HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2000, 2 - BINDING ARBITRATION-SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT counat z8-60
j acEnba nepont Im2
CITY OF SAN LU I S OBI SPO
O
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offs
Prepared by: Ann Slate, Director of Human Resources&'
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration—Supplemental Report
CAO RECOMMENDATION
(1) Adopt a resolution in opposition to the proposed Charter Amendment to establish binding
arbitration for the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association (SLOPOA) and the San Luis
Obispo Firefighters Union,IAFF Local 3523 (SLOFU).
(2) Adopt a resolution placing an additional measure, "The Taxpayers' Right to Decide", on the
November 7, 2000,ballot,with revisions that are the result of input received atmeetings with the
SLOPOA and the SLOFU.
DISCUSSION
This supplemental report is intended to provide an update to the report that was previously
distributed prior to the July 18, 2000 meeting.
At the July 18, 2000 regular City Council meeting, the City Council continued this item to July
28, 2000. The continuance was made in response to a request from legal counsel for the San
Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association (POA) and the San Luis Obispo Firefighters' Union,
IAFF, Local 3523 (SLOFU) to meet with City representatives to discuss both proposed charter
amendments, the citizen initiative and the proposed Council measure. The requested meetings
were held on July 18 and July 24, 2000. Based on discussions between the employee groups and
the City's representatives, several revisions were incorporated into the proposed City measure to
address concerns expressed by the employee groups. Those revisions are discussed in more
detail below.
There remains a dispute as to whether the discussions that the employee organizations assert are
required by state law fall into a category of "meet and confer" or "meet and consult." The
employees contend that the issue requires "meet and confer" as defined by Section 3500 of the
Government Code. That process would entail negotiating in good faith and, in the absence of
agreement, require the parties to proceed through the impasse procedure. This is a lengthy
process and would take several months to conclude. Since employee organizations that sponsor
local initiatives for binding arbitration typically oppose City sponsored measures that place
restrictions on the employees' charter amendment, it is not surprising that the City police and fire
associations are taking this position.
Prolonging the discussions between the City and themselves and forcing issues into the impasse
process could cause the City to miss critical deadlines required to place the City sponsored
charter amendment on the November ballot. The City's measure is intended to provide
2-1
Council Agenda Report—Binding Arbitration
Page 2
responsible safeguards in the event the voters approve the binding arbitration initiative. The
safeguards are intended to protect the City finances,the Fire and Police Chiefs' ability to manage
their departments and other public services that may be negatively impacted should excessive
arbitration awards require a reallocation of funding priorities. However, the City's measure does
not serve the employees' self interest
Based on the advice of counsel who is an expert in this area of law, the City maintains that the
issues to be discussed fall under a different section of the Government Code, which requires a
slightly different approach, called "meet and consult". The City feels it has complied with the
requirement of this process through the recent meetings with the employee organizations.
Meeting and consulting does not require the parties to proceed through impasse if they cannot
reach agreement. In accordance with the City's own procedure for meet and consult, which was
collaboratively developed in 1989 by both of the employee associations and the City, the
appropriate steps have been taken. The employees' input was received and several of their
suggested revisions have been incorporated.
The Proposed Charter Amendment with Revisions
Exhibit A of Attachment#2 is a legislative draft of the proposed charter amendment that staff is
recommending the Council place on the November ballot. The revisions include:
Under Subsection (A), the term "salaries" is clarified to mean "across-the-board salary
increases" and reference to the increase in the local cost of living has been deleted from the
measure. In developing the measure language, City staff had received input from community
members who had expressed interest in including the local cost of living as one of the parameters
that, if exceeded, would trigger submission of an arbitration award to the voters for approval. As
was discovered during the discussions with the employees, it is difficult to determine a "local"
cost of living index. While one is cited in the UCSB Forecast, it is actually the LA index that is
used. Based on the concerns of the employees and staff's concern that defining a local index
could be problematic,this revision striking this provision is appropriate.
Additionally, language has been added which clarifies the Council's requirement to call an
election for the purposes of approving arbitrated agreements as defined above. It states that
special elections shall not be held more than once a year and may be consolidated with elections
held for other purposes. This language will provide for timely voter approval, while not
unnecessarily burdening the City with the expense of more than one election per year.
