HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2016 Item 15, Carter - Lichtig(2)COUNCIL MEETING: 12 - 13 - It.
ITEM NO.: is,
RECEIVED
From: Andrew Carter [
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 8:29 PM DEC 13 2016
To: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig(@slocity.o>;E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.oEg>
Subject: Re: PERB Settlement facts SLO CITY CLERK
Katie,
I plan to send a separate e-mail on this matter, but in response to the attached I feel compelled to write:
1) No, the settlement does not implement the will of the voters.
2) No, Council does not maintain ultimate control.
Under this process a judge has ultimate control, which was not something contemplated by Measure B. And in making
his or her decision, the judge gets to factor in what he or she feels is in "the interests and welfare of the public and the
financial ability of the public agency." Council, which is elected to do just that, does not get to make that final
determination.
3) 1 assume you are correct that a judge cannot technically "implement particular pay and benefit provisions," but certainly
a judge could continue to send things back to Council until that judge achieves the settlement he or she determines is
appropriate, not what Council determines is appropriate.
Katie, instead of trying to paint the settlement as perfection, which of course it is not, I would focus on explaining in detail
to the community and Council why you, the City Attorney, and the City's outside attorneys feel this is the best result the
City can obtain at this time and how it does the best job, under the circumstances, of achieving the desires of the voters
for local control. Both may be the case.
Andrew Carter
Hanford, CA
-----Original Message -----
From: Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocity.orq>
To: Andrew Carter - personal <
Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietrick@slocity.org>; Irons, Monica <mirons cC��,,slocjdy.org>; Johnson, Derek
<diohnson@slocjty.orq>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann(.slocity.org>; Gallagher, Carrie <CGallagher(@slocity.org>;
Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin(Wslocity.orq>; Christian, Kevin <kchristianaslocity.orq>
Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2016 6:57 pm
Subject: PERB Settlement facts
BCC: CC
Andrew —
Based on your previous inquiry about Item 15 — Settlement of the PERB complaint involving the City and SLO
Police Officers Association (POA), we thought you might be interested in the following facts about this matter.
Since you shared information last night it may be of added value to also share this information. This is being
distributed to the City Council and will be posted tomorrow as Agenda Correspondence.
The Settlement Implements the Will of the Voters: During a special election in 2011, an
overwhelming 72.67 percent of San Luis Obispo voters passed two ballot measures, including
Measure B, which repealed binding arbitration from the City's charter. The settlement will end the
legal action against Measure B.
The Settlement Retains Local Control: The settlement provides that the City Council, which
knows its budget needs and constraints, maintains ultimate control over approval of employee pay
and benefits.
• The Settlement Ends a Two Year Appeal: After the voters passed Measure B, the police union filed
an unfair labor practice complaint with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). A PERB
administrative law judge ruled that the City had violated a state labor relations law by not attempting
to reach agreement on an alternative to binding arbitration repeal with the POA before placing the
measure on the ballot. The city, urged by the public, appealed that decision. This settlement resolves
that appeal and avoids the continuing costs of the current legal action.
• The New Process Achieves_ Certainty and Retains_ Council Authority: With the settlement, local
control remains with the City Council, not an outside arbitrator. If negotiations stall, the dispute can go
to a mutually agreed upon fact finder, which is consistent with State law. However, the city can reject
the factfinder's recommendation if its decision is supported by written findings demonstrating that the
Council has sound facts and reasoning that support its conclusions. If the POA feels the Council has
acted without a sufficient basis, they can seek review by a locally elected Judge. The Judge could
invalidate an unsupported Council action and order the Council to revisit its decision, but could not
implement particular pay and benefits provisions like an arbitrator could under the binding arbitration
model.
• Binding Arbitration is Gone: As it currently stands, binding arbitration has, been repealed and does
not exist in the City Charter. This settlement seeks to avoid the significant possibility that the PERB
will issue a final decision in the pending case that holds the City's election actions void, which would
compel the City to further litigate the complex legal and constitutional issues such an order would
raise.
According to the terms of the settlement, the city admits no wrongdoing, both sides agreed to file for a
dismissal of the unfair practices charge, and the city agrees to pay the POA $150,000.
As always we are happy to address any questions you might have.
Katie Lichtig
City Manager
Y A
~ p 1
{ rI$ $
City Administration
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E kiich6c_c slocity_arg
T 805.781.7114