The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-13-2016 Item 15, GradyCOUNCIL MEETING: 12 -_l(, ITEM NO.: I RECEIVED December 13, 2016 DEC 13 2016 RE: Business Item #15 - Proposed SLOPOA `settlement' SLD CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members, I am quite dismayed that our City Attorney, City Manager, and HR Director are all recommending you approve a "settlement" with the SLOPOA regarding the voters' repeal of binding arbitration in 2011. This decision would be wrong and detrimental to the city and its residents on so very many levels. First of all, the process by which this would be accomplished would lack any meaningful dissemination of information to the public and would be without the engagement and involvement of the residents of our town. There has been no public discussion of this matter, with all negotiations being held behind closed chamber doors. The public deserves to hear the details of the proposed settlement and allowed the opportunity to weigh in with their comments for or against, particularly as you would be modifying an amendment the voters made to our city's charter. Why such a rush? Additionally, council agenda items always have hyperlinks to the staff report with background and recommendations pertaining to the matter - just as you get in your agenda packets. But in this case, on Sunday evening - just two days prior to your meeting - there was nothing on this item in the agenda packet other than mention that information would be supplied later, and would then be filed under agenda correspondence. Why would it be published there? How many citizens trying to inform themselves on this item would know where and how to find this critical information? And why was this information buried under agenda correspondence, rather than in the agenda packet for the public to more readily access? Then on Monday morning at 9 AM (one day before your meeting), the staff reportfinally appeared in the agenda packet where it belonged from the start. Secondly, the timing of this being presented to the council for action seems questionable. It is 12 days before Christmas. Staff could likely not pick another time all year when fewer residents would be concerned about or aware of what the city council is up to. Considering the fact that you are dealing with such an important matter, one which would modify a vote of and by the people, you owe the residents of SLO a more publicized and open discussion and debate of this important issue before casting your vote to essentially overturn what the people put in place in 2011. The voters of San Luis Obispo overwhelmingly repealed binding arbitration by a decisive 73% margin. At that time, City Attorney Christine Dietrick believed it was within the council's purview to present this issue to a vote by the people. Following the SLOPOA appeal to an administrative law judge and his ruling, the city attorney advised council of their option to appeal this decision, and the council did appeal this ruling. Ms. Dietrick further advised the council that "accepting the ruling could put SLO in further trouble because it would require the city to modify its charter, which is an action solely relegated to voters" (New Times, Mar. 13, 2014 - by Colin Rigley). How is it that our city attorney, who approved of city council's placing the repeal of binding arbitration on the ballot and approved of the city council's appeal of the ruling by the administrative law judge to the PERB now feels compelled to negotiate this settlement - prior to even being presented with a response from the PERB of our appeal? Why not stand by her prior convictions? The rationale given is that the City of Palo Alto has received an unfavorable ruling from PERB and the California Court of Appeal on a similar issue, although it's not known if the city of Palo Alto may yet appeal and prevail in a higher court. More importantly, the reason why you should not allow the Palo Alto case to sway your vote in favor of this proposed settlement is the fact that our city attorney and senior staff advise "there are important factual distinctions that we would argue warrant a different result in SLO's case". (Agenda packet pg. 241.2). Given this significant distinction between our case and that of Palo Alto, why would you pursue a settlement not favorable to the City of San Luis Obispo when you have yet to learn the decision of the PERB? This seems premature and detrimental to the interests of the City of San Luis Obispo. Even were the city to receive an unfavorable decision (which may not be the case), you would still have the option at that time to appeal such a decision or to try to reach an amicable resolution with the SLOPOA. It seems quite unnecessary and most disadvantageous to the City of SLO to approve this agreement today. Also troubling in this proposed settlement is the proposed payment of $150,000 to the SLOPOA. The rationale given for this is for "the significant time and resources the SLOPOA has invested in the PERB action and in working with the City". (Agenda packet Pg. 241.2-241.3). There is no basis or logic in this explanation. No one coerced the SLOPOA to challenge the voters' repeal of binding arbitration. They decided to spend their own money in the hopes of ultimately achieving an even richer reward in future salaries and benefits. The expenditure of $150,000 is a mere pittance in relation to the tens of millions of dollars (or more) that could well be attained in future contract negotiations made easier by this settlement. This was a calculated gamble and their own choice. The city has no business in compensating them for their efforts in opposition to the city. What about the City's legal fees and costs for staff time in responding to the PERB and filing an appeal? Are our expenses equal (or perhaps greater than) those of the SLOPOA? Shall the SLOPOA also reimburse the City for its expenses? How about we instead each absorb our own costs as the cost of doing business? I find an award to the SLOPOA of $150,000 (or of any sum) to be a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. Another major concern is if you were to make this settlement as proposed, what then might the SLOFA do in response? This is addressed on Agenda packet page 241.1 ... "The settlement with SLOPOA does not achieve absolute certainty that a third party, including the SLO City Fire Union, which has recently sought to intervene in the longstanding action, could not bring a subsequent challenge to the City's Charter election." Ask yourselves, if you were the SLOFA union and you saw your counterparts in the police union get $150,000 from the City plus a new form of binding arbitration, what would you do? The answer is obvious. The approval of this settlement agreement would in essence reverse the will of the voters who overwhelming repealed binding arbitration in 2011. This (or future) city councils who are unable to agree to terms of a new labor agreement with the SLOPOA will now be subjected to submitting any dispute to a fact finder, and any rejection of the fact finder's recommendations that are favorable to the SLOPOA will be subject to the more restrictive legal standard of "the preponderance of the evidence". (Packet page 24,1-4). Additionally, should you approve this agreement and the SLOPOA is not happy with the council's final offer for any future labor contract which includes any terms less favorable than those recommended by the fact finder, the SLOPOA will be entitled to file a writ petition in the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo. (Packet page 241-4). The word 'writ' means 'order', which means a judge on the bench of the SLO County Superior Court could 'order' you (or a future city council) to accept the findings of the fact finder (arbiter) as provided for per the terms of this proposed settlement agreement. This sure sounds a lot to me like we would be back to binding arbitration for the SLOPOA, albeit under some new guidelines and arbiters. You would essentially have overturned the will of 73% of the voters who made it very clear they do not want binding arbitration. And these same terms for the SLOFA would likely not be far behind! I urge your outright rejection of this proposed settlement. It is premature pending the ruling from the PERB on our current appeal. Once that ruling is received, should we not prevail in our appeal, we can then assess the best strategy moving forward. Should you still think this settlement has any merits, I urge you at least defer any action to a future council meeting, while making an earnest effort to inform the public of your pending deliberations on this matter. This issue has both current and significant future financial impacts for our city. The people have a right to know what you're doing and to be heard before you take any action on an item of this significance, particularly on an item that affects their vote at the ballot box. Thank you. John Grady San Luis Obispo