Subsection (B) likewise clarifies that "salaries" are defined as "across-the-board salary
increases". This means that only disputes arising out of negotiations related to across the board
salary increases would be subject to binding arbitration. Disputes related to all other matters of
negotiation, including compensation other than across the board salary increases, working
conditions, (not sure what you wanted here, but something is missing) and other employee
benefits would be resolved through the current process of impasse resolution, which involves
mediation, and advisory arbitration.
2-2
Council Agenda Report—Binding Arbitration
Page 3
Subsection (C), which eliminates the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index
(CPI) from consideration by an arbitrator, is unchanged. The staff continues to feel strongly that
this subsection must remain intact. The increases in Bay Area CPI over the past five years have
totaled 15.2%, while other indices, such as the Los Angeles—Riverside—Orange County and the
U.S. All Cities CPI have changed by 8.3% and 9.6%over the same time frame.
Binding arbitration has had a chilling effect on employee negotiations and undermined the meet
and confer process in other cities. For that reason, staff continues to believe that the requirement
for mediation should remain in the measure. Mediation is a proven, problem solving approach
for reaching agreement prior to entering into the full-blown evidentiary hearing required in an
arbitration process. Because arbitration so closely resembles litigation, an attempt to reach
agreement through mediation prior to engaging in the adversarial process of binding arbitration
may prove effective.
Subsection (E), which originally was included to provide sanctions for striking, has been
dropped. Because striking is already prohibited by law for public safety employees in California,
and because the current agreements with the Police Officers' Association (POA) and San Luis
Obispo Firefighters' Union (SLOFU) contain severe penalties for striking, including no-strike
language in the City's measure is not essential. Although the language regarding employee
strikes in the local public safety initiative is a dilution of their current agreements, staff believes,
given the current state of the law and the employee relations climate in San Luis Obispo, the
probability of a public safety strike is unlikely.
The original subsection (F) which stated that no award through arbitration shall provide for
interest has also been eliminated in the final draft. Interest is not normally awarded through the
arbitration process and this subsection might have implied that the City would drag out the
process. Staff believes that the additional safeguard that this section would have provided can be
eliminated without negative consequences.
The final subsection is important in the event that the POA and SLOFU measure passes by a
greater number of votes than the City-sponsored measure. Should that happen, those provisions
that are in conflict would be unenforceable in the City-sponsored measure; however, those
provisions in the City measure that supplement provisions in their measure would remain valid.
In the event that both measures pass, and the City measure receives the greater number of votes,
those provisions in the City's measure that are in conflict would be valid and enforceable.
Therefore,this subsection is important to include.
CONCLUSION
Because of the potential for negative impacts to not only the City's fiscal health but also the
Police and Fire Chief's ability to ensure reasonable standards of public service delivery, staff
continues to recommend that the City Council oppose binding arbitration. Binding arbitration
removes local accountability for public safety costs and operational matters and shifts that
responsibility to an outside arbitrator who may possess little if any public safety expertise or
understanding of local financial priorities. By placing a responsible alternative, the Taxpayers'
2-3
Council Agenda Report—Binding Arbitration
Page 4
Right to Decide, on the ballot in November, the Council involves the voters of San Luis Obispo
in determining how public monies should be spent.
Opponents to the City sponsored measure will assert that the intention is to confuse the voters.
Staff believes local voters will not be confused. As they educate themselves about the many
important and complex issues that will be presented to them on the ballot in November, the
voters will have a responsible alternative to consider.
The,Taxpayers' Right To Decide was developed with the active participation and input of
community leaders who represent a cross-section of constituencies concerned about the fiscal
impacts of a binding arbitration measure. In addition, it has been recently revised to reflect
concerns of the employee groups affected by such a measure. This measure is designed to build
in reasonable safeguards should the local initiative pass. In the event the local initiative fails,the
Council sponsored measure would not go into effect and the City would continue to fulfill its
employee relations responsibilities under existing systems.
