Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 341-10
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 2, 2010 CMR: 341:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for November 2, 2010 Submitting to the Electorate for Special Election a Measure to Eliminate Binding Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with Public Safety Employees by Repealing Article V of the City Charter Recommendation Consider adoption of the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for November 2, 2010 Submitting to the Electorate for Special Election a Measure to Eliminate Binding Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with Public Safety Employees by Repealing Article V of the City Charter. Background At the July 19, 2010 City Council meeting, the City Attorney was directed to bring back appropriate ballot language to call a special election in November 2010 to eliminate binding interest arbitration from the City's public safety (police and fire) bargaining (union) agreements should the Council ultimately decide to pursue the measure after their policy deliberations on the subject. Today marks the final Council action date to place this matter on the November 2010 ballot. The draft Resolution calling for a special election is attached as Attachment "A." Information that has been previously provided to Council is attached to this item as Attachment "B." Additional information related to the legal and other costs associated with previous City arbitration cases through the years is still being researched at the time of the writing of this report and will provided to Council separately when completed by the Human Resources Department. CMR:340:10 Page 1 of2 Discussion The decision to call a special election for the purpose of considering the removal of binding arbitration from the City Charter is clearly a policy decision by the Council not to be taken lightly. Previous information submitted to the City Council indicates that most cities in Santa Clara County do not currently include binding arbitration in their union (public safety or otherwise) agreements -see attachment B. However, each city is unique and should consider such policy questions independently. Resource Impact Recommended action could result in the need for a separate budget amendment item to come back to Council for approval to pay for the costs associated with adding this measure to the November 2010 ballot as funds were not previously budgeted for such a ballot measure. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimated the cost to be approximately $100,000. Attachment A: Draft Resolution Attachment B: Previous Staff Report and Information related to the topic PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:340:10 ~w~ PAMELA W. ANTIL Assistant City Manager ~~/.fF-~ . . MESKEENE City Manager Page 2 of2 /17TAll.H(Yl Ej\J T 1/ A!, , * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for November 2, 2010 Submitting to the Electorate for Special Election a Measure to Eliminate Binding Interest Arbitration Requirements for Disputes with Public Safety Employees by Repealing Article V of the City Charter WHEREAS, Article IX , section 1 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto authorizes the City Council to propose and submit Charter amendments to the voters of the City for approval at any established municipal election date; and WHEREAS, Article V of the Charter requi~es compulsory arbitration, commonly referred to as binding interest arbitration, as the sole method for resolving disputes with Fire and Police Department employees over matters involving wages, hours and working conditions; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report in May 2010 concluding that cities must rein in unsustainable employee costs, and finding that binding arbitration limits the ability of city leaders to craft solutions that work for the City'S budget, resulting in wage and benefit decisions that have been greater than the growth in basic revenue sources; and WHEREAS, in order to have more flexibility to craft solutions for managing employee costs, the City Council wishes to propose a Charter Amendment to repeal the binding arbitration requirements for public safety employee groups contained in Article V of the Charter; and WHEREAS, elections will be held on November 2, 2010, in certain school districts and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code section 5342 and Part 3 of Division 10 of the Elections Code commencing at section 10400, such elections may be partially or completely consolidated. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Special Election. Pursuant to Elections Code sections 1405 and 9255 there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Palo Alto, California, on Tuesday, November 2, 2010 a special municipal election. