City Attorney
City of San Jose
The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure V. if you would like to read the
full text of the measure, see Www.sanioseca.gov/clerk/elections/Election.asp or call 408-
535-1260 and a copy will be sent at no cost to you.
i
I
T-20844X682987 6 2 j
Bl-401
ANCHMBT
RD:SH:ERD
sa„° Mca�C v
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF, ON ITS OWN
MOTION, THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE
CITY OF SAN JOSE, AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010, A
BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSAL TO AMEND SECTION
1111 OF THE SAN JOSE CITY CHARTER TO LIMIT THE
POWERS OF OUTSIDE ARBITRATORS
WHEREAS, Charter Section 1600 authorizes the City Council to set the date for a
Special Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the electors of the City of San Jose at
a Special Municipal Election a ballot measure proposal to amend Section 1111 of the
San Jose City Charter to limit the powers of outside arbitrators;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE THAT:
SECTION 1. A Special Municipal Election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the
City of San Jose on November 2, 2010, for the purpose of voting on a ballot measure to
limit the powers of outside arbitrators. The actual language of the proposed charter
amendment is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The ballot measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2, 2010
election in the following form:
T-20844\679992_3.doc& 1
Council Agenda: 3-10
Item No.: 3.3d(2)
B1-41
haw FM 1_
RD:SH:ERD
814110
LIMIT POWERS OF OUTSIDE ARBITRATORS
To provide fiscal stability; control costs YES
and maintain City services to residents,
shall the Charter be amended to permit NO
binding arbitration only if outside
arbitrators are (1) required to base
awards to employees primarily on the
City's ability to pay; and (2) prohibited
from: creating any unfunded liability for
the City, increasing police and firefighter
compensation more than the rate of
increase in General Fund revenues, or
granting retroactive benefits?
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Santa Clara, California to permit the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County to
render to the City of San Jose such services as the City Clerk of the.City of San Jose
may request relating to the conduct of the above-described Special Municipal Election
with respect to the following matters:
Coordination of election precincts, polling places, voting
booths, voting systems and election officers; Printing and
mailing of voter pamphlets; Preparation of tabulation of result
of votes cast.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby requests that the Registrar of Voters of the
County of Santa Clara consolidate the Special Municipal Election called and ordered to
be held on November 2, 2010 with any other election that may be held on that date.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Clara County, California to canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election.
T-208441679992 3.doc 2
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d(2)
B1-42
RD:SH:ER_D
8/4/10
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk,to reimburse the County of
Santa Clara in full for any of the above-mentioned services which may be performed by
the Registrar of Voters, upon presentation of a bill to the City, with funds already
appropriated to the City Clerk for election purposes.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to take all actions
necessary in order to facilitate the Special Municipal Election in the time frame specified
herein and comply with provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, City
Charter, Ordinances, Resolutions and Policies with regard to the conduct of the Special
Municipal Election.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Section 12111 of the California Elections Code and Section
6061 of the California Government Code, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk
to (a) cause a synopsis of the proposed measure to be published in the San Jose
Mercury News, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Jose; (b)
consolidate the Notice of Measure to be Voted with the Notice of Election into a single
notice; (c) cause the following statement to be printed in the impartial analysis to be
prepared by the City Attorney: "If you would like to read the full text of the measure, see
www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/elections/Election.asp or call 408-535-1260 and a copy will be
sent at no cost to you."; and (d) do all other things required by law to submit the
specified measure above to the electors of the City of San Jose at the Special Municipal
Election, including causing the full text of the proposed measure to be made available in
the Office of the City Clerk at no cost and posted on, the City Clerk's website.
SECTION 9. Pursuant to Sections 9282 and 9285 of the California Elections Code, the
City Council hereby approves the submittal of direct arguments for and against the
ballot measure, if any, and authorizes Mayor Chuck Reed to be the primary author of
the argument in favor of the ballot measure, but determines that rebuttal arguments will
not be allowed.
T-20844\679992 3.doc 3
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d(2) -
B1-43
RD:SH:ERD
8/4/10
SECTION 10. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the
measure qualifying for placement on the ballot to the.City Attorney for preparation of an
impartial analysis.
ADOPTED this day of 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT`.
DISQUALIFIED:
CHUCK REED
Mayor
ATTEST:
LEE PRICE, MMC
City Clerk
T-208441679992 3.doc 4
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d(2)
B1-44
i
i l .
RD:SH:ERD
8/4/10
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
That Section 1111 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 1111. Compulsory Arbitration for Fire and Police Department Employee
Disputes.
(a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of San Jose that strikes by
firefighting and peace officers are unlawful in thestate of California and not in the public
interest and should be prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully
and equitably resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to such strikes.
If any firefighter or peace officer employed.by the City of San Jose willfully engages in a
strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employment
and may not be reinstated or returned to City employment except as a new employee.
No officer, board, council or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to any
employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City.
(b) The City, through its duly authorized representatives, shall negotiate in good faith
with the recognized fire and police department employee organizations on all matters
relating to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment,
including the establishment of procedures for the resolution of grievances submitted by
either employee organization over the interpretation or application of any negotiated
agreement including a provision for binding arbitration of those grievances. Unless and
until agreement is reached through negotiations between the City and the recognized
employee organization for the fire or police department or a determination is made
through the arbitration procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit or condition of
employment for the members of the fire department or police department bargaining
unit shall be eliminated or changed.
(c) All disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours, orterrrls and conditions
of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City
and either the fire or police department employee organization shall be submitted to a
three-member Board of Arbitrators upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by
the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute. All issues concernine the
scope of the Arbitration Board's authority,jurisdiction or powers shall, upon the regzrest of
either party, be resolved by petition to the Superior Court.
(d) Representatives designated by the City and representatives of the recognized
employee organization involved in the dispute, controversy or grievance shall each
select one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three(3) days after either party
has notified the other, in writing, that it desires to proceed to arbitration. The third
T-20844\679992 3 1
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d
B1-45
RD:SH:ERD
8/4/10
member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agreement between the two
arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization, and shall serve as the
neutral arbitrator and Chairman of the Board. In the event that the arbitrators selected
by the City and the employee organization cannot agree upon the selection of the third
arbitrator within ten (10) days from the date that either party has notified the other that it
has declared an impasse, then either party may request
Bec+;;4. the Superior Court.of the Countv of Santa Clara to appoint an arbitrator who shall be a
retired iudge of the Superior Court.
Any arbitration convened pursuant to this section shall be conducted in conformance
with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure to the extent that such procedures do not conflict with this Charter Section. Unless
otherwise mandated by state or federal lmv, all arbitration hearings shall be open to the public
and all documents submitted in arbitration shall be public records. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Charter to the contrary, the authority, iurisdiction and powers of the Board of
Arbitrators are limited by the provisions of this Section.
(e) At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct
each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Board may establish, a last
offer of settlement on each of the issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board shall decide
each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue
it finds by the preponderance of the evidence submitted io the Arbitration Board satisfies section
09 below, is in the best interest and promotes the welfare of the public, and most nearly
conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private employment,
including, but not limited to, changes in the average consumer price index for goods and
services, the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of other
employees performing similar services,
(� In all arbitration proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, the primary factors in
decisions regarding compensation.shall be the City's financial condition and, in addition, its
ability to pay for employee compensation from on-going revenues without reducing City
services. No arbitration award may be issued unless a maiority of the Arbitration Board
determines, based upon a fair and thorough review of the Gig'sfinancial condition and a cost
analysis of the parties'last offers, that the City can meet the cost of the mvard from on-going
revenues without reducing City services. The arbitrators shall also consider and give substantial
tiveight to the rate of increase or decrease of compensation approved by the City Council for
other bargaining units.
T-20644\679992 3 2
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d
B1-46
` i
RD:SH:ERD
ends uJ alb'��� d 7
8/4/10
"Compensation"shall mean all costs to the City, whether new or ongoing, for salary paid and
benefits provided to.employees, including but not limited to wages, special pay, premium pay,
incentive payer pension, retiree medical coverage, employee medical and dental coverage, other
insurance provided by the City, vacation, holidays, and other paid time ofl
(g) Additionally, the Board of Arbitrators shall not render a decision, or issue an award, that:
1. increases the projected cost of compensation for the bur aining.units_at a rate
that exceeds the rate of increase in revenues fi-om the sales tax, property tax, utility tax
and telephone tax averaged over the prior five fiscal years; or
2. retroactively increases or decreases compensation, including, but not limited to,
enhancements to pension and retiree health benefit for service already rendered, but
excluding base wages; or
3._ creates a new or additional unfunded liability for which the City would be
obligated to pay;or
4. deprives or interferes with the discretion of Me Police Chief or Fire.Chief to make
managerial, operational or staffing decisions, rules, orders and policies in the interest of
the effective and efficient provision of police and fire services to the public.
h Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be mandatory and enforceable pursuant
to section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure;.failure to comply.with these.provisions shall also
constitute an act in excess ofiurisdiction.
L1 After reaching a decision, the Arbitration Board shall mail or otherwise deliver a
true copy of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall not be
publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until ten (10) days after it is delivered to the
parties. During that ten-day period the parties may meet privately, attempt to resolve
their differences, and by mutual agreement amend or modify any of the decisions of the
Arbitration Board. At the conclusion of the ten-day period, which may be extended by
mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board together
with any amendments or modifications agreed to by the parties shall be publicly
disclosed and shall be binding upon the parties. The City and the recognized employee
organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the
award.
(� The expenses of any arbitration convened pursuant to this section, including the
fee for the services of the Chairman of the Arbitration Board, shall be borne equally by
the parties. All other expenses which the parties may incur individually are to be borne
by the parry incurring such expenses.
(k) This Section shall be effective immediately upon passage by the voters, and shall apply to
any arbitration in which hearings commence after November 2, 2010.
T-20844\679992 3 3
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d
B1-47
RD:SH:ERD � j's � ��G
8/4/10
(l) The voters declare that the provisions of this Section are not severable, and none would have
been enacted without the others. Should any portion of this Section 1111 be enjoined or
declared invalid, all provisions shall be deemed invalid and inoperative and there shall be no
compulsory arbitration for firecompulsory arbitration for fire and police department employee disputes.
T-20844\679992 3 4
Council Agenda:8-3-10
Item No.: 3.3d
B1-48
® ®
LL
•
ME AS -
ose
Public pension costs have risen significantly over the past
decade. Ten years ago,the City of San Jose spent$62 million
BALLOT to fund its retirement system.. Last fiscal year, it spent $136
BOX " million, a 218% increase. Further increases are projected
Fur Oltitial liec Orly
for the next four years.
Vote by mail ballots will
begin to be distributed the One way to address the problem of rising pension costs would be to establish
week of October
the election will be held on a new less expensive set of retirement benefits for new City employees.
Tuesday, - However, certain minimum benefits are defined in the City Charter.
Currently, the Charter specifies the contribution ratio for the City's two
retirement plans as 3-to-8,which means forevery$3 an employee contributes
the City contributes $8.
Measure W would amend the Charter to allow the City Council to exclude
newly hired officer and employees from existing retirement plans and to
create new retirement plans that would not be required to meet the minimum
benefits established in the City Charter.
In addition, the Charter currently only requires that the Police and Fire
Retirement Plan be actuarially sound. Measure W would require that any
new or different retirement plan established by the City Council also be
actuarially sound.
