HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1988, 7 - PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE ON POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION INCREASES Original report from 11/88 meeting
II MEETING DATE:
►����iii11illl IIVI,I City Of San tins OBISPO Oct. 11, 19sa
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUS
FROM:
.John Dunn Chief Administrative 0 firer
SUBJECT:
Proposed Ballot Measure on Police and Fire Ueparimenl
Employee Compensation Increases
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution placing on the ballot a measure to require voter approval of
increases in compensation for certain public safety positions .
BACKGROUND:
The Police Officers and Firefighters Associations ( "POA & FFA" ) have announced
that the group they formed. "Citizens for Public Safety, " will continue to
gather signatures for the proposed Charter amendment on binding and compulsory
arbitration. This decision is made in spite of the fact that the POA and the
City sc.ccessfully reached a five-year agreement resulting, in significant
compensation increases (42.20 over the life of t_he agreement) . The FFA' is in
the second year of a three year agreement. We have not had any noteworthy
history of labor problems with that unit.
The City of San Luis Obispo police and fire employees are among the best-
trained and highest paid public safety employees in the County. For e::ampie.
the recent agreement with the POA will result in total compensation for some
officers of almost $62 ,000 in 1993 (.see Exhibit "A" ) . Council has continuously
worked to ensure that the public safety equipment. facilities and work environ-
ment are among the best.
Binding and compulsory arbitration will negatively affect operational aspects
of the two departments as well (see Exhibits "B" and "C") . Should this amend-
ment be adopted, the end result will be a loss of control and account ability
over one of the most important and expensive elements of the City services .
public safety (see Exhibit "D" ) .
the goal of the POA & FFA is to convince the people of San Luis Obispo that the
ultimate responsibility for decision making in this area should not rear w.i'� h
their duly elected representatives . the Council . I submit that a panel of
outside arbitrators is not the one to make these decisions . If the Council is
to be removed from this al.l-important and essential fuuc:tion then the obvious
choice to make these difficult decisions is the Peonle of the City. After all .
it is the taxpaying public who ultimately bear the costs of these extremely
difficult and complicated decisions . If the Counr,il is removed frim this role.
then this role should be preserved for our citizens .
The attached resolution (see Exhibit "E" ) would place on the ballot a Charter
amendment to give the People of the City tiie power to approve or deny any and
all compensation increases to nou-management public safety positions .
�iiii�li illlllll ��� ��� �DII VIII
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
October 4, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer.
FROM: Wendy George, Acting Personnel Director 'u(
SUBJECT: Police Association Salary Increases
The most common salary range and step for police officers as of July, 1988 was
702(E), the top step. This designation is for an officer with education or
special assignment pay. Total comp for such an officer as of June 30, 1988 was:
Total Comp 6/30/88 = $43,716.00 per year (prior to new contract)
At the end of this new contract there will no longer be education or special
assignment pay. Instead there will be two Master Police Officer designations.
Possible total comp will be as follows:
Total Comp 1/1/93 = $56,280.00 per year (Police Officer, top step)
_ $59,016.00 per year (Master Police Officer I)
_ $61,884.00 per year (Master Police Officer II)
Because the PERS retirement rate changes each year, I have assumed the current
rate for the 1993 calculation. Total comp includes salary, insurance and
retirement. It does not include uniform allowance which is paid annually.
EXHIBIT "A"
a
cl-ty ue-RN San h"'lls c3ispo
POLICE DEPARTMENT
` Post Office Box 1328 — San Luis Obispo. CA 93406-1328 — 805/549.7310
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police
DATE: October 53 1988
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration
Mike's report on the Fire Department's experiences with Binding
Arbitration clearly delineates the form and substance of the process.
My additional comments will address more subjective observations.
The picture is no better on the Police side. The four Police
agencies (Vallejo - 1969, Oakland - 1972, Palo Alto - 1976, San Jose
- 1982) have experienced similar cost increases. More significant
has been the detrimental impacts on management flexibility and the
amount of time spent on arbitration issues. All the facts listed in
Mike's report are paralleled in respect to operation and management
issues. One area not listed but in effect in Palo Alto and Oakland i
the applicability of arbitration to discipline. This is one area,
however , in which a professional arbitrator may be more effective
than a civilian personnel board.
While the tenor of management/labor relationships varies in each
organization, every Department stated that there has been a decrease
in the ability to make effective and timely decisions. Each change
or act which could be subject of arbitration has to be weighed
against the costs of entering into the process. in Palo Alto. the
Chief on occasion must go through the City Manager to get Council
approval on an internal policy change because of the potential costa.