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, this Council orders the following question to be submitted to the voters at the Election: / / / / 100728 sh 8261378 1 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * CITY OF PALO ALTO MEASURE ----- To allow the City to use the dispute resolution methods set forth in State law to resolve disputes over all matters related to employee wages, hours and working conditions, shall Article V of the Palo Alto City Charter be repealed to remove the requirement for compulsory arbitration of public safety employee disputes ("binding interest arbitration"), which allows an arbitration board to make a final and binding decision on such matters without City Council approval? F or the Amendment Against the Amendment SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. If a majority of qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of City of Palo Alto Measure "_", it shall be deemed ratified and the following provisions shown in strikethrough shall be repealed and deleted from the City Charter: Artiele V. Comp\dsory Arbitratiofl for Fire and PoUee DepartmeRt Employee Dispmes 8ee. 1. Deelaratiofl ofpoliey. It is hereby deelared to be tae poliey of the eit)' of Palo Alto that strikes by flfefighters and poliee offieers are flOt in the pl:lblie interest and shmdd be prohibited, and taat a metaod sholild be adopted fer peaeefully and eEtliitably resolYing displites that might otaerwise lead to Slieft strikes. 8ee. 2. Prohibitiofl aga-iRst strikes. If any fIrefighter or peaee offieer employed by the eity of Palo Ako wilfully erlgages in a strike against the eity, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employmeRt and may flOt be reinstated or rettH'H:ed to eit)' employmeHt exeept as a flew employee. }to offieer, board, eOl:ffi:eil or eommissiofl shall have the power to graRt amnesty to aR)' employee eharged with eflgaging ifl a strike against tae eity. 8ee. 3. Obligation to negotiate in good faith. The eity, thrOligfl its dlily amhorized represeHtatr.'es, shall negotiate in good faith with the reeogRized fife and poliee departmeRt employee organizatiofls on all matters relating to the 'llages, hOliTs, and other terms and eonditiofls of eity employmeRt, rnelliding tae establisllm:eRt of proeedliFes for the resollition of grieYanees sl:lbmitted b~' eitaer employee organization oyer the iRterpretation or applieation of any negotiated agreemeRt inelliding a provision for bindiflg arbitration of those grie't'anees. Thlless and liRtil agreemeRt is reaehed thrOligfl flegotiations between the eity and the reeogflized employee organization for tae fire or poUee department or a determination is made throligh the arbitration proeedliTe herernafter proyided, no e~dsting benefit or eonditiofl of emplo~'meRt for tae members of the fire department or poliee aepartmeRt eargaining liflit shall be eliminate a or ehanged. 8ee. 4. Impasse resollition proeedliFes. All tHsplites or eoRtroYersies pertaiRing to wages, hOliTs, or terms ana eOflditions of emfllo~'ment whieh remain liflfesolYed after gooa faith negotiatioflS eetween the eity and either the fife or poliee departmeRt employee orgaflization shall be sl:lbmittea to a three member board of arbitrators liflon the deelaration of an impasse by the eity or by the reeogRizlild employee organizatiofl iRyolyed in the dispme. RepreseRtatiYes desigRatea by tae eity ana represeRtatiYes of the reeogRizea employee organization inyolYed in the dispme, eoRtroyersy or grie'lanee shaH eaeh seleet one arbitrator to the board of arbitrators within three days after either party has notified the other, iR writiRg, taat it desires to proeeed to arbitration. The third member of the arbitration board shall be seleeted b~' agreemeRt between the t'lfO arbitrators seleeted b~' the eity ana the employee orgaffization, and 100728 sh 8261378 2 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * shall serve as the Betltral arllitrater and ehainBaB ef the board. In the e¥eBt that the arbitraters selested by the sity aBd the el'Rflleyee oFgaBizatioB sannot agree llfleB the seleetieB of the third arllitrator withm teB days from the date that either party has Botified the other that it has deslared aB impasse, theB either party may reEtHeS! the State of California COBsiliatieB Servise to fJrevide a list of se¥eB persoBs 'llho are EtHalified aBd experieH:sed as labor arbitrators. If the arbitrators selested by the sity aBd the el'Rflleyee oFgaBizatioB saBBot agree withill three days after reseipt of sHsh list eB OBe of se¥eB to ast as the third arllitrator, they shall alternately strike Bames from the list ofnommees tmtil OBly OBe name remams aBd that person shall thea beseme the third arbitrator aBd shainBan ofthe arbitratieB board. An)' arbitratioB sOfl"leBed fJl:lFSl:lant to this artisle shall be sonoosted m sonformaBee with, SHbjeet to, aBd governed by Title 9 of Part 3 ofthe California Code efCP/il Prosedl:lFe. ,Act the eoneffisiofl of the arbitratioB hearmgs, the arbitratioB beard shall direet eaeh ef the parties to stlbmit, withm SHeh time limit as the board may establish, a last offer ef settlemeBt OB eash of the issHes m dispme. The arbitratiOB