SANJOSE
C]AITIAL OF SILICON' VALLEY
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Residents can visit the City Clerk's website at www.saniosecaaov/clerk for additional information on
these measures,including the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis,the Arguments For and Against,and the full text of the Measures.
B1-49-
Measure W: Pension Reform - Santa Clara County, CA . Page 4 of 5
and only impacts new city employees. But it could save City retirees do not get social security.
millions of dollars moving forward. Pensions enable city workers to earn a
retirement with dignity.
Vote Yes on Measure W. The City must regain control
of its budget. http://www.SanJoseFiscalReforms.com However, we agree that pension reform is
necessary. Real reform contains clear limits
/s/ Chuck Reed on how much taxpayers must contribute.
Mayor of San Jose Anything less, like Measure W, is
irresponsible.
/s/ Rose Herrera
City of San Jose Councilmember Measure W leaves retirement costs solely
in the hands of politicians. Would you give
/s/Pierluigi Oliverio a blank check to the City Council?No?
City of San Jose Councilmember Then vote "no" on Measure W.
/s/Patricia M. Dando /s/Tom Cochran
CEO-President San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Vice-President, Senior Financial
Commerce Consultant, Banc West Investment Services
/s/Jean Myers /s/Karl Hoffower
Retired Public School Teacher Former Member, San Jose Sunshine
Reform Task Force
/s/ Stephen L. Kline
Buena Vista/Del Monte Neighborhood
Leader
/s/Michele Bertolone
Small Business Owner
/s/Annie Dandavati
Attorney
Full Text of Measure W
That Sections 1500 and 1501 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 1500. DUTY TO PROVIDE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
Except as hereinafter otherwise provided,the Council shall provide, by ordinance or ordinances, for the
creation, establishment and maintenance of a retirement plan or plans for all officers and employees of
the City. Such plan or plans need not be the same for all officers and employees. Subject to other
provisions of this Article, the Council may at any time, or from time to time, amend or otherwise
change any retirement plan or plans or adopt or establish a new or different plan or plans for all or any
officers or employees; providedd, however. the Council shall not establish any new or different plan
after November 3. 2010 that is not actuarially sound.
SECTION 1501. EXCLUSIONS.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/caJsci/meas/W/ 2/17/2ti'I I-50
Measure W: Pension Reformr Santa Clara County, CA
Page 5 of 5
() The Council in its discretion may exclude all or any of the following persons from any or all
retirement plans, to wit: Persons mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), and(7) of sub-
section (a) of Section 1101 of this Charter; all persons employed or whose services are contracted for
pursuant to any transfer, consolidation or contract mentioned or referred to in Section 1109 of this
Charter; persons employed pursuant to Section 1110 of this Charter; persons in City service primarily
for training, study or educational purposes; persons employed or paid on a part-time, per diem, per hour
or any basis other than a monthly basis;temporary employees; persons employed pursuant to any relief
or anti-poverty program primarily for the purpose of giving relief or aid to such persons. Also, persons
who are members of any other retirement or pension system, other than the federal social security
system or any other federal retirement or pension system, and who are receiving credit in such other
system for service rendered to the City may be excluded, as to such service, from any such plan or
plans.
(b) On or after November 3. 2010. the Council, may by ordinance, exclude any officer or employ
hired on or after the ordinance's effective date from any retirement plan or benefit of any retirement
plan in existence on the effective date of the ordinance. Any such ordinance shall be subject to the
requirements of applicable law.
Santa Clara Home Pate 11 Statewide Links 11 About Smart Voter 11 Feedback
Created: January 6,2011 14:59 PST
Smart Voter<http://www.smartvoter.orgh
Copyright®League of Women Voters of Cal ifomia Education Fund http://Cavotes.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/scl/meas/W/ 2/17/)RI-51
CITY OF STOCKTON
B1-52
July 27, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Deis, City Manager
SUBJECT: MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO AMEND STOCKTON CHARTER ARTICLES XVI AND
XXV PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution submitting to the City of Stockton qualified voters at the November 2,
2010 General Election, a ballot measure seeking voter approval to amend Stockton
Charter Articles XVI and XXV pertaining to the administration and management of the
Fire Department, request that the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors add these
Charter amendments to the ballot for the November 2, 2010 election, direct the City
Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, authorize arguments and the
filing of rebuttal arguments for or against the measure; authorize the City Manager to
appropriate the funds necessary to pay the City of Stockton's cost of placing the
measure on the election ballot, and directing the City Clerk to take step necessary to
place the measure on the ballot and to cause the measure to be printed.
Summary
By approving a ballot measure to be placed on the November 2, 2010 ballot, Council is
seeking to preserve the City Council's final authority to approve wages and other terms
and conditions of employment, remove the requirement to submit decisions to binding
arbitration, and to restore the traditional method of mediation to try to resolve contract
disputes.
DISCUSSION
Backciround
Stockton faces immediate and long-term challenges caused, in part, by escalating and
unfunded costs in its labor agreements, and on May 26, 2010 Council adopted a State
of Emergency based on fiscal circumstances (Resolution 10-0166). On June 22, 2010,
Council adopted an Action Plan for Fiscal Sustainability (Resolution 10-0199),
There are a number of Stockton Charter provisions that impede Council's ability to
make final decisions on fiscal matters, including wage and benefit packages, as well as
recruitment and hiring of a Fire Chief. Currently the Charter requires that the Fire Chief
be appointed from within the Fire Department; however, all Executive Management
AGENDA ITEM 8.03
B1-53
i
July 27, 2010
MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO
AMEND STOCKTON CHARTER ARTICLES XVI AND XXV PERTAINING TO THE
ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
(Page 2)
positions except for the Fire Chief are "at will." The Charter also provides for special
vacation time for the Fire Department. Additionally, the Charter requires that the final
decision making authority for the firefighters' labor contract must, at the Union's request,
be referred to an outside arbitrator. The arbitrator is unelected, unaccountable to the
public, may live outside the City of Stockton, and the decision is final and binding.
Present Situation
The decision to amend Sections XVI and XXV of the Stockton Charter is based on the
need to provide for a modernized structure and administration of the Fire Department
that includes revisions to the appointment procedures and duties of the Fire Chief and
Deputy Fire Chief, revisions to impasse resolution procedures for employee disputes,
exempting the Fire chief and Deputy Fire Chief from the classified civil service system;
and removing mandatory vacation accrual provisions for the fire department employees.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Sufficient funds to cover the cost of placing the measure on the ballot are available in
010-0131-510 (Non-Departmental).
Respectfully ubmitte
BOB DEIS
CITY MANAGER
BD:cjm
::ODMAIGRP W ISIICOS.CM.CM_Library:83786.1
B1-54
i pp ic
Resolution No.
STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON
SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE NOVEMBER 2,2010,
MUNICIPAL ELECTION A BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO
ARTICLES XVI AND XXV OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON
PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT; REQUESTING THAT THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ADD THESE CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO THE BALLOT FOR
THE NOVEMBER 29 2010,ELECTION;DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE; AUTHORIZING
ARGUMENTS AND THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST
THE MEASURE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROPRIATE THE
FUNDS NECESSARY TO PAY THE CITY OF STOCKTON'S COST OF PLACING
THE MEASURE ON THE ELECTION BALLOT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO PLACE THE MEASURE ON THE
BALLOT AND TO CAUSE THE MEASURE TO BE PRINTED
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Article XI, Section 3 of the California Constitution
and the Charter of the City of Stockton, the City Council of the City of Stockton, on its own
motion, has proposed to submit to the qualified electors of the City of Stockton at the General
Municipal Election to be held on November 2, 2010, a measure to amend Articles XVI and
XXV of the Stockton City Charter to provide for changes in the management.and administration
of the Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously declared a state of emergency based on fiscal
circumstances;and
WHEREAS, the City's fiscal crisis was caused, in part, by practices in the Fire
Department that have contributed to escalating overtime and other costs; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted an Action Plan for Fiscal Sustainability,which calls in part
for the City to regain its managements rights and to reform and restructure labor agreements to
ensure they are reasonable, flexible,and in the public's best interest; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Action Plan for Fiscal
Sustainability and will promote efficiencies and reasonable management control in the Fire
Department; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments pertaining to the Fire Department will be more
consistent with the provisions governing the Police Department, as well as other departments in
the City.
City Atty:
Review
Dace J(�1 ?. 1 20104_ Bl-55
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Stockton hereby submits to the qualified
electors of the City of Stockton at the General Municipal Election of November 2, 2010, a ballot
measure to amend the Charter of the City of Stockton to provide for certain changes to the
management and administration of the Fire Department The full text of the proposed Charter
amendments shall be in the form attached hereto as Attachment 1 and it is hereby incorporated
by reference into this Resolution.
That question is to appear as follows:
MEASURE:
Shall the Stockton City Charter be amended to provide for a YES
modernized structure and administration of the Fire Department —
that includes revisions to the appointment procedure and duties of
the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief; revisions to impasse
resolution procedures for employee disputes; exempting the Fire
Chief and Deputy Fire Chief from the civil service system; and NO
removing mandatory vacation accrual provisions for fire
department employees?
SECTION 2: (a)A General Municipal election is hereby called to be held in the City of
Stockton on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, (consolidated with the State of California General
Election)for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of said City the Measure set forth
in Section 1 of this Resolution to amend the Charter of said City.
(b) Said General Municipal Election hereby called shall be held and
conducted, and the votes canvassed and the returns thereof made, and the results thereof
ascertained and determined as herein provided, and in all particulars not prescribed in this
Resolution, said General Municipal Election shall be held as provided for in the City Charter
and otherwise in accordance with the Elections Code of the State of California.
SECTION 3. The City Attorney of the City of Stockton is hereby authorized and directed
to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure; and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and
directed to give further or additional notice of the election in the time, form, and manner as
required by law.
2
B1-56
C®""hAlf<V��6u
SECTION 4. Request the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors add this proposed
Charter amendment as set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution to the ballot of the General
Municipal Election to be held on November 2,2010.
SECTION 5. The deadline for filing of arguments for or against the measure shall be
August 12,2010, for direct arguments, and August 23,2010, for rebuttal arguments.
SECTION 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate the
necessary funds to pay for the City of Stockton's cost of placing the Measure on the election
ballot.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps
necessary to place the Measure on the ballot.and to cause the Measure to be printed. A copy of
the Measure shall be made available to any voter upon request.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin County and the Registrar of Voters of San Joaquin County.
SECTION 9. This Measure shall become effective, upon the majority affirmative vote
of the eligible voters of the City of Stockton and upon certification and filing of the election
results,in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California.
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED
ANN JOHNSTON, ayor
ATTEST: of the City of Stockton
KATHERINE GONG MEISSNER,City Clerk
of the City of Stockton
::ODPAANOL-WMECOS.c.Akc.. LMPAxr37M.1
3
B1-57
ATTACHMENT 1 -A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
The City of Stockton Charter is hereby amended to read as follows (with text in
indicating deletion and underlined text indicating addition):
ARTICLE XVI FIRE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1600.Organization.
The Fire Department shall consist of a Fire Chief and such other officers, members, and
employees as the Council may from time to time prescribe.
SECTION 1601. Powers and Duties.
The Fire Department shall enforceall ordinances and laws and shall supervise all matters relating
to the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and the protection of the property
impaired thereby, and the prevention and control of fire hazards within the City.
SECTION 1602.Fire Chief.
The Fire Department shall be under the.control, management, and direction of a Fire
Chief. The Fire Chief shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall hold that position at the
pleasure of the City Manager.