Attachments:
1. Resolution opposing charter amendment
2. Resolution placing the Taxpayers' Right to Decide on the ballot
2-4
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) q v
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPPOSING A PROPOSED BINDING ARBITRATION CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, proponents of a proposed charter amendment requiring that labor disputes
between the City of San Luis Obispo and public safety unions be resolved by binding arbitration
have collected enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November 7, 2000, election; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment allows an arbitrator
to make binding decisions regarding compensation,benefits, grievances, deployment of the work
force and virtually any issue he/she finds to be a term and condition of employment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment severely limits the
Police Chief and Fire Chief,who have extensive law enforcement and fire service expertise, from
effectively directing public safety operations in order to maintain the highest standards for public
service; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment purports to use
arbitration to prevent public safety employee strikes, when such actions are already illegal under
law and court decisions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment transfers significant
decision making authority to a non-elected individual who has no accountability to the local.
community, thereby disenfranchising local taxpayers, as represented by the City Council elected
to represent them, from the ultimate authority to determine how and where public resources will
be allocated to meet citizen needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo declares its opposition to the Binding Arbitration Charter Amendment, and calls upon the
voters of San Luis Obispo to recognize the importance of local control of local resources and
services, and to vote against this unreasonable approach to resolving labor disputes with public
safety unions.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
2-5
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Att&ney
2-6
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 SERIES) Gm
- VU
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA,ORDERING THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED
CHARTER AMENDMENT(THE TAXPAYERS' RIGHT TO DECIDE)REGARDING
VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN BINDING ARBITRATION DECISIONS RELATING
TO LABOR DISPUTES AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 79 2000
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday,November 7, 2000 has been
called by Resolution No. 9074, 2000 series, adopted on July 18, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo desires to submit to the
voters a proposed charter amendment which would add Section 1106,The Taxpayers' Right to
Decide,to the City Charter, and
WHEREAS,the Elections Code and applicable local law provide the Council with the
authority to submit a Charter amendment to the electorate; and
WHEREAS,the Council finds that it is fiscally prudent and in the public interest to refer
to the voters certain financial burdens associated with a binding arbitration award involving
Police Officers' Association or Firefighters' Union employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
CALIFORNIA,DOES RESOLVE,DECLARE,DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the City Council,pursuant to its right and authority, does order
submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, the
following question:
Measure T
Shall the"Taxpayer's Right to Decide"be enacted,amending the City's Yes
Charter to ensure fiscal accountability to the San Luis Obispo citizens by
requiring voter approval of any binding arbitration award that imposes a
financial burden greater than the City's final settlement offer, limiting
binding arbitration to salary only,and enacting other provisions to No
implement binding arbitration if it is approved by Measure S?
SECTION 2. That the text of the charter amendment submitted to the voters is attached as
Exhibit A.
2-7
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. That Section 1106 shall be effective only if Measure S, entitled, "A
Measure Amending The City Charter To Require That Labor Disputes Between the City Of San
Luis Obispo and The Police and Firefighters Associations Be Resolved By Binding Arbitration"
is enacted by the voters. The provisions of Subsections (A), (B) and (C) of Section 1106 are
intended as alternatives to certain provisions of Measure S and shall supercede those provisions.
The provisions of Subsection(D), and(E) of Section 1106 are intended to clarify, implement and
supplement that Measure.
SECTION 4. That the City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council to
file written arguments In Favor or Against the measure in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3,
Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and
including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the measure may
be submitted to the City Clerk.
SECTION 5. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the
measure to the City Attorney,who shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analysis
shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
SECTION 6. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
SECTION 7. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the
City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the
election, in time, form and manner as required by law.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and Clerk-Recorder.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2-8
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page.�
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of July,2000.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price,C.M.C.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
2-9
Exhibit A
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 sal-afies-an across-the-board salary increase
greater than the inefease in a1 1 7 east C uv liana ,.1...-.ge in aL a
the City's last offer of settlement made pursuant to Section 1107 (d)
(4) whieheyer i,. higher—, will not become effective unless and until approved by a
majority vote of the elee—t voters. The City Clerk and City Council shall
expeditiously take all steps necessary to submit the matter to the voters. The Ci
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 salafy 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.
,
bull shaU not
e
limited to, t4te following job aetions,whether taken individuft4y-ef4n-eefteert
with others, when an empleyee is seheduled to be an duty! siek-
,
strike,slow do
reftisal to perfeign poliee and/or fire department d ties, and fefusal to vi:ket
tines.