This directly involves the Council in the day to day operation of the
Department.
^in my opinion, the result in these four agencies has been a
fundamental shift from a focus of meeting the needs of the community
to managing (as much as possible) the resources and organization
,dictated by an arbitrator. The focus is inward not outward .
Ultimately, with more outside control and limitations on management ,
there will be the need to prioritize what services will be provided.
I can foresee tough decisions and cutbacks in the ability to be a
"full service" Police Department.
H
EXHIBIT "B" 2
i
� J
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn, CAO
FROM Michael Dolder, Fire Chief
DATE: October 5, 1988
SUBJECT: Operational Impacts of Binding Arbitration
State law, Labor Code 1962, already prohibits Firefighters from striking and Government
Code 3504, defines what is subject to meet and confer negotiations and what are
management rights and responsibilities. The proposed San Luis Obispo Public Safety
Binding Arbitration initiative includes the same items covered under existing State law,
except that it adds a binding arbitration requirement to the negotiations process. The
specific issues covered in the binding arbitration initiative are as follows:
"._ obligation to negotiate subject to arbitration on all matters
relating to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment
Existing State law, known as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, requires a city to meet and
confer on issues impacting an employee unit, however, the law does not require
negotiations on merit, necessity and organization. The addition of binding arbitration to
the negotiation requirement subjects all city actions involving the Police and Fire
Departments to binding arbitration review. Specifically, City management rights and
abilities to regulate City operations, presently excluded,form negotiations, would now be
subjected to binding arbitration. Based on court rulings involving the City of Vallejo,
binding arbitration has already been applied to the following operational and/or
management areas:
Promotional testing methods
Assignment of personnel
Administration and assignment of overtime
Uniforms
Time off policies
Changes to City and department rules and regulations
Changes to general operations and equipment
Injury reports
Medical exams
Safety gear/equipment
Safety tests of equipment
Retirement
No. of persons responding on fire engines
Educational incentive
City codes which impact firefighting procedures
Minimum manning
Vacation procedures
Sick leave procedures
Seniority
Reduction in work force
Acting pay
Reporting pay
V 24C-(4) �.
EXHIBIT "C-111
r
l
Work hours
Holidays
Authorized leave
Association business leave
Background on Cities Onerating Under Bindine Arbitration
Of the 450 cities in the State of California only six northern California Cities have
passed some form of binding arbitration. These Cities include Hayward, Oakland, Palo
Alto, Redwood City, San Jose and Vallejo. In four cities both Police and Fire are
covered by binding arbitration and the remaining two cities, arbitration in others only
applies to the Fire Department.
The City of Vallejo, in early 1970, was the first California city to enact binding
arbitration legislation. Vallejo's binding arbitration applies to all city departments,
however, the Fire Department has used the procedure most often. Binding arbitration
has impacted city operations in Vallejo. The specific areas impacted are listed above.
"Arbitration also has fiscal and staff time impacts. As examples, last year's cost for
arbitrating issues in the Vallejo Fire Department was in excess of $50,000. In addition.
city staff time has also been severely impacted; for example, the Vallejo Fire Chief
conservatively has spent two hours per day on arbitration related issues. As a result of
binding arbitration, the salaries of the Vallejo Fire Department are 15% higher than any
of their comparable cities which include: Hayward, San Leandro, Fremont, Alameda,
Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Daly City, Santa Rosa, Stockton,
Berkeley and Richmond.
Redwood City is the most recent city to pass binding arbitration only applies to the Fire
Department. To date, Redwood City has not gone to binding arbitration on any specific
issue. However, Redwood City has also taken a short term position that they will not
make any immediate policy and procedure changes and thus will eliminate the binding
arbitration review or consideration in management areas.
The remaining cities of Palo Alto, Hayward, Oakland and San Jose have used binding
I
rbitration to various degrees. However, the impacts of binding arbitration in all six
communities has been an erosion of local control. Local control that the citizens gave
to the City Council.
V24C-(4) EXHIBIT IT-211 f►
r
MEETI DA E:
j �� city of San LUIS OBispo ' 8
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Roger Picquet, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Compulsory and Binding Arbitration
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion continue formal opposition to the concept of compulsory and binding
arbitration in public employer-employee relations.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The issue of compulsory and binding arbitration has arisen recently in connec-
tion with two separate matters. One was the request from the League of Cali-
fornia Cities for all cities to join in opposition to AS 3341 (Floyd) which
would have mandated a statewide system for compulsory and binding arbitration
on local governments for resolution of police and fire collective bargaining
issues. In response to this request, the City authorized letters to be sent to
state legislators setting forth our points in opposition. The other matter is
the recent announcement by the local police and fire fighter associations of an
intent to circulate an initiative petition to amend the Charter to include a
compulsory and binding arbitration procedure to resolve disputes over wages.
hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
AS 3341 was just defeated in the Senate Appropriations Committee after a
concerted and combined effort by city, county and other officials throughout
the state. Surprisingly, even a few public safety employee associations joined
in opposition arguing that compulsory and binding arbitration would destroy the
existing and highly successful collective bargaining process. AB 3341 was
similar to previous measures introduced in past years by police and fire
organizations. Despite its latest defeat, this concept surely will be back in
future legislative sessions (indeed, the proposed Charter amendment is
strikingly similar to the defeated AB 3341) .
The more that citizens of this community understand the basic issues and the
components of compulsory and binding arbitration, the quicker this concept can
be put to rest. The League encourages all cities to become very familiar with
the primary reasons why compulsory and binding arbitration is a serious threat
to effective municipal management.
1. In cities, compulsory and binding arbitration would
remove an estimated 50% of the budget from the control of.
elected officials and give authority to an outside,
non-elected arbitrator with no understanding of a city's
public services needs or finances to determine this major
portion of the budget. }
2. Compulsory and binding arbitration is the antithesis of
the collective bargaining process. Rather than
negotiating in good faith, making compromises and solving
problems. the parties' posture in the bargaining process
to place themselves in the best possible position for
arbitration. H
EXHIBIT "D-1"
��' ►�►►Wnlllll�p�'�u'���IU city of san LUis osIspo
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 1 , 1988
Page 2
3. Compulsory and binding arbitration (as expressed in
AB 3341) is a clear, state-mandated local cost. The
Legislative Counsel has ruled that notonly the cost of
the arbitration process but the amount of the award above
the employers' last best offer is a state-mandated local
cost. The difficulty in getting the state to fully and
fairly shoulder the financial burdens it imposes on local
jurisdictions is well-known and and has been a source of
frustration to local government.
4. Compulsory and binding arbitration is often sold as a
means to prevent strikes. In Michigan, and in other
places where it has been adopted, the establishment of
binding and compulsory arbitration has actually caused an
Increase in the number of strikes because employee groups
have been dissatisfied with the arbitrator's
determination.
The first two reasons merit further discussion.
The state constitution proyides that cities may choose to be governed under a
"freeholder's charter. " This authority grants the City a great deal of flexi-
bility when addressing municipal affairs. Under our Charter, the Council is
"vested with all powers of legislation adequate to a complete system of local
government" (section 202) . The Charter directs the Council to organize a city
government (section 204) , consider and adopt an annual budget (section 802, et
seg. ) . and perform other essential functions, including establishment of a
personnel system.
The Mayor and Councilmembers are elected at large and directly by the elec-
torate to carry out the mandates of the Charter and other relevant federal and
state laws. Although they are ably assisted by the appointed city officials
and other city employees, it is the Council alone .which is directly responsible
and accountable to the voters. Accordingly, all council members strive to be
responsive to the legitimate wants, needs and desires of the community. This
obligation means setting priorities and, often times, making difficult choices
between competing interests and alternatives. Compulsory and binding arbitra-
tion strips the Council of its necessary and inherent ability to control the
level of municipal services (and related funding or costs) in a given area or
function, such as public safety. and delivers the prerogative over to an
arbitrator who bears no legal or official accountability or responsibility to
the community or electorate. Regardless of the arbitrator's intent or
motivation, his or her decision may not accurately reflect the community's
choices or priorities to address community needs. By definition this form of
arbitration is binding, meaning further administrative review would be
impossible and judicial review extremely unlikely.
EXHIBIT "D-2'•
(�� � �1111611P �'dlll city or San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 1, 1988
Page 3
Government Code section 3500 et sec . is known as the "Meyers-M.ilis-Brown Act"
or MMB. It regulates the current legal framework of public employer-employer
relations. The heart and soul of MMB is the requirement that the governing
body of a government meet and confer in good faith regarding wages. hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment with the employee organizations. The
governing body (Council ) must fully consider the positions and presentations of
the employee organization prior to arriving at a determination of policy or
particular course of action (Govt. Code section 3505) . The duty to "meet and
confer in good faith" is a mutual obligation to meet personally and promptly in
order to exchange freely information, opinions and proposals and to try to
reach agreement on matters within dispute. The meet and confer sessions do not
impinge on the legislative power vested by law in the Council . but, rather.