board shall deeide eaeh isstle by majerity '/ete by seleetiBg whieheyer last offer of settlemeBt OB that iSSHe it fmds most Bearly seBforms with those fasters traditionally takeB iBtO eeBsideratioB ill the determiBatieB of wages, hel:lFs, and ether terms aBd sonditieBs ef pHblis and fJri'/ate el'Rflleym:eBt, iaelHding, 13m Bet limited to, ehanges m the a¥erage eonSHmer priee iadex for geods and serviees, the wages, hOl:lFs, aBd ether terms aBd eOBditiens ef empleymeBt of other el'Rflloyees fJerformmg similar serviees, aBd the fmaBeial eOBdition of the eit)' aBd its abi:lit)' te meet the eost of the award. After reaehmg a deeisioB, the arbitration board shall mail or otherwise deli¥er a trHe eOfJY of its desisien to the fJarties. The deeisioB of the arllitration board shall not be fJHbliely diselesed aBd shall net be bindiBg l:lH:til teB days after it is delivered te the fJarties. Dl:lFiag that ten day fJeriod the parties may meet fJrpt'ately, attemflt to resewe their differeBees, aBd by ml:ltl:lal agreemeBt ameBd or medif)' aB)' ef the desisions ef the arbitratieB beard. At the eenelHsien ef the ten day fJeried, whish may be extended by mHtaal agreemeBt betweeB the parties, the deeision ef the arbitratieB beard together with aay amenC:imeH:ts or modifieatioBs agreed to by the parties shall be fJHbliely disslosed aBd shall be bindiBg llflon the parties. The sity aBd the resegBized 61'Rflloyee orgaBizationshall take whate'/er aetion is neeessary te earry om aBd effestl:late the award. The expense of aflj' arllitratioB eonyened fJl:lFSHaBt to this artisle, ineffiding the fee for the serviees of the shairmaB of the arbitratien board, shall be borne eEtHally by the fJarties. All other e),peBSes whieh the parties may iBel:lF mdi¥idHally are to be borne by the fJarty iaeHrrillg sHeh expeBses. (Added by amenC:imeBt filed with the sity elerk, JHly 17, 1978) . SECTION 3. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby 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 4. Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 17,2010. SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9286 et seq., August 10,2010 at 5:30 p.m. shall be the deadline for submission of arguments in favor of, and arguments against, any local measures on the ballot. If more than one argument for and/or against is received, the priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control. 100728 sh 8261378 3 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. The provisions of Elections Code section 9285 shall control the submission of any rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be August 17,2010. SECTION 7. Consolidation Request. The Council ofthe City of Palo Alto requests the Governing Body of any such other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and to further provide that the canvass be made by any body or official authorized by law to canvass the returns of the election, except that in accordance with Article III, section 4, of the Palo Alto Charter, the City Council must meet and declare the results of said elections; and that this City Council consents to such consolidation. SECTION 8. Request for County Services. Pursuant to section 10002 of the California Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto's General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be held on Tuesday, November 2,2010. The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections including, but not limited to, checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places, receiving absent voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines. Subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County of the foregoing request, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to engage the services of the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara to aid in the conduct of said elections including canvassing the returns of said election. Further, the Director of Administrative Services is authorized and directed to pay the cost of said services provided that no payment shall be made for services which the Registrar of Voters is otherwise required by law to perform. SECTION 9. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is directed to submit a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara and to the Registrar of Voters. II II II II II II 100728 sh 8261378 4 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECTION 10. Exemption from CEOA. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Administrative Services 100728 sh 8261378 5 ( ) ) ) ATTAC;WVt£}J, J( 5 If City of Palo Alto 4 City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES DATE: July 26, 2010 CMR:332:10 REPORT TYPE: I ACTION SUBJECT: Direction Regarding Content of Charter Amendment to Repeal Binding Arbitration for Public Safety RECOMMENDATION This meeting is to continue discussion and provide direction regarding the content of the charter amendment to repeal binding arbitration for Public Safety. On July 19, 2010, the Council directed staff to return with a resolution placing repeal of the City's binding arbitration provisions on the November 2010 ballot. BACKGROUND Council requested at the regular City Council meeting on July 19,2010 that this item be brought back for further discussion. Staff has attached some information about this issue including some news articles on the subject. Also, attached is a communication from the City Attorney and a summary table outlining the status of other local jurisdictions. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies. ATTACHMENT A. Table of Binding Arbitration Information from Other Agencies B. Communication from City Attorney C. Information Regarding Other Agency Binding Arbitration ~ n (' FOR DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~L--...L-----~-~ Russell Carlsen Dirnr of.Human Resoui\es I _ ...... CITYMANAGERAPPROVAi~W~ C;( James Keene \ /' City Manager CMR:332:10 Page 10f 1 Charter City C , C C C Note: ATTACHMENT "A" Status of Binding Interest Arbitration in Incorporated Cities in Santa Clara County 7/21110 *8 agencies contract with SantaClara County for fire service. Santa Clara County does not have binding interest arbitration. *General Law cities do not have binding interest arbitration; legislation to impose such process has been found unconstitutional 2 times. City Police Fire Binding Comments Status of Minimum Staffmg Name Interest Standards Arbitration? Campbell X No SC County Fire Cupertino No SC County Fire Gilroy X X Yes 1988-In Charter for Police Reduced Fire minimum and Fire staffing from 4 per truck to 3; Agreement wlFire July 2010: added I FTE * 2%@55 retirement * Employees pay 9% PERS No shift staffing minimum *Neither side pursue charter amendments (inel removal of binding arb that Council was considering) *Eliminate scheduled wage increases (4.5%) Los Altos X No SC County Fire Los Altos No SC County Fire Hills SC County Sheriff Los Gatos X No SC County Fire Milpitas X X No Agreement May 2010: 3 per engine * Defer 3% wage increase for 15 minimum staffmg per shift I year * City may carry up to 12 In FY 2011 Union agrees to allow vacancies in Suppression and up to 12 vacancies (in both Prevention Suppression and Prevention) for *consistent with concessions budget savings. of 7% for all bargaining units Monte No SC County Fire Sereno Los Gatos-Monte Sereno PD Morgan X No SC County Fire Hill Mountain' X X No 21 minimum staffing per shift View (includes Battalion Chief) 3 per engine Palo Alto X X Yes 1978 -In Charter for Police 31 minimum staffing per shift and Fire (incl Station 8) 3 per engine San Jose X X Yes 1980 -In Charter for Police 4 per engine, no shift minimum and Fire staffing. Fire Chief has discretion not to meet minimums for partial day absences. OVER C Santa X X No 2006 Measure B failed -No written Min Staffing Clara would have added binding standard. Practice is 3 per arbitration for Police and engine. Target is 39 per shih, Fire but must have at least 31 when keeping all 10 stations open. Currently running with 34 per shift Saratoga No SC County Fire SC County Sheriff C Sunnyvale X X No 1998 Measure Tfailed-No written Min Staffing would have added binding standard. Practice of 28 per arbitration to City Charter shift. Typically 2 per engine for Public Safety and police also respond to make 4 on scene. (Police and fire are cross trained. Public Safety Dept rather than separate Police and Fire Depts) " ) 7/</10 Cities and one County with provision for Binding Interest Arbitration including recent updates Vallejo: Oakland: Hayward: Palo Alto: San Jose: Alameda: Redwood City: Gilroy: San Francisco: Petaluma: San Leandro: Stockton: Santa Rosa: Napa: Santa Cruz: Sacramento: Sacramento County: Anaheim: Modesto: Salinas: Watsonville: San Luis Obispo: Monterey: Oroville: NOTE: Berkeley 1970 for all employees. Repealed 2010. 1973 for police and firefighters. 1975 for firefighters. 1978 for police and firefighters. 1980 for police and firefighters. 1980 for firefighters. 1987 for fi refig hters. 1988 for police and firefighters. Recently considered bid to remove binding arbitration from Charter; however, reached agreement in June 2010 with firefighters to not pursue ballot change; agreement reduces retirement formula for new hires to 2 %@55 formula and firefighters will begin paying the 9% retirement contribution; eliminates three pending wage increases and reduce staffing from 4 to 3 per engine while increasing staffing from 8 to 9 1990 for police and firefighters, later other employees. 1990 for firefighters. 1992 for police and firefighters. 1992 for firefighters. Considering ballot measure-Council asked staff to draft ballot measure for further discussion at next Council meeting on 7/27 1996 for police and firefighters. 1996 for police and firefighters. 1996 for firefighters. 1997 for police, 1998 for firefighters. 1998 for deputy sheriffs. 1998 for firefighters. 1998 for police and firefighters. 1998 for firefig hters. 1998 for firefighters. 2000 for police and firefighters. 