The Fire Chief shall with the approval of the City Manager have management, control,
and direction of the personnel of the Department and shall have charge of all property and
equipment of such Department. The Fire Chief shall have full power to detail any officer or
member of the Department to such public service as may be necessary. The Fire Chief shall
recommend in writing to the City Manager that disciplinary action be taken against members of
the Department if he or she deems it necessary, stating the reasons therefor, and shall
immediately file a copy of said recommendations with the Civil Service Commission. The Fire
Chief shall exercise all powers and duties provided by the general law or the ordinances of the
City Council and shall devote his or her entire time to the discharge of the duties of this office.
SECTION 1603. Absence of Fire Chief.
In the event of the absence or disability of the Fire Chief, or vacancy in such office, the
City Manager shall designate an interim Fire Chief to assume charge of the Department until the
Chief returns or a successor is appointed.
SECTION 1604. Deputy Fire Chief.
The Fire Chief shall have the power to appoint at his or her discretion, without
competitive examination, one or more Deputy Fire Chiefs. After appointment, the Deputy Fire
Chief shall hold said position at the pleasure of the Fire Chief. If the Fire. Chief demotes a
Deputy Fire Chief, the Deputy Fire Chief shall be restored to the last civil service position, if
any,held immediately prior to appointment as Deputy Fire Chief.
MY amr �
PTV'- Page 1 of 3
DM JUL 2 12010 $1-58
SECTION 1605. Assignment of Chief Officers.
The Fire Chief shall have the power to assign chief officers to fill the necessary
supervisory positions in the Fire Department, and shall assign a chief officer as Fire Marshal and
a chief officer as Director of Training.
SECTION 1606.Temporary Firefighters.
In case of emergency, the City Manager may appoint additional firefighters and officers
for temporary service,who need not be in the classified service. Such authority may be exercised
under the direction of the Fire Chief and for a specified time, and all such appointees shall be
subject to and obey all rules and regulations of the Fire Department.
SECTION 1607.Impartial Mediation for Employee Disputes.
(a) Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of
Stockton that strikes by firefighters are not in the public interest and should be prohibited, and
that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes that might
otherwise lead to such strikes.
(b) Prohibition Against Strikes. If any firefighter employed by the City of Stockton
willfully engages in a strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her
employment and may not be reinstated or returned to City employment except as a new
employee. No officer, board, council, or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to
any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City.
(c) Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized
representatives, shall negotiate in good faith with recognized Fire Department employee
organizations on all matters relating to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City
employment within the scope of representation, including the establishment of procedures for the
resolution of grievances concerning the interpretation or application of a negotiated agreement.
(d) Impasse Resolution Procedures.
(1) All disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and
conditions of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations regarding a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City and a Fire Department employee
organization should be submitted to impartial mediation upon the declaration of an impasse by
the City or by the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute.
(2) Within three (3) days after either party has notified the other, in writing,
that it desires to proceed to mediation, representatives designated by the City and representatives
of the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute shall request cost free mediation
through the California State Mediation and Conciliation or other mutually agreeable
organization. The parties may mutually agree on a private mediator or other impasse resolution
process.
Page 2 of 3
B1-59
(3) Any mediation proceeding convened pursuant to this Article shall be
conducted in conformance with State law. The parties may also adopt such other procedures that
are designed to encourage an agreement between the parties, expedite the mediation process, or
reduce the costs of the mediation.
(4) The cost of any mediation convened pursuant to this Article, including the
fee for the services of the mediator, shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses
which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses.
SECTION 1608. Restrictions.
No memorandum of understanding(MOU)may be enforced unless the costs are fully and
openly explained in public, the City Manager certifies that the-MOU costs are appropriate and
affordable under the City's budget, and the MOU is adopted by majority vote of the City
Council.
ARTICLE XXV CML SERVICE
SECTION 2501. Employees Subject to Civil Service.
Classified service of the City of Stockton shall include all employees of the Fire
Department and Police Department, including the Chief of each Department, except that the
Chief of Police and Deputy Chief of Police, and the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief, shall be
appointed and shall hold office as specified in Articles XVII and XVI of this Charter,
respectively. Except as hereinbefore expressly provided, all appointments and promotions in the
Fire Department and the Police Department shall be made solely on merit, efficiency, and
fitness, which shall be ascertained by an open, competitive examination and impartial
investigation.
No person shall be appointed to, reinstated in, transferred, suspended, demoted, or
discharged from any such office, place, position, or employment contrary .to the provisions of
this Charter.
Page 3 of 3
B1-60
CITY OF VALLEJO
B1-61
O
Agenda No.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: February 9, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert F. D. Adams, interim City Manage PA
Craig Whittom, Assistant City Manager/Community Developmenk�zki
John Nagel, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO CALLING AND
ORDERING AN ELECTION TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS A
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE TO REPEAL
SECTION 809, ENTITLED "EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS,
MEDIATION ARBITRATION" (BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION), TO
BE PLACED ON THE JUNE 8, 2010 BALLOT
PROPOSED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt three resolutions related to a City of
Vallejo Charter amendment measure to repeal Section 809, entitled "Employer-
Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration" (Binding Interest Arbitration), to be placed
on the June 8, 2010 ballot.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 10, 2009, the City Council appointed a fourteen member committee charged
to review the City Charter. The Committee first considered how to prioritize what the
City Council had asked them to review. The Committee determined that Section 809 of
the City Charter (Employer-Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration, also referred to
as "Binding Interest Arbitration") should be its first priority and would be considered by
the Committee as a whole. The Committee reviewed Section 809 during their scheduled
and publicized meetings. Over a period of approximately two months, the Committee
held nine (9) meetings, including the required published public hearing, prior to voting
on their recommendation regarding Section 809. The process included the following:
1. An overview of Section 809 of the City Charter by the City Attorney and staff.
2. An educational session on Binding Interest. Arbitration by two disinterested
attorneys, Attorney Art Hartinger representing a management perspective and
Attorney Ronald Yank representing a labor perspective.
JAJMCharter Section 809 8-10102-09-10 Binding InterestArbitratlon Staff Report(Final).docc
B1-62
ADMIN D
O
Page 2
3. Advocacy presentations from:
a. The Citizen Committee that had attempted to place a measure repealing
Section 809 on the ballot.
b. The City Union groups: Confidential, Administrative, Managerial and
Professional Group — (CAMP); Attorney Alan Davis and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - (IBEWX Vaflejo Police Officers
Association — (VPOA); and the International Association of Fire Fighters —
(IAFF).
c. The City staff with Attorney Jeffrey Sloan from Renne, Sloan, Holtzman
and Sakai, LLP presented management perspective.
4. Rebuttals from:
a. The Union groups along with Attorney Alan Davis (CAMP did not
participate).
b. Former City of Vallejo Human Resources Director Mark Gregersen,
Attorney Jeffrey Sloan and City staff.
5. Received public input during each meeting.
6. Presentation on the Impasse Resolution Procedures relating to the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act by Attorney Art Hartinger and Attorney Ronald Yank.
On June 17, 2009, after review of all of the information provided, the Committee voted
to recommend to the City Council that measure to repeal City Charter Section 809 be
placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2009 election, by a 9-5 vote. On June 24,
2009, the Committee adopted its report on this recommendation,
On June 30, 2009, the Committee's report and findings supporting its recommendation
to repeal Section 809 and a Minority Report were provided to City Council for its
consideration. The City Council adopted Council Resolution No. 09-156 N.C., which
accepted the Committee's Report and directed staff to: 1) prepare and bring back to
City Council for its consideration a ballot measure to be placed on the June 2010 ballot
for the public to decide whether or not to remove Section 809 from the Charter, 2)
prepare a process for dispute resolution that goes with that measure to be placed on the
ballot at the same time, and 3) to commence the meet and consult process with
recognized employee organizations.
On July 23, 2009, City representatives sent a letter notifying the VPOA, [AFF, and IBEW
of the City Council's direction, and inviting the Unions to meet and consult over the City
Council's resolution. The letter included the City's initial proposal to repeal Section 809.
Representatives of the City and the three labor Unions met on September 21, 2009, and
again on November 10, 2009, at which time the Unions provided a proposal modifying
JA MCharter Section 809 6-10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbitration staff Report(Final).docx
B1-63
ADMIN D
O
Page 3
the provisions of Section 809, but maintaining binding interest arbitration as the ultimate
conclusion of the City's impasse procedure. The Unions indicated that binding interest
arbitration was the essential element of their proposal. Given the distance between the
parties, the City sent a letter declaring impasse on November 19, 2009. The Unions
have not responded to that letter and the City has advised the Unions in writing that the
meet and consult process has concluded.
City representatives also met with representatives of CAMP on November 19, 2009 and
indicated that the City intended to present a ballot measure repealing Section 809.
CAMP representatives indicated that they would notify the City if they were interested in
consulting over this proposal. As the City has received no response from CAMP the
City has advised CAMP in writing that the meet and consult process has concluded.
As the meet and consult process had been completed, Staff prepared a draft measure
title, ballot question and additional recommendations for City Council's consideration.
On January 26, 2010, Staff presented a report to the City Council, including a draft
measure title and ballot question, recommending that the City Council not put a
companion alternate dispute resolution measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot (because
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act provides for the adoption of impasse procedures by
ordinance), and recommending the retention of elections consultants to assist the City
in placing a measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot. The City Council adopted a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute elections consultant contracts, discussed
whether an alternative impasse resolution procedure needed to be placed on the June
8, 2010 ballot and asked if staff could simplify the draft ballot question while maintaining
the intent of the measure.
ELECTIONS RESOLUTIONS
In order to submit a measure to the voters for approval, the City Council must adopt
three resolutions.
RESOLUTION, ON THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL'S OWN MOTION, CALLING AND
ORDERING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE
STATEWIDE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8,
2010 TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT,
ENTITLED "CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST
ARBITRATION FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER"
Attachment A is the proposed resolution calling and ordering an election. The resolution
must include the measure title and ballot question. Attachment A includes the following
revised draft measure title and ballot question, subject to consideration and approval by
JAJMCharterSection 809 6-10102-09-10 Binding InterestArbitration Staff Report(Finaq.docx
B1-64
ADMIN D
9�0
O
Page4_
the City Council:-
PROPOSED
ouncil:PROPOSED MEASURE TITLE AND BALLOT QUESTION
CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION
FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER
Shall Section 809 of the Charter of the City of Vallejo be repealed to YES
remove the mediation/arbitration process, commonly referred to as
binding interest arbitration, that permits an arbitrator, without City
Council approval, to make the final decision to resolve disputes
between the City and its recognized employee organizations on all
matters relating to wages, hours, and working conditions and NO
instead to use the method of resolving such disputes set forth in
state law?
RESOLUTION SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING OF WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, ENTITLED
"CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM
THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER" AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
The second resolution (Attachment B) is drafted so that the City Council could authorize
an individual City Council member or more than one City Council member to write an
argument for or against the proposed Charter Amendment. The City Council may
authorize up to five (5) members to write an argument for or against the Charter
Amendment. The City Council is not obligated to name any of its members. If the
Council chooses not to authorize any member(s) to write arguments, then any individual
voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide associations of citizens, or any
combination of voters and associations, may file a written argument for or against the
Charter Amendment pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282. Assuming that the City
Council desires an impartial analysis to accompany the measure, the City Council would
have to adopt the portion of the Resolution directing the City Attorney to draft an
impartial analysis.