T awafd
b
interest be pm-vided for the time required to h6tig a deeision to a vote.
(G)(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.
2-10
M' ....IN
11�mcmomnoum p'CAs
ati�EM #�_
July 19, 2000
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Jan Howell Marx
SUBJECT: Council Meeting—July , 2000
Unfortunately, because of prior personal commitments, I will be unable to attend the City
Council meeting scheduled for Friday,July 28, 2000 concerning the binding arbitration issue.
While I recognize the City's obligation to place the police and firefighter binding arbitration
initiative petition on the November ballot, I remain strongly opposed to the concept of binding
arbitration because it is not in the best interest of the community. Therefore, I wish to go on
record as saying that if I were able to attend the July 28`h meeting, I would support the resolution
opposing the binding arbitration initiative petition, and would also support the placement of a
competing City measure on the ballot.
JHM:ss E
❑CCD PIR —
❑FIN IC
V
c: John Dunn gFtS'e c:.:
❑PW D'-I
Jeff Jorgensen IG ❑POUC1-VP
M ❑RK C.1Ann Slate r ❑UTIL C:'
Wendy George -, G
HNor�an
MEE. ..G AGENDA
ffEM
Un 11.
mEmonanOum
July 19, 2000 FErATTORINEY0
❑CDD DIR
❑FIN DIR
gPIRE CHIEF
TO: Council Colleagues Y ❑Pw DIR
RIO ❑POLICE CHF
A�[[M��(( ❑REC DIR
FROM: Dave Romero fit ❑UTIL DIR
Jrl PERS DIR
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration ' IPA-"tan
I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting of July 28, 2000 when Council will meet
regarding binding arbitration. I have a personal commitment that has been scheduled for some
time.
I understand the Council is compelled to place the police and firefighters initiative on the ballot.
However, I feel strongly that binding arbitration is not good for our city and would vote favorably
to support the resolution opposing binding arbitration initiative petition. I also support placing a
companion city measure on the ballot.
As
c: John Dunn
Jeff Jorgensen
Ann Slate
Wendy George
t,, DING AGENDA
DATE7 d�ITEM #=
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416
July 25, 2000 David E. Garth, President/CEO
DCOUNCIL 0 CDD DIR
W-CAO ❑FIN DIR
Mayor Alan Settle CACAO 0F1RE CHIEF
6VTORNEY O PW DIR
Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council ❑CLERKIORIG 13 POLICE CHF
City of San Luis Obispo ❑MGM2T`TEAM O RUTEJC DIR
990 Palm Street bzII6 rc 0 PARS D R
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 M.
Re: Binding Arbitration Ballot Measures
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the Council:
At our July meeting, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted to
vigorously oppose binding arbitration for City police and firefighters. The following motion
regarding the proposed ballot initiatives related to binding arbitration was passed 17-1.
Even though the Chamber highly values San Luis Obispo City firefighters and police
officers, the Chamber opposes passage of Measure 1107. However, to assure public
input on issues which may significantly impact the expenditure of public funds, the
Chamber supports Measure 1106. Passage of 1106 will ensure that if Measure 1107 is
approved by the voters, that the voters will be consulted on extraordinary salary
increases arising from an arbitrator's decision
It is our position that binding arbitration would seriously erode the Council's ability to manage
a major portion of city services and to provide financial oversight. Binding arbitration
interferes with the good management practices which this and previous City Councils have
diligently followed. We believe that the current system of negotiation and arbitration has
consistently resulted in fair salaries and working conditions for our firefighters and police
officers whose services we do greatly appreciate.
We ask you to give your full support to 1106, "The Taxpayers Right to Decide" and to oppose
1107, "the binding arbitration initiative."
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
I t' 2 s 2000 '
Dave Cox
Chairman of the Board SLO CITY G0)UNCIL
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org websites: www.slocliamber.org www.visitslo.com
ME'
MCMORAnOum
July 19, 2000
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Jan Howell Marx j
SUBJECT: Council Meeting-July ' , 2000
Unfortunately, because of prior personal commitments, I will be unable to attend the City
Council meeting scheduled for Friday, July 28, 2000 concerning the binding arbitration issue.