they provide a useful channel by which employees may provide suggestiops as to
how the Council's discretion in salary matters should be exercised and help
promote open communication between employer and employees (Civil Service
Assoc. v. S.F. (1977) 141 Cal . Rptr. 922) . This is what is referred to as
"collective bargaining. " Over the years that MMB has been in effect it has
operated very successfully and contributed significantly to an overall positive
environment for public sector employer-employee relationships. However,
although the statutory framework encourages binding agreements resulting from
collective bargaining, the Council retains the ultimate power to refuse an
agreement and to make its own decision (Seal Beach P.O.A. v. City of Seal Beach
(1984) 205 Cal . Rptr. 794) . This authority reflects the basic premise that the
Council alone is held to answer to the electorate for the policy directions and
fiscal soundness of the City. If arbitration is made compulsory, the incentive
to bargain in good faith and to fully consider the merits of the other side is
greatly reduced. Under the scheme envisioned by the current proposed Charter
amendment, as with the recently deceased AB 3341 , the role of the Council , the
elected representatives of the people, is reduced, in effect, to a mere
advisory role to an arbitrator.
Reduced to its essentials compulsory and binding arbitration is a "power grab"
which removes necessary discretion from a Council to determine the direction
and policy of a city in the critically important area of internal employee
relations.
There are many other related issues which could be addressed at great length.
These include (at a minimum) the following:
1. Political divisiveness and costs involved with compulsory
and binding arbitration; I
2. Experience of other jurisdictions (e.g. , Michigan and
other California cities) which has shown that public
employee strikes and work actions increase, not decrease
with compulsory and binding arbitration;
EXHIBIT "D-3" -
dIIIP,�pCA�I�III city of San .aIS OBISpo
MOGS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 1 , 1988
Page 4
3. Negative morale among other employees when public safety
employees are treated differently:
4 . Inability of departments to be efficiently managed
without interference of outside arbitrator: and
5. Binding and compulsory arbitration also effect's "other
terms and conditions of employment, " meaning that certain
management prerogatives allowed by MMB and court
decisions could be removed from us, decreasing the
ability of the Police Chief and the Fire Chief' to
effectively run their own departments .
6. Litigation and related costs. ~
SUMMARY:
Compulsory and binding arbitration is a concept which is inherently incom-
patible with the purposes and functions of a municipal government. The ability
of an elected body to make appropriate and balanced policy decisions in the
area of wages, hours and other terms of employment for public employees would
be effectively lost. More significantly, the ability and obligation of the
Council to be responsive and accountable to the voters is eliminated. This
concept is really an attempt to alter the fundamental relationship and roles of
the Council and employee associations. There is no corresponding benefit to be
obtained by the City. Staff recommends this Council continue to support the
League on this matter and express its opposition to compulsory and binding
arbitration whenever and wherever appropriate.
x
E MiIBIT "D-4"
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID
CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1989, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
VOTING TO ADOPT SECTION 1106 OF THE CITY CHARTER ENTITLED
"EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION"
WHEREAS, a concern has been expressed that the Council may not be
the appropriate body to decide compensation issues for certain public
safety positions; and
WHEREAS, it is highly desirable to provide a means by which such
compensation issues can be resolved and determined in a manner which is
democratic, fair, efficient and reasonable. ,
NOW, THEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
1. There is hereby called and ordered in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, on Tuesday,
November 7, 1989, a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors
of the City, to vote upon a measure to adopt City Charter Section 1106;
2. . If a special municipal election is called and ordered for any
other purpose prior to November 7, 1989, the City Clerk is hereby directed
to place this measure on the same ballot.
3. That Section 1106 of the City Charter of the City of San Luis
Obispo shall be added to read as follows:
"SECTION 1106. Employee Compensation.
Any proposed increase in compensation for any
employee in the position of Police officers, Fire-
. 7
fighter, Fire Engineer and Fire Captain shall not be
approved by Council until it has received a majority
JtECE1VED
OCT, 7 195
CITYCLEW
SAN WiSo®SFO CA
�,�1 C
//.moo ��„r Exhibit E
Resolution No. (1988 Series) Page 2
vote of the electorate at a regular or special
municipal election."
I
4. The proposition to be voted on at said General Municipal
Election shall be set forth substantially as follows:
CITY MEASURE "A"
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION. Shall the City YES
Charter be amended to allow the electorate
to approve or disapprove proposed increases NO
in compensation for certain Police and
Fire Department positions?
4. The proposition shall pass only if a majority of the votes
cast by voters for the Charter amendment are "YES" votes.
On motion of seconded
by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1988.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
s
CITY CLERK PAMELA VOGES
' 1
Resolution No. (1988 Series) : Page 3
c
APPROVED:
City Ad inlstrative Officer
City A torney