During the meeting of February 9, 2010 staff is requesting that the City Council decide
upon the members or decide to not authorize any members to write arguments. If the
J:\JN\Charter Section 809&10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbitration Staff Report(Final).dooc
B1-65
i
ADMIN D
Page5_
City Council decides not to file a written argument in favor of the measure, the City
Clerk will select an argument in favor of the measure for the ballot pamphlet in
accordance with the priority order set forth in Elections Code Section 9287, which
states:.
If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any city
measure is submitted to the city elections official within the time
prescribed, he or she shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of
the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the
voters. In selecting the argument the city elections official shall give
preference and priority, in the order named, to the arguments of the
following`
(a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body
authorized by that body.
(b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or
combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or
proponents of the measure.
(c) Bona fide associations of citizens.
(d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, ENTITLED "CHARTER
AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM THE
VALLEJO CITY CHARTER" TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT THE
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 812010
The City Council also has the authority to determine if rebuttal arguments will be
permitted. If rebuttal arguments are permitted, the author or a majority of the authors of
an argument relating to a.City measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not
exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to
prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing rebuttal
arguments on the measure (see Attachment C). Rebuttal arguments provide additional
information to the voters, and staff recommends that the additional expense is
warranted to assist the voters in understanding the measure. Pursuant to Elections
Code Section 9285 (b) this Resolution must be adopted no later than the day on which
J:UN\Charter Section 809 6-10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbltration Staff Report(Final).docx
B1-66
ADMIN D
—_ �. 1
l
o
Page 6
the City Council calls the election, and if the Resolution is adopted then it applies"at the
next ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election thereafter, unless it is
later repealed" by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to proceed with the placement of the proposed charter amendment measure on
the June 8, 2010 ballot, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the three
proposed resolutions.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
In order for the City Council to submit this proposed charter amendment measure to the
voters, there is no other alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The submittal of a Charter Amendment to the voters is not a project as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to section 15378 (b) (3) of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations as it concerns the submittal of proposals to the
voters of the City and is not subject to environmental review. A Notice of Exemption will
be filed with the Solano County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost estimate from the Solano County Registrar of Voters regarding placing a
charter amendment on the June 8, 2010 ballot is approximately $378,000. The cost of
consultant assistance for project management and educational materials is estimated at
$80,000. The approved FY 2009-10 budget includes an appropriation for the June 8,
2010 measure. No further action to amend the budget is required at this time.
CITY COUNCIL AREAS OF FOCUS
The Charter Review Committee was initiated by the City Council in early 2009, and as
such its scope and recommendations are a component of the Areas of Focus developed
by the City Council in 2008.
JA MCherter Section 809 6-10102-09-10 Binding InterestArbitratlon Staff Report(Flnal).d=
B1-67
ADMIN D
Page 7
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
ATTACHMENT A - RESOLUTION, ON THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL'S OWN
MOTION, CALLING AND ORDERING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010 TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS A PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENT, ENTITLED "CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE
BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER",
ATTACHMENT B - RESOLUTION SETTING PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING OF
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENT, ENTITLED "CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING
INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER" AND DIRECTING
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT C - RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL
ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT,
ENTITLED "CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST
ARBITRATION FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER" TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE
VOTERS AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
JUNE 8, 2010
CONTACT PERSONS
Craig Whittom, Assistant City Manager/Community Development
(707) 648-4570
cwhittom@ci.vallejo.ca.us
or
John Nagel, Assistant City Attorney
(707) 648-4545
nagel@ci.vallejo.ca.us
JAMCharter Section 809 6-10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbitratlon Staff Report(Final).doc x
B1-68
ADMIN D
dl
EXHIBIT 1
CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM
THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER
Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Vallejo is amended to repeal Section 809 as
follows:
.
a. it shall be - *-' ' '.-0',, employees individually eF seliestively to negetiate en
matteF agsing out of See-tiens 803(n) 8F 893(8) of this Gh8FtSF.
in its judgment deems suGh *R the best publie
G. Both parties shall exchange the;F Witten demands at lebst 180 GaleRdaF days befGFe
mediation
,
J:UN\Charter Section 809 6711 Minding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election(Flnai).doc
B1-69
1
A,pjMl
CSI ''
employees,g. If FIG agmement between the padies has been shed within 14 r_%;'ARdAF days afteF the
best effeF eR eaeh ef the issues still wR dispute VAth*R 14 ea!eAdaF days afteir the R-tak-ef.
GlFbitmfien PFGGeedmi;gr*, and 4--hemse eft. —re— shall immediately be made publim Tl;kq
FsediateF/aFb;tFat9F shall she()se GRe ef the pates' last beg-*effer faw Pan.h. issue Stil"A
dispute and shall have Re PGWeF te medify . .- .. i the last best effem of efthe
Fneet these Gests. if ene ef the paFUes fails to submR-ft last best e#eF within the abeve
%RBeFPGFatiAg the teFFRs aF;d een&iem ef the last beat GftF made by the paFty that haS
.
J:V MCharter Section 809 6-1 Minding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election(Final).doe
B1-70
IN D
j. The pmvisiesis-ef this Sestion shall net be GenstFued as making any of the pmvisieRs
u u
J:UMCharter Section 809 6-10NBinding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election(Final).doo
B1-71
J 1 rli J� 9J�i�d�u�4� J
Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney
This charter amendment measure would repeal Vallejo City Charter section 809,
resulting in the City Council ("Council") gaining the authority to make final decisions on
disputed wages, hours and working conditions for City employees.
Under existing state law. and Vallejo City Charter section 809, the City is required to
meet and confer in good faith with recognized employee organizations ("unions") about
wages, hours, and working conditions for City employees. Under section 809, if the
City and a union(s) cannot reach an agreement, the parties are required to participate in
non-binding .mediation. After mediation, if the parties are still unable to reach an
agreement, then arbitration proceedings are commenced and a neutral arbitrator has r
the exclusive power to decide the terms of the contract or other unresolved issues
between the Union and City. The arbitrator must choose the last best offer of one of the
parties for each employment term and condition still unresolved. The arbitration award
is binding on both sides. This process is commonly known as binding interest
arbitration.
If section 809 is repealed, the City remains subject to the provisions of state law found
in the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The Act was adopted by the California State
Legislature to promote full communication between public employers and their
employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Under the Act, the City is
obligated to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with its unions and required to fully consider their
presentations prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.
Additionally, the Council may establish on its own or by mutual consent with its unions
an impasse resolution process to resolve issues on which the parties cannot agree,
which may include mediation. The ultimate decision on whether an agreement is
reached would rest with the Council. In the event the parties do not reach agreement
through the impasse resolution procedure, the Act authorizes the Council to implement
its last, best, and final offer. if the Council takes this action, the City remains obligated
to meet and confer with its union(s) prior to its adoption of the City's next fiscal year
budget.
Finally, under section 809, any employee who participates in a strike, work stoppage or
other concerted work-related action against the City is considered to have terminated
his or her employment and may return to City employment only as a new employee.
Under existing state law, firefighters and police officers are prohibited from striking or
recognizing a picket line while performing their official duties. Other city employees are
not subject to this prohibition. If section 809 is repealed, then City employees will
remain subject to existing state law.
A "Yes" vote will remove section 809 and the binding interest arbitration provisions from
the City Charter. A "No" vote will retain section 809 and the binding interest arbitration
provisions in the City Charter.
Frederick G. Soley
City Attorney
JAJMdharter Section so9 810Umpartial analysis of 809 charter amendment-v7(dean).doc
Bl
_w2
1 00-
(V
L(V
council agenda
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 990 Palm Street
7:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Andrew Carter and Kathy
Smith, Vice Mayor John Ashbaugh and Mayor Jan Marx
6:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION — COUNCIL HEARING ROOM
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPIC
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Rick Bolanos
Employee Organizations: San Luis Obispo City Employees' Association (SLOCEA),
San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association (POA),
Fire Battalion Chiefs' Association and
San Luis Obispo City Firefighters, Local 3523
Unrepresented Employees: Confidential Employees, Unrepresented Management
Employees
ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING.
inCity Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to
including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call
781-7100.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for
public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,during normal business hours..
Council Agenda Tuesday, r"ebruary 22, 2010
7:00 P.M. — SPECIAL MEETING — COUNCIL CHAMBER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jan Manx
ROLL CALL: Council Members Dan Carpenter, Andrew Carter and Kathy
Smith, Vice Mayor John Ashbaugh and Mayor Jan Marx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CLOSED SESSION REPORT. (DIETRICK)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY: You may address the Council on any item described in this agenda by
completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. The Mayor will invite public comments before
the Council takes action on each item. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.3(a)) Your speaking time is limited to three(3) minutes.
CC&P Sec.1.3.7
BUSINESS ITEM
1. CONSIDERATION OF AND COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING POTENTIAL
BALLOT MEASURES TO MODIFY OR REPEAL SAN LUIS OBISPO
CHARTER SECTIONS 1105 (RETIREMENT) AND 1107 (IMPARTIAL AND
BINDING ARBITRATION FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION AND SAN LUIS OBISPO FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, [AFF
LOCAL 3523, EMPLOYEE DISPUTES.) (LICHTIG/DIETRICK)
RECOMMENDATION: Review information relating to the feasibility and process for
placing two potential Charter amendments (one relating to binding arbitration and one
relating to pension reform) on the June 2011 ballot, or a subsequent ballot, and provide
staff direction on: 1. Whether Council wishes to place ballot measures on a ballot 2.
Whether Council wishes to place measures on the June 2011 ballot or a subsequent
ballots . The specific elements of any measure that Council may wish to have drafted
for pa ment on a ballot.
ADJO N.
2
RED FILE
From: Joe JOhnson[SMTP:JJHNSON@ATT.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:51:52 AM - MEETING AGENDA
To: Council, Slocity PATITEM #,-Et-
Subject: meeting tonight on arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council Members,
We are unable to attend tonight's meeting due to a conflict in
schedules, but we support John Ashbaugh's compromise on the issue of
binding arbitration and would prefer that the council not do away
absolutely with binding arbitration.
Yours truly,
Madeleine and Joe Johnson
SLO
hard co enlaiL
o COUNCIL o CDD DIR
o CnYMGR o FITDR
° AZT CM C FIRE CHW
o ATTORNEY c PWDR
From: Tres Feltman[SMTP:TRESTILE@CHARTER.NET] C CLERxmrj o POLICE CIM
° PIB OFAM&RECDR
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 20112:15:34 PM C TRIBUNE C UMDR
a NEW 7UM C HR DM
To: Council, S1oCity o SIO CrrYNM aCOUNCIL
Subject: Binding Arbitration o Crry MGR
CLM
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Council Members,
I am unable to attend this evenings council meeting but if I was I would be there in strong
support of putting binding arbitration and the city's right and obligation to make pension
cuts and any other cuts necessary to keep this city's finances healthy. We should not be
bullied into not acting in the best interest of the people of San Luis Obispo.
Tres Feltman
Hands Gallery
777 Higuera St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED
www.HandsGailery.com
FEB 2 2 1011
SLO CITY CLERK
council memoRanbum
city_of san Luis owlIpo_,__o f Ice o f the city attouney �
DATE: February 22, 2011
RED FILE
TO: City Council _. MEETING AGENDA
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager DATE ITEM # 1
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorn
SUBJECT: Red File Item B1: Elections Code Relating to Consolidation with State Wide
Special Election
In the rush to get the agenda report out on Friday, it was brought to my attention that I omitted a
significant provision of the Elections Code relating to the City's ability to consolidate with a
state wide special election called by the Governor on a date other than June 7, 2011.