While I recognize the City's obligation to place the police and firefighter binding arbitration
initiative petition on the November ballot, I remain strongly opposed to the concept of binding
arbitration because it is not in the best interest of the community. Therefore, I wish to go on
record as saying that if I were able to attend the July 28th meeting, I would support the resolution
opposing the binding arbitration initiative petition, and would also support the placement of a
competing City measure on the ballot.
JHM:SS 4TCOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
ICAO ❑FIN DIR
c: John Dunn ,2"ACAO .2'F1RE C1110
'ATTORNEY 0 PW DIR
Jeff Jorgensen MLERKIORIG ❑POUGE CHF
❑I
MEET AGENDA
-�
memomnbum
July 19, 2000 Fffr-ATTORNEY
p FIN ODIR
DIR
LkMRE CHIEF
TO: Council Colleagues ❑PW DIR
0 0 POLICE CHF 0 REC DIR
FROM: Dave Romero6O UTIL DIR
E 431ERS DIA
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration µ' n
I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting of July 28, 2000 when Council will meet
regarding binding arbitration. I have a personal commitment that has been scheduled for some
time.
I understand the Council is compelled to place the police and firefighters initiative on the ballot.
However, I feel strongly that binding arbitration is not good for our city and would vote favorably
to support the resolution opposing binding arbitration initiative petition. I also support placing a
companion city measure on the ballot.
As
c: John Dunn
Jeff Jorgensen
Ann Slate
Wendy George
MLcTING AGENDA
DATE 1 d 0 ITEM #=
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416
July 25, 2000 David E. Garth, President/CEO
5XOUNCIL :13
DD DIR
C�YCAO IN DIR
Mayor Alan Settle UrMORNEY MOKCAO R D RHIEF
Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council ❑CLERKIORIQOLICE CHF❑MGMT TEAMEC DIRCity of San Luis Obispo Ri �L DIR990 Palm Street -b Rs DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ✓ M.
Re: Binding Arbitration Ballot Measures
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the Council:
At our July meeting, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted to
vigorously oppose binding arbitration for City police and firefighters. The following motion
regarding the proposed ballot initiatives related to binding arbitration was passed 17-1.
Even though the Chamber highly values San Luis Obispo City firefighters and police
officers, the Chamber opposes passage of Measure 1107. However, to assure public
input on issues which may significantly impact the expenditure of public funds, the
Chamber supports Measure 1106. Passage of 1106 will ensure that if Measure 1107 is
approved by the voters, that the voters will be consulted on extraordinary salary
increases arising from an arbitrator's decision.
It is our position that binding arbitration would seriously erode the Council's ability to manage
a major portion of city services and to provide financial oversight. Binding arbitration
interferes with the good management practices which this and previous City Councils have
diligently followed. We believe that the current system of negotiation and arbitration has
consistently resulted in fair salaries and working conditions for our firefighters and police
officers whose services we do greatly appreciate.
We ask you to give your full support to 1106, "The Taxpayers Right to Decide" and to oppose
1107, "the binding arbitration initiative."
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
J U 1. 2 5 2000
Dave Cox
Chairman of the Board SLO CITY COUNCIL
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com
f
Ms. Lee Price
July 25, 2000
Page 2
A Measure Amending The City Charter To Require That
Labor Disputes Between The City Of San Luis Obispo And
The Police OfBcers'Association And Firefighters'
Association Be Resolved By Binding Arbitration.
I would propose that the Question that is be presented to the voters track the
original language prepared by the City Attorney. Accordingly, as the Sponsor of the
Initiative Measure I propose the following language to be framed as the Question to the
voters:
Shall the San Luis Obispo City Charter be amended 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.
I am aware that the Elections Code is ambiguous concerning WhQ makes the
decision concerning the statement of the Question to the voters. It is for that reason
that after consulting the City Attomey's office we are writing this letter to you.
Apparently, the City Council will vote on this matter on Friday, July 28, 2000.
Accordingly, please transmit this letter to the members of the City Council. Hopefully,
the proposed language for the Question can be amended by the City Council as I
propose and that this issue can then be resolved without further difficulties.
Please give me a call or give Alan Davis a call at 1-800-643-1800 with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Mike Hogan
cc: Jason Berg, President,
San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association
Jeffrey Zimmerman, President,
San Luis Obispo Firefighters Union, IAFF 3523