2002 for police and firefighters. 2004 for firefighters. 1993-police and firefighters placed binding arbitration on ballot as a charter amendment-Berkeley citizens voted against it REPORT TYPE: INFORMATIONAL REPORT THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Re: Informational Report on Public Safety Strikes Dear Members of the Council: FROM CITY ATIORNEY Council Date: July 19, 2010 July 14,2010 We recently received questions regarding the rights of public safety employees to strike in the absence of binding interest arbitration provisions. The Labor Code expressly prohibits strikes by firefighters. Although there is no specific legislation addressing strikes by police officers, a 1989 court decision held that strikes by police officers are per se illegal. 1. The Labor Code Prohibits Firefighter Strikes The Meyers Milias Brown Act, which governs employer-employee relations in the public sector in California, does not directly address the right to strike. However, California Labor Code section 1962, expressly states that firefighters "shall not have the right to strike, or to recognize a picket line of a labor organization while in the course of the performance of their official duties." Although Labor Code section 1962 passed in 1959, in 1975 San Francisco firefighters called an illegal strike in which other employee groups, including police officers, joined. See San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, Int'l. Ass 'n. of Fire Fighters AFL-CIO v. Bd. of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 820. That illegal strike subsequently prompted San Francisco to propose several charter amendments related to public safety employees. See id. Palo Alto passed its binding arbitration provision shortly thereafter, in 1978. It is possible that the issues San Francisco issue may have been a consideration in passing binding arbitration in Palo Alto. Section 1 of Article V of the Policy Declaration in Palo Alto's Charter provides: 100714 sh 0111483 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 14, 2010 Page 2 Re: Infonnational Report on Public Safety Strikes It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Palo Alto 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. 2. Supreme Court Decision Finding Unlawful Any Strike Endangering Public Health and Safety Labor Code section 1962 was the only clear law in effect regarding public safety strikes in California until 1985, when the California Supreme Court applied the prohibition on the right to strike to all public safety employees in County Sanitation District No.2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Association, 38 Ca1.3d 564 (1985). The sanitation district filed for injunctive relief and damages when its sanitation workers went on strike for eleven days, arguing that the court should adopt a blanket rule prohibiting all public employee strikes. Although the court rejected the idea of a blanket prohibition for all public employees, it recognized that employees providing certain "essential public services" must be prohibited from striking where a strike would create "a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety of the public." Jd. at 580, 586. Thus, the court found the sanitation workers' strike was legal only because it "did not involve public employees, such as firefighters or law enforcement personnel, whose absence from their duties would clearly endanger the public health and safety." Jd. at 586-87. This decision therefore clarified that both firefighters and police officers are legally prohibited from striking because such a strike would necessarily threaten the health and safety ofthe pUblic. 3. PoliceStrikes Held Per Se Illegal The Court's decision in County Sanitation prohibiting strikes by public safety employees has been upheld in numerous cases. For example, in City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Police Benevolent Association, 207 Cal.App.3d 1568 (1989), police officers challenged the County Sanitation decision, arguing. that it should be read to require a case-by-case analysis of whether strike-related activities should be prohibited. Instead, the court concluded that police strikes are per se illegal, noting that "repeated references [in County Sanitation] to strikes by police officers as ones which would still be prohibited lead us to conclude that police work stoppages are still per se illegal" because "application of such a test to police functions would be an impossible task for the trier of fact." Jd. at 1572. The court also acknowledged this rule in a recent decision, County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, where it noted that a law enforcement employee organization's argument "ignores the fact that those employees lack the right to strike." 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 339 (2009). 100714 sh 01 J 1483 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL July 14, 2010 'j Page 3 y ) ) Re: Infonnational Report on Public Safety Strikes 4. Conclusion Since the