Section 10406 of the California Elections Code provides as follows:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a statewide
special election is called less than 88 days prior to the date of
that election, a district, city, or other political subdivision may
call for a special local election for the submission of any question,
proposition, or office to be filled, to be consolidated with the
statewide special election if the call is issued within four days
from the date of issuance of the Governor's proclamation or the
effective date of a statute calling for a statewide special election."
This Section is potentially important because it would appear to permit the City to place
measures on the ballot, and consolidate with the state wide election, notwithstanding the
requirement that Charter amendments cannot be placed on the ballot less than 88 days prior to an
election.
The time frame for the City to notice a meeting and call such an election would obviously be
very short. If the Council wishes to keep the alternative provided by this provision open, staff
should be provided specific direction regarding the substance of any measure Council would like
drafted, so that any such measure would be ready for placement on the ballot in the very short
time frame provided.
hard calm. email:
o COUNCII. O CDD D1R
o CBYMGR o RTnIR
RECEIVE® ° Am CM
amm °�Q
o ATTORNEY PWMR
o CIERKFDR[O cv POLICECHffiF
FM FEB 2 2 2011 a o UMMIt DM
O NMM= On=
O SLOCrNNM O COUNCL
`
SLO CITY CLERK aMP2K
O oe
revised February 2011
San Luis Obispo City Employee Associations
President: Ron Faria E ail: rfaria slocity.org hone: 805-781-7196
Vice President: Madelyn -
Secretary: Andrea Montes
Treasurer: Charlie Corrow
Sergeant at Arms: Steve Kritz
Consultant: Dale Strobridge with:
Strobridge, Brennler and Associates
PO Box 3914
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Telephone: 805-441-3256
Fax: 805-461-5773
SBA1 Consulting(cD-aol.com
San Luis Obispo Fire Fighters Association - Local 3523
President: Erik Baskin: Email: erikbaskinacharter.net Phone: 805-550-5020
Vice President: Mike King 4p_ Slzrt-fy, or' _
Secretary: Jody Larson 0
Treasurer: Bob Bisson
Sergeant at Arms: Ralph Martini
Directors: Greg Logan, John McDonald, Kerry Boyle, Matt Polkow
Consultant: Stuart Adams with:
Adams Ferrone & Ferrone
660 Hampshire Road, Suite 204
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Work: (805) 373-5900
Mobile: (818) 519-3520
sadams@adamsferrone.com
Battalion Chiefs Fire Association
President: Mike Hogan V
Other BC's: Dave Podhorsky, Chris Slate, and Neal Berryman
devised February 2011
San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
President: Matt Blackstone Email: slopoa(abaol.com Phone: 805-781-7317
Vice President: Dustin Alexander
Secretary: Christy Beckwith n�
Treasurer: Adam Stahnke
Members at Large: Barbara Sims & Aaron Schafer
Consultant: Dale Strobridge with:
Strobridge, Brennler and Associates
PO Box 3914
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Telephone: 805-441-3256
Fax: 805-461-5773
SBA1 Consulting(cDaol.com
San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers' Association
President: Kem Rosenblum Email: krosenbl(cDslocity.orq Phone: 805-781-7342
Vice President: John Bledsoe
Treasurer: Kurt Hixenbaugh
Member at Large: Tom DePriest
Chippendale, Sue
Distribution List Name: Media Group for Council Agendas Only
Members:
AnneMarie Comejo acornejo@thetribunenews.com
Antonio Prado aprado@thetribunenews.com
Bob Cuddy bcuddy@thetribunenews.com
Brandon Downing bdowning@ksby.com
chris@tolosapress chris@tolosapress.com
Cynthia Lambert clambert@thetribunenews.com
D. Schermer dschermer@ksby.com
David Sneed -Tribune dsneed@thetribunenews.com
Frank Lanzone frank@kcbx.org
Hank Hadley hhadley@kcbx.org
Hilding Larson hlarson@slonet.org
Julie Lynem jlynem@thetribunenews.com
KCOY-KKFX centralcoastnews@kcoy.com
KSBY News news@ksby.com
Media t@tolosapress.com
Pam Muse pmuse@ig.org
Robert.MacDonald rmcdonald@newtimesslo.com
Ryan Miller rmiller@newtimesslo.com
SLO City News chris@slocitynews.com
1
• Chippendale, Sue
Distribution List Name: CDD Planners for Resolution and Ordinance Distribution
Members:
Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org
Corey, Tyler tcorey@slocity.org
David, James jdavid@slocity.org
Davidson, Doug ddavidso@slocity.org
Dunsmore, Phil pdunsmor@slocity.org
Hill, Jaime jhill@slocity.org
Hook, Jeff jhook@slocity.org
Leveille, Brian bleveill@slocity.org
Mandeville, John jmandeville@slocity.org
Murry, Kim kmurry@slocity.org
Ricci, Pam pricci@slocity.org
1
Chippendale, Sue
Distribution List Name: Agenda&Action Update Distribution Grou[
Members:
Beights, Todd tbeights@slocity.org
Betz, Ryan rbetz@slocity.org
Bishop, Katherine kbishop@slocity.org
Blair, Cheryl cblair@slocity.org
Bochum, Tim tbochum@slocity.org
Bradley, Mary mbradley@slocity.org
Cano, Elaina ecano@slocity.org
Chippendale, Sue schippen@slocity.org
Clark, Claire cclark@slocity.org
Codron, Michael mcodron@slocity.org
Corey, Tyler tcorey@slocity.org
Cox, Julie jcox@slocity.org
Davidson, Doug ddavidson@slocity.org
Dietrick, Christine cdietrick@slocity.org
Dostalek, Diane ddostalek@slocity.org
Dunsmore, Phil pdunsmore@slocity.org
Elke, Brigitte belke@slocity.org
Ellsworth, Melissa mellswor@slocity.org
Guardado, Miguel mguardad@slocity.org
Hannula, Hal hhannula@slocity.org
Hanson, Tammy thanson@slocity.org
Havlik, Neil nhavlik@slocity.org
Henderson, Gary ghenders@slocity.org
Hendricks, Rachael rhendric@slocity.org
Hernandez, Alejandro ahernand@slocity.org
Hix, Dave dhix@slocity.org
Horch, Robert rhorch@slocity.org
Horn, Matt mhom@slocity.org
Hudson, Jake jhudson@slocity.org
Hudson, Liz ehudson@slocity.org
Irons, Monica mirons@slocity.org
Judge, Christopher cjudge@slocity.org
Keavney, Gary gkeavney@slocity.org
Keith Pellemeier kpelleme@slocity.org
Leyva. Carmen cleyva@slocity.org
Lichtig, Katie kiichtig@slocity.org
Linden, Deborah dlinden@slocity.org
Lynch, Barbara blynch@slocity.org
Malicoat, Debbie dmalicoat@slocity.org
Mandeville, John jmandevi@slocity.org
Mandeville, Peggy pmandevilie@slocity.org
Mattingly, Carrie cmattingly@slocity.org
McAndrew, Sallie smcandrew@slocity.org
Messner, Rachel rmessner@slocity.org
Metz, Jennifer jmetz@slocity.org
Montes, Andrea amontes@slocity.org
Mudgett, Melissa mmudgett@slocity.org
Munds, Ron rmunds@slocity.org
Murry, Kim Kmurry@slocity.org
New, Sheila snew@slocity.org
Paasch, Madelyn mpaasch@slocity.org
Prows, Claudia cprows@slocity.org
Reynolds, Marti mreynold@slocity.org
Ricci, Pam pricci@slocity.org
1
Richardson, April arichard@slocity.org
Schmidt, Steve sschmidt@slocity.org
Staley, Chris cstaley@slocity.org
Stanwyck, Shelly sstanwyc@slocity.org
Sutter, Nickole nsutter@slocity.org
Thompson, Jennifer jthompso@slocity.org
Tim Girvin tgirvin@slocity.org
Tregenza, Ardith atregenz@slocity.org
Venditti, Bonnie bvenditt@slocity.org
Walter, Jay jwalter@slocity.org
Webster, John jwebster@slocity.org
Youngblood, Kim kyoungbl@slocity.org
Yun, David dyun@slocity.org
Zocher, Greg gzocher@slocity.org
2
'hard coDv. email:
a COUNCD. o CDD DDL
a CnYMOR a FIT DIR
a ASST CM aFMCHU
From: John D. Grady, CFP Ugradyslo@earthlink.net] o ATrORM o Pwnux
a (LERWRIO c POLICECKU
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 20112:44 PM a PIH c PAW&RECDIR
To: Council ALL o TRMM n UMDIR
a MV TD= a RRDIR
Subject: Binding Arbitation Discussion a SWCrffNM oCUMa.
a CRY MOR
a CLERK
Dear Council members,
My thanks to Andrew, Kathy, and Dan for having the courage to bring the binding
arbitration issue to a special council meeting for discussion and possible action. I only
wish John and Jan had made this a unanimous decision in an effort to help take politics
out of this issue. It is not (and should not) be a political issue;.it is a fiscal issue
This need not be a political issue pitting one council member against another. You are
all on board to manage our city, an integral part of which (especially in these times) is
being fiscally responsible and good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. If it is true that
80% (or more) of our budget is already going to personnel costs, how can you in good
conscience not take up this issue of binding arbitration which handcuffs your ability to
effectively manage our city's finances?
I believe Andrew's argument is well founded that when you enter contract negotiations
for the many labor contracts expiring at year's end that you cannot allow yourselves to
be at the mercy once again of an arbitrator who cares not about the impacts on our
city's budget and the very real impacts that enhanced labor costs would have on our
city's residents and the programs we can afford to offer.
At the very least, you should be willing to allow the voters an up or down vote on this
issue-that is all that I believe you as a council can do anyway. To say that the voters
have already spoken is like burying your head in the sand. Yes,the voters spoke 10
years ago, but times were different then and perhaps the voters have seen the folly of
their previous action and now want to change course. Why not at least give them this
opportunity to have a voice and to be heard again on this issue? Why do we submit you
and all office holders to reelection every 2 to 4 years if not to allow voters to reaffirm
their previous vote or to perhaps change their minds?
Regards, RECEIVED
C E I V E
C RED FILE
John Grady FEB 2 ., --2ou MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo PATE2Lj2la ITEM # 3)
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Racouillat[racouillat@charter.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 11:43 AM
To: Carter, Andrew; Carpenter, Dan; Manx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy
Subject: Binding Arbitration and Pension Reform
Mayor Marx and members of the City Council:
In anticipation of the Council meeting on Tuesday, I urge you to consider
the following:
1. Binding Arbitration.
(a) The Council should adopt a measure to be placed on the
November 8, 2011 ballot asking voters: (i) to repeal Binding Arbitration; or
alternatively, (ii) to modify Binding Arbitration based on agreements, if any,
reached between the City and Public Safety unions prior to the election.
(b) Steps should be taken immediately to engage all principal
stakeholders to negotiate reforms that can be placed on the November
ballot as an alternative to outright repeal of binding arbitration. This
addresses public safety union assertions that the parties must meet and
confer before placing a measure on the ballot regarding binding
arbitration. Absent the threat of repeal of binding arbitration and the
adverse consequences of outright repeal, what are the incentives for
either party to negotiate in good faith?All protagonists will be relieved
that the matter can be resolved in a reasonable period of time, and not be
left hanging without a timeline to meet and confer.
2. Pension Reform.
(a) The Council should agree now to adopt a comprehensive
measure later for the November 8, 2011 ballot asking voters to consider
specific salary and pension reforms for City employees, as required by
Charter Section 1105.
(b) Steps should betaken immediately to engage all principal
stakeholders and negotiate reforms that can be placed on the. November
ballot as an alternative to voter-initiated reforms.
3. Budget Reform. The City should immediately and aggressively
engage in serious budget reform in addition to the negotiations suggested
a bove.
Thank you,
r I �
Rick Racouillat
From: Dan Bertozzi fdbertozz@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Carter, Andrew; Marx, Jan; Smith,
Kathy
Cc: dbertozz@calpoly.edu
Subject: San Luis Obispo Pension Reform
Dear Members of the Council,
I am writing in support of the substance of three proposals set forth
in Ron Malak's letter to the editor appearing in the February 3rd
edition of the San Luis Obispo Tribune. He proposes that the following
three measures be submitted to a vote of the electorate:
(1) A measure to modify or repeal (I favor repeal) binding
arbitration regarding the
compensation/benefits of city police and fire employees.
(2) A measure to shift the funding of the employee portion of
retirement contributions
from the city to the employee. (I always assumed that all
city employees contributed
48 to 68 of gross salary to their pension system with the city
picking up the remainder
of the contribution--if this is not the case the policy should
be changed) .
(3) A measure implementing a second tier retirement benefit for
all new city employees.
As a retired state employee (Cal Poly professor) , I fully support a
reasonably generous defined benefit pension program for city employees.
I believe the current city (and I suspect county as well) defined
benefit pension program offering a formula of 2 .78 at age 55 for city
employee years of service and 38 at age 50 for police and fire employee
years of service exceeds the reasonably generous standard.
I suggest that in moving to a second tier retirement benefit for new
employees, a new pension formula of 2.38 at age 60 for city employees
(except police and fire) , and 2 .58 at age 55 (advancing to 2 .78 at age
60) for city police and fire employees be established by the city
council or submitted to a city-wide vote in the next 12 months.
I realize the above proposals are politically controversial, but I
believe they are fair and necessary given the fiscal realities facing
the city of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
Dan Bertozzi
1634 E1 Cerrito Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA.
From: marie[SMTP:CCMSLO@ATT.NET]
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:47:24 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: ccroslo@att.net
Subject: binding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear City Council members,
Thank you to the three members of the council who
voted to consider placing binding arbitrition on the
ballot; you are acting as responsible stewards for the
city of SLO and are showing true understanding of the
fiscal state of our city. Many of the citizens in SLO did
not understand the ramifications of binding arbitration
and the devistating effects it would have on our city. I
have lived here for 45 years and care deeply about
SLO.
I would urge Ms. Marx and Mr. Ashbaugh to act with
courage, and allow the voters to decide on this issue.
You were elected to represent all of the residents of
SLO, not just the police and fire who endorsed you,
most of whom live outside the city of SLO and
obviously do not care about the financial health of our
city.
Sincerely,
C.C. MacLean
From: cc me lean[SMTP:CCMSLO@ATT.NET]
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 8:11:14 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Fw: binding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
P.S. It is devastating that I misspelled devastating!
From: Jacqueline Whitesides[SMTP:JWHITESIDES@]N-CON.COM]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:04:47 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I cannot make the Tuesday meeting but would like the city council to understand that many of
us SLO voters DID NOT realize when we voted for arbitration that meant the arbitrator picked
ONE SIDE OVER ANOTHER. I honestly thought it meant negotiation. The city council should
have the authority to make the decision in City Employees' salaries not some arbitrator who
does not even live here. We voter's vote for the City Council and you are OUR input in these
very important decisions.
Thank you,
Jacqueline Whitesides
From: Larry Pennington[SMTP;LNKPEN@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 1:08:53 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Binding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Council,
I probably need to "disclose" that I do have a very part time position with the City but I
am writing as a citizen of Slo City.
I urge you to place binding arbitration in front of the people again and place it on the
ballot.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Larry Pennington
Lnkpen@hotmail.com
From: mtbdesign@aol.com[SMTP:MTBDESIGN@AOL.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 2:01:33 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Pension Costs?
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Council,
Check my numbers, but I added up the annual cost of the 15 retirees
below. I get $1,730,000.00 per year. Then, if we assume (on average)
that all retired at 60, (some sooner some later) then multiply the annual
total by 15 years (average 75 yr life span) we get $25,930,000.00 for 15
people.
Do you think the majority of San Luis Obispo citizens know that their tax
dollars are used to support these obligations? Do you think they should?
Current pension formulas = 3% of total annual pay x (years in public
service) available at 50 (police and fire) and 2.7% at 55 (all other city
employees)
Retired SLO City Employees With Pensions of More Than $100,000 Per Year
Monthly Annual
Name Pension Pension Former position
Hampian, Kenneth $12,735.39 $152,824.68 City Manager
Statler, William $117605.27 $139,263.24 Finance Director
Blanke, Daniel $11,350.04 $136,200.48 Police Captain
Gardiner,James $10,965.64 $131,587.68 Police Chief
Stephenson, Warren $9,791.05 $117,492.60 Fire Battalion Chief
Rutledge, Robert $9,707.32 $116,487.84 Fire Battalion Chief
Zeulner,Thomas $9,156.35 $109,876.20 Fire Battalion Chief
Topham, Barton $8,931.55 $1071178.60 Police Captain
Hazouri, Josef $8,872.65 $106,471.80 Police Captain
Lesage, Paul $8,783.59 $105,403.08 Parks & Rec. Director
Neumann, Robert $8,706.42 $104,477.04 Fire Chief
I i )
Dunn, Gregg $8,558.05 $102,696.60 Police Officer
Moss, John $8,557.27 $102,687.24 Utilities Director
Crocker, Richard $8,466.96 $101,603.52 Police Sergeant
Dunn,John $8,428.44 $101,141.28 City Manager
Source=California Pension Reform organization.
http://www.califomiapensionreform.com/
All my best,
Michael Boudreau
San Luis Obispo
INFO:
http://online.wsu.com/video/opinion-iournal-california-pension-
disaster/08CBOCA9-7DF1-4441-AD33-D7439D8AF040.html
From: Christine Mulholland[SMTP:CDEV@THEGRID.NETJ
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 2:27:24 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: binding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Mayor and Council members,
Binding arbitration is complicated, and I believe it was approved by
the voters because of the high regard in which public safety employees
are held, and not on its arcane dangers or merits.
I appreciate the two views in the Tribune, but I disagree with the
proposal to amend. It will take too much discussion, time and effort
to iron out the details, and may only further confuse the issue. I
believe the Council should put BA on the ballot now and let it live or
die by the vote. Later is the time to explore other processes.
While true that you have a. lot'-on your. plate with current budget work,
it is short-sighted to put off repeal. Long-term damage has been
done, and there have been threats to use BA to achieve life-time
medical benefits. We can not wait until better economic times to see
if BA will be triggered again. We simply cannot afford it.
I encourage you to take all necessary steps to reform pensions,
including two-tier hiring. Times have changed, and we must all "learn
to live more poorly, " as author Wendell Berry said. Ending BA will
honor all the employees of the city by bringing back the wage parity
that has been the glue among the members of the "family" .
Use your time and energy to balance the current budget before you.
Put BA on the ballot, and let the chips fall where they may. I pledge
to serve on a committee of community members on the campaign to
educate the voters on the importance of overturning what they have put
in place.
Sincerely,
Christine Mulholland
544-6618
From: KENNETH PALMER[SMTP:KENCAROLPALMER@SBCGLOBAL.NET]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 6:50:59 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Date: February 21, 2011
TO: Honorable Council Members, City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Kenneth F. Palmer, Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration
Let me first provide a little background reflecting my experience and
knowledge related to this issue, My Doctoral studies included work in
labor relations. I was tutored by Dr, Harold Davy, a distinguished member
of the American Arbitration Association, and an arbitrator of great
renown. My dissertation developed a framework for public sector
collective bargaining in Iowa. For most of my 30-year career in California,
I have been a union member and leader, have provided union advocacy
testimony before the Public Employee Relations Board, and have
negotiated on behalf of management as a public school administrator
and as S.L,O. County Superintendent of Schools.
I believe I bring a balanced and informed prospective to the subject.
That said, please consider the following background as you deliberate the
issue Tuesday evening.
Over the last 30 years, public sector collective bargaining has evolved
to result in settlements that exceed those in the private sector. Further,
elective bodies tend to be inherently "accommodating" bargainers. This
is not a criticism of individual elected officials—it is a systemic
characteristic. Public sector unions can and do bring strong
organizational and political influence to bear in the bargaining process
that local political entities find difficult to resist.
With regard to the specifics of arbitration, please consider the following
points:
1 . There are two distinct categories of arbitration in collective bargaining.
Interest arbitration (discussions about what goes into the contact--wages
hours and other terms and conditions of employment) and grievance
arbitration—discussions about what the contract says—interpretation of
wording, intent, etc.
Binding grievance arbitration IS efficient and effective as a tool for settling
inevitable questions about the interpretation of contract language. Keep
it in the contract.
2. Binding Interest arbitration IS NOT an effective settlement tool in terms
of public policy, for two reasons.
a. It subverts the collective bargaining process. In the best of all
worlds the bargaining process leads to mutually agreeable personnel
management policy that both parties are committed to. Binding
arbitration tends to undermine the seriousness and give and take
of the process. Either one side or the other—or both-- tends to "hold out"
figuring they may get a better deal from the arbitrator.
b. This is further exacerbated by arbitrators' tendency to be labor
biased. That results in public policy decisions by arbitrators who don't
have to live with the consequences.
3. Although the "last best" or "final most reasonable offer" arbitration we
have in SLO is designed to minimize the disadvantages of binding interest
arbitration and foster serious bargaining and comprise(see (a) above), it
is however undermined by (b).
4. Moving from "last best" to more traditional "split the difference"
binding arbitration simply makes a bad situation worse (see (a) and (b)
above).
5. It has been suggested that lack of final and binding arbitration will lead
to more acrimonious labor relations. Acrimonious behaviors are choices.
Labor or management, or both, can chose to be nasty or nice. Those
behavioral choices are not dictated by the collective bargaining process.
6. Finally, from my perspective, I have concluded that the non-binding
interest dispute settlement processes in place in California public sector
collective bargaining law generally result in reasonable public policy
outcomes. Although the non-binding process is protracted and tends to
be labor biased in its advisory result, the political process has ample
opportunity to play itself out, and the resulting settlement (either imposed
or a comprise) tends to be a reasonable public policy outcome.
I hope that these rather lengthy observations are worthy of your
consideration, and I do urge you, in the long-term interests of our
community, to repeal binding interest arbitration.
Respectfully, Ken Palmer
From: Camille Small[SMTP:NOTETOCAMILLE@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:21:02 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Binding Arbitration Revisited
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members,
The ramifications of binding arbitration have become clear to
voters like me who are:
1)Shocked—and disturbed—by salaries demanded by the San Luis
Police Dept.
2)Convinced that qualified officers will apply and remain with the
SLO force for a fair but lower salary.
3) Certain that voters would be grateful to reconsider their position
on binding arbitration.
Please vote to put the issue back on the ballot.
We all know that municipalities have had to rethink positions, reverse
decisions and rework pension policies. Changes are inevitable--even required--with
changes in circumstances and economic climate.There is nothing wrong with giving us a
chance to change our minds on binding arbitration. If we can properly educate the
electorate, the change will happen and the City of San Luis Obispo will benefit.
Thank you for your consideration,
Camille Small
From: PHILIP IRWIN [pjirwin@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 20119:43 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter; Dan; Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy
Subject: Binding Arbitration
I believe that Binding Arbitration and Pension Reform should be submitted to the voters
as soon as practicable. I believe the Council should: put both Charter Amendments on
the November 8, 2011 ballot; engage in negotiations with public unions to see if mutually
acceptable modifications also can be placed on the ballot and engage in serious budget
reform. Unless the principals are faced with pension reform and repeal of binding
arbitration, what are the incentives to bargain in good faith???
From: Cramer, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 20116:15 PM or : Ci rr1 {'Lj�,� ��; Cp-U t)&L
To: Lichtig, Katie; All City Employees 45-5-1—. lk-"2
Subject RE: Council Action last night
Dear Ms Lichtig,
First of all, I'm replying to all because I know several folks are wondering the same thing I am.
I'm going back to a conversation you and I had after the most recent State of the City. During
that conversation, you indicated that it would cost millions of dollars to buy out of the CalPERS
contract and the City wouldn't be in a position to do that any time soon. It sounds like council is
directing staff to do just that. Is that a prudent thing to do given our current fiscal crisis and
budget deficit that may require layoffs to close without adding another layer onto the deficit?
My other question is why the council is deviating from the normal voting process and trying to
adopt a by mail process? Doesn't that create the potential for voter fraud? I've never heard this
being done before in a municipal election and especially not one with such important issues that
effect the entire group of city employees in regards to CalPERS. The same CalPERS that has a
history of being one of the best funded and managed pension systems in the country.
Respectfully,
Scott Cramer
SLOPD
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 2011
SLO CITY CLERK
1 � I
RECEIVE®
From: Larry Edwards (ledwards70@sbcglobal.net] FEB 2 4 2011
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 20111:06 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Measures to repeal 1105 & 1107
Mayor and Members of Council,
I attended last night's council meeting, left early to put my son to bed and finished watching on
television at home. I am disappointed and upset with the decision made by council to put these
measures on the ballot without further discussion. If section 1105 is repealed, would it really be
in the best interests of the citizens of this city? Does it serve the citizens to have employees with
no retirement benefit or a poor replacement to the current PERS system? Has anyone
considered what the alternative would be if there is no retirement offered through PERS? What
kind of service would the citizens receive from the city's employees when their retirements are
stripped from them? What would that do to the overall morale and dedication of the employees
to continue service to the city? Who would want to come and work here? Certainly no one from
another PERS agency would want to come here to work for whatever inferior retirement is
offered.
I am also disappointed in the vote fora measure to repeal section 1107, but am not surprised by
it. Espedally given the large amount of media coverage on it.
I am a resident of SLO and a voter. I live on Fredericks Street,just a couple of blocks from the
mayor, in a house my wife's grandfather built himself. He was a professor at Cal Poly. Like so
many other residents living in a student neighborhood, I have worked long days, gone to bed at
night, and woken up in the morning to find my property vandalized and my cars vandalized. A
couple of relatives from out of town have also had their cars vandalized or tampered with here. I
have cleaned up red cups, beer cans, beer bottles, and other assorted trash from my yard, the
sidewalk and the street. I am like many residents in predominantly student neighborhoods, but
unique in one way. I am a police officer for the City of San Luis Obispo. I have been a police
officer here since 2005 and the money I make here, I spend here. Prior to coming to work here,
I worked for the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office, the Prince William County Police.Department
in Virginia, and I was a federal police officer with the United States Secret Service, Uniformed
Division, assigned to protection duties at the White House. I would not have considered working
here if the city did not participate in PERS or offer the retirement benefit we currently have. The
ability to attract and retain quality people into jobs with the city is in serious jeopardy if the
measures pass.
These issues are not just about dollars and cents. They are about the overall health of the city,
which includes the well being of all employees serving the city day and night, 365 days a year.
Larry Edwards ���0/��JL 1.02�2�SPD/U� E
San Luis Obispo
�lssr. Cry 416e
/��2NEy
n
74ppi loVAL. v01�f2�si'�aI1>E-x[�
From: Fred Vernacchia[SMTP:FREDV@SLDIAGNOSTIC.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:06:46 PM
To: Council, SloCity cc/ el" me--e-
Subject:
Zle--e-Subject: Binding arbitration and pension reform Ass,—C(,-�P A<qe
Auto forwarded by a Rule A-fr�,vL�J
0 4-A-
Thanks to all of you for having the guts to take on this issue. It may initially appear unsavory, but
if you did not deal with it now, the entire budgeting process would become even more unsavory. If
you do not deal with these two issues, it is highly UNLIKELY the citizens of this City will vote to
renew Measure Y. And if you think you have budget issues now, take Measure Y out, top it with
even GREATER employee costs, and where will you be??? Your current$3.5M shortfall will look
like chump-change.
Fred S. Vernacchia
Medical Director
San Luis Diagnostic Center
1100 Monterey Street, Suite 210
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone:805-542-9700
Fax: 805-542-0584
&Y7 10,rJ44- t� Ems PO.vDEite�
From: Tom Elt mth [teltzroth@gmail.com] C"C l,H`j G2
Sent:Tuesday, February 22, 20119:13 AM
To: Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan
Cc: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Council members Carpenter, Carter, and Smith,
Thank you for your publicly expressed support for placing the repeal of binding
arbitration on the June ballot. In the words of Carroll McKibbin's letter to the editor in
today's Tribune the existing binding arbitration is indeed "undemocratic" and
"irresponsible." At tonight's meeting please stress to the entire council that this is a major
issue to be dealt with now and that a responsible council will place the issue on the June
ballot for the public to decide. In the words of Jerry Brown, let's don't "kick the can down
the road" any longer..
Tom Eltzroth
847 Patricia Drive, SLO
From: Jeffrey A Cole Dacole@coleautos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:36 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Carter, Andrew; Smith, Kathy
Subject: Binding Arbitration
San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
in my entire lifetime living and working in San Luis Obispo, I have never felt so strong about the
decisions you are about to make. I urge you to submit both Charter amendments for voter
approval; 1. Repeal of Binding Arbitration for public safety employees; 2. Modification of
pension benefits( CalPERS)for City employees. In the past three years,we have also cut our
benefits to our employees such as pension and health care. Frankly,they were happy to just
keep their jobs! By doing this, we were able to survive this recession, keep all of our employees
and continue to grow our business while the other five of my competitors in the tri counties
have now permanently closed their doors. I urge you to have the courage to do this.
Respectively,
Jeffrey A.Cole
Cole Chrysler Dodge Mazda Sprinter
3550 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Ph. 805-549-7309
Fax 805-788-0207
jacole@colechryslerdodge.com
I
From: Paul Marcotte[SMTP:PAUL93401 @YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:26:24 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: 2/22 meeting
Auto forwarded by a Rule
A persistant cold may keep me away but I am requesting that you
place the City Charter question on the ballot.
Things cannot remain as they are.
Please do not be intimidated by a large presence of fire/police as has
happened in the past.
I believe that your decision to do the right thing will not hinder your re-
election chances. Your vote will be rewarded by the community at
large.
Paul Marcotte
San Luis Obispo
From: Dominic Perello[SMTP:DPERELL088@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:29:40 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Pensions
Auto forwarded by a Rule
hfti)s://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=l#inbox/I 2e4e8a2b7bO2ee5
FYI: Dick Spotswood was a Cal Poly student in 1960( a friend ever since)and later a USF and
USF law school graduate—he wrote this article including some comments on public employee
pensions,along the lines you are dealing with now(tho not binding bargaining).
NO REPLY EXPECTED
RED FILE
From: Matt Quaglino[SMTP:MQ@QUAGLINO.COM] MEETING AGENDA
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:32:16 PM
To: Council, Slocity DATE&����
&&& ITEM
Subject: Bnding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I feel it a move in the right direction, as far as the 57/42 vote in favor of binding arbitration in
2000, 1 think it was obvious that many of the voters were unaware or uninformed of what they
were voting for or against once the spin doctors were finished with the ad campaigns. 2011 is a
much different place than 2000, lef's let the tax payers decide how to spend their dollars.
Matt hard a emsm,
a COUNCIL o CDD DIR
a CrrYMGR o FIT DDI
o AWCM ' a FIRE CHIEF
Matthew Quaglino o ATrO1tNEY aFWDIR
P:805.543-0560 F.805.543-0214 a PI.ERa/oRIG a?MMPOLIC&REC
o P!8 o FARBSdRECDIR
WWW.quaglino.com o TRBXM 0UTILMR
a NEWTiMES a>IRDIR
o SLOCrTYNM a COUNCIL
a crryMGR
a CLERK
From: Ron Malak[SMTP:SLORJM@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:02:46 PM
To: Council, Slocity
Subject: City Council meeting 2/22/11
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Madame Mayor and City Council Members,
I must first thank Mr. Carter for his courageous action to confront the contentious issue of not
only binding arbitration, but the employee pension benefits as well. I also thank Kathy Smith and
Dan Carpenter for providing the votes to carrythe motion.
We are fully aware of the financial situation facing not only our city, but many others in the
state. The degree in which these cities will financially recover is based on the vision, courage
and actions taken by those whom we, as citizens,elect.Therefore,we look to you to find
solutions to minimize the negative impact of not only today's but the future finances of the
great city of SLO.
I consider the logic behind Mayor Marx and councilman Ashbaugh's decision to not vote for this
motion perplexing.
Mr.Ashbaugh states that this topic is a "maelstrom" when last discussed in 2009. Of course,this
is a complex issue; we are discussing salaries and benefits of people.When was the last time
someone walked up to you and asked to have less money and benefits to help the city?You
were elected to represent the people of SLO, whether the issue was simple or complex, have
little public review or prominent members of the city or state are involved. I expect you to only
consider what is best for the citizens and the city of SLO,.regardless of how simple or complex
the issues are, and for you to use the"maelstrom" logic not to vote for this agenda item, much
less actually voting for the charter amendment is extremely disappointing.
Mayor Marx states that this issue passed with 57%of the voters in 2000,therefore it does not
need to be revisited. I strongly disagree with that position. 2000 was 11 years ago and much has
changed since then. People have moved out and others have moved in.The financial situation
was different it years ago. Can you honestly say you made a decision and years later,due to
circumstance, have not rejected or modified that decision? I did not live here in 2000, but if I
did,would NOT have voted for binding arbitration. I demand that I now have the opportunity to
vote on these issues.
This argument for repealing binding arbitration is one that has gone largely unnoticed. I cannot
vote out an arbitrator if I do not agree with their decision. The binding arbitration process has
removed my constitutional right to replace my representative if I am not.satisfied with their
performance.
Of course,the last argument for repealing binding arbitration and modifying city employees'
retirement benefits is the financial cost to the city of SLO.Your staff has publicly stated that if a
resolution is not acted upon, the future consequences to SLO will be devastating.
Mayor Marx and Councilman Ashbaugh,this is your opportunity to confront adversity, Identify a
resolution and quickly implement the solution. Remember, if you are not part of the solution,
you are part of the problem.
The following are my recommended solutions.
City employees and retirement benefits:
• Employees pay their full share of the employee contribution as the city now pays
100%.
• Increase the retirement age to 60.
• Reduce the percentage from 2.7%to 2.0%
Binding Arbitration:
• Change the binding arbitration to negotiation. All unresolved issues are presented
to a negotiator(s)who determines a resolution based on the merits presented by
the union and city representatives.The agreed upon contract must then be brought
before the city council for final approval.This approval will require 4 votes and if
not approved,the council will provide recommendations.The negotiator(s)will
continue to work with the city and union is all issues are resolved and the contract is
approved by the city council.
• Repeal binding arbitration.
Thank you.
Ron Malak
San Luis Obispo, Ca.
From: Betty[SMTP:BETTYSLO@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:38:58 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Subject: binding arbitration
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Even though it may open a lot of discussion, you need to have the courage to do the hard
thing. Anyone in charge of taxpayers money, must be in charge of it. Not give it over to
another party. Please do your job and get the employees back in your control.
If you need any help, I would be more than happy to help where I can. It is very important.
Betty Buchanan
From: John D. Grady, CFP [mailto:jgradyslo@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 20112:45 PM
To: Council ALL
Subject: Binding Arbiitation Discussion
Dear Council members,
My thanks to Andrew, Kathy, and Dan for having the courage to bring the binding
arbitration issue to a special council meeting for discussion and possible action. I only
wish John and Jan had made this a unanimous decision in an effort to help take politics
out of this issue. It is not (and should not) be a political issue; it is a fiscal issue
This need not be a political issue pitting one council member against another. You are
all on board to manage our city, an integral part of which (especially in these times) is
being fiscally responsible and good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. If it is true that
80% (or more) of our budget is already going to personnel costs, how can you in good
conscience not take up this issue of binding arbitration which handcuffs your ability to
effectively manage our city's finances?
I believe Andrew's argument is well founded that when you enter contract negotiations
for the many labor contracts expiring at year's end that you cannot allow yourselves to
be at the mercy once again of an arbitrator who cares not about the impacts on our
city's budget and the very real impacts that enhanced labor costs would have on our
city's residents and the programs we can afford to offer.
At the very least, you should be willing to allow the voters an up or down vote on this
issue-that is all that I believe you as a council can do anyway. To say that the voters
have already spoken is like burying your head in the sand. Yes, the voters spoke 10
years ago, but times were different then and perhaps the voters have seen the folly of
their previous action and now want to change course. Why not at least give them this
opportunity to have a voice and to be heard again on this issue? Why do we submit you
and all office holders to reelection every 2 to 4 years if not to allow voters to reaffirm
their previous vote or to perhaps change their minds?
Regards,
John Grady
San Luis Obispo
From: sharon@sharonwhitney.com[SMTP:SHARON@SHARONWHITNEY.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:20:23 PM
To: Council, S1oCity
Subject: Repeal Binding Arbitration should be put to the voters
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I think I support the vote to put this on the ballot for voters. I will
try to come to the special meeting to learn more about it.
Sharon Whitney
l'
Proposed Motion to Form Subcommittee and Give
Direction by Council Regarding Public Employee
Compensation and Binding Arbitration
. Council to form a subcommittee composed of
&
o Subcommittee must report to Council not later than 1't
meeting in August with recommendations regarding:
1) Ballot measure(s)for November Ballot to reviseor repeal
binding arbitration; and
2) Pension reform measures as needed to assure fiscal
sustainability, including a possible November ballot
measure if necessary to conform with Charter Section
LLO7,
o Subcommittee shall attempt to engage all stakeholders in
making their recommendations, consistent with existing
contracts with City bargaining units, separate from the
collective bargaining process.
ful"ttoul /t--
b-J
*-/
r) u
L/w /"LtL0','(
l
to
Possible revisions to binding arbitration include, but not limited
1) Narrow application only to sworn personnel;
2) Assure that arbitration panel can approve a settlement
between the two opposing sides, rather than "either-or";
3) Provide that the two panelists chosen by the respective
sides be registered voters of San Luis Obispo;and
4) Permit either party to submit evidence as to the impact of
an adverse arbitration ruling on the long-term fiscal
health of the city, andrequire arbitration panelmake a
finding, based on substantial evidence, that the ruling
would not have an adverse impact on our fiscal
sustainability (or words to that effect).
Da
D O O Molt 0 Wonn o D� 0
hdwamw
General Fund Revenue vs.CPI
ew
ice tYRL W,emual Fm0 mmef a hre
moRrigft�mRmn @1wlw�
� eor�gp Neaua YrmeMpWfRm nor.
per
s W m[
6
as
>oa
-�@Rw�ntn�l T
pe -o-@RawnwvmloW Y
�fYP7Nr @RaYwYIet CPI
f0
Swmp=5L0 FMxo C�pMcal d US&crew d IeOO'SeI�La
1
a
sm
Wahob GrbR3ma.OgnmV d �]
3A3 efpp00t104IIC�O .
WRm6
3W fY
OOOwOO®Oww� d
� OCV W�OMIti�Mp
tD
—
6'8
leJ
Zm d d
v v
373
301
v
� u
u
O3m OW7 OLOO OOA WIW M OOm Ol ml 0102 OOm mA%OWS OLm 000)W=Wim mo
(Plb=CPb GISY RgIet's�� Somo.bYeafmg0
0o0Min0Coat TfWv t—CM o1SL0
f 1
+ft Cmb t
� �tlonPeemaW
333
as
to
S25
Ll ell
� e �
9
315
310 t
33
f0
O34M OM N=MW OM UM 0000 0001 04402 WM 0303 0403 0303 OW OTM OM mn0
2
Auemrimtl rteoumr Fres—Cft of sLo
m
i00 N Dei eeI 7m 33 33 3W
m
m m m b le re ri T5 ]B
0] b 33 31
9m30 30 9028 09 n 0e 53
ZO M A le e0 40
30 40 40
10 40 38 ]B 37
9r L >t ]1
35D 50 m 55 07"R
51 50 St
53 m 55 95 Se 58 56 55 SE 0pA01s.
On.
50
ower
5e u se m m m se m m m 36 w et er & OU®u
ofae
orssa
uo SZ m 53 m 'K 55 Se 53 m 53 52
m m 97 q m e0 00 8o p m g3 33 0a W e]
0 41
oem aeeP erm aso oom a= m@ Wm 03" a= asm N a= aom WIW
Cmfoaundod COLAm Canoounded CPI-iM toPSaeant
3m
�roedfempOka= 3aemmis
o OIeWe0014Po00eAROetOIM ppm
fuwmu.a.ar�amror r.e
Oeermpb/�ssYratcYlen
tst
m
g aAm®mm ®.mmeemmem
E w
u w
y-Paooe
'MAA
fie �e1We.
ne
fes
vp tew nes m ns/ lees few iaW roof XM M 204 2M IDW 2W 2M t0M }Ole 2011
$OYN•SLO Fumms GapeMvil
3
Wa9as 6 Berefts ON Auth°rtmR FTE 9s.CPI
ars
SIG =aft mmsa 9sna snSw
AssuBe199 shw IDOL71 and v9l
m coMnw to Ae se br Rlsst9si nsl'9
6reyssn.
rm
m
ms
as
a1
+n
+ss
+99 e-6ap WNO
�sdaftst Vh9ss
n CPI
so
a
9nB4 94195 95919 99W 97MO 99919 99910 OOM 01MM3 0394 01195 OSA9 OSW 07919 9699 99M9
Scum=UO FM O9 ffl
QO °o 0 0 O e 0 e 0 e o 0
J o A mom or Qw@H a ° ° am e§w
JMU o oa a ° 9 @m4 pm
J F @W@-a @m 22@046% @m 4
��o °mURA fao
J I�YtS a LSI+?10 ° 9 l41eJ UUIW.If
4
D o M HmOil c.o[ -
D D
ftm . . o a h 2D@wn
J UUU'U�R-7 � Oo 00 Os
Ea
D e e e 11 Il I o M C%ll lS
FM 0 0 g ddw 0 . DeD 0W
Mv
�Od I Com/Cis o
❑� s�� - 0 0 - s 0 �e - 0 e
5
i
D aCOO0 0 0 DQ o AMMMEha
J Q Q O Q o
(apo OOo 0° ,9 I o
(C�o n o. otfil r 0 IIIDtltllYlol�l
Qqu�o s �o - OYYYWYJr�
J9fll o .00' � r ° 10f111111[olfll
0 00' '0 B �W.0 QQ° Qo •. Ua
0 00- -o m 0
MI(07�'rr Tam 0 0 of nMo7h1
o . .o o
o -oo(�a
cram nU!l11Y1�.UU
win cog mumaxw A-01floo of n'ia fit
o . QP amw o U o
6
Oo 0 OTO fftidfflo Ato&M=
T@W OM MOM 02
0 0 0' '0 a e IO011llloJlll oolQ(l IIIIIOIIII
Embn VA MEM
00' '0 B �j 0� • • Ua
11�Co)MoC�`nlf 40
7
Charter Amendment Options:
Retirement and Binding Arbitration
February 22, 2011
2
Overview
Background
Options
Election Requirements and Calendaring
Questions of staff
3
Background
City Charter governs City operations
Voters amended Charter in 1978 to incorporated
changes to Retirement Provisions (section 1105)
Voters amended Charter in 2000 to provide for
binding arbitration with certain public safety
employee organizations
Unresolved negotiations with Police Officers
Association resulted in June 2008 binding arbitration
decision. Fire Association negotiations have not
resulted in binding arbitration
At February 15, 2011 City Council meeting a
majority of Council directed consideration of these
provisions at tonight’s meeting
4
Options Regarding Retirement
Section 1105
Repeal voter approval requirement
Repeal provision entirely (may trigger
meet and confer requirement)
Modify voter approval to be required only
with termination of PERS contract
Other?
5
Options Regarding Binding Arbitration
Repeal provision entirely
Modify to allow arbiter to craft “middle ground”
award
Modify to spell out factors to be considered by
arbiter
Modify to apply binding arbitration to sworn
police officers and firefighters only
Modify provision to require an arbitrator’s
decision be approved by voters
Modify to require arbitrator’s decision be
rejected or approved by Council super majority
Other
6
Alternatives for Council Consideration
1.Take no action
2.Table the matter
3.Conduct public opinion research
4.Hold stand alone election
5.Hold consolidated election
6.Pursue only one measure
7
Election Dates
Consolidated Election: June 7, 2011,
November 8, 2011, June 5, 2012, November 6,
2012 or any other date set by the Governor for
a Special Election
All Mail Ballot Election: May 3 or August 30,
2011 or as established by ordinance
Stand-alone Special Election: Any date
established pursuant to an ordinance set by the
City Council
Per Elections Code, election may not be held sooner than
88 days after it has been called (unless consolidated with a
later called state-wide election within 4 days)
8
Estimated Methods and Costs
Special Election conducted with the
County with no other measures on the
ballot - $146,100
Consolidated Election with the County with
other measures on the ballot– $70,000+
All Mail Ballot Election conducted by the
County - $91,660 - $106,000
9
Estimated Methods and Costs
Cont.
Special Polling Place Election conducted by
Martin and Chapman - $91,500 – $106,500
All Mail Ballot Election conducted by Martin
and Chapman - $77,500 – $92,500
10
Estimated Methods and Costs
Cont.
Election Option Cost with
County
Cost with
Contractor
Special – Polling
Place
$70,000 -
$146,000
$91,500 –
$106,500
Special – All –
Mail Ballot
$91,660 $77,500 –
$92,500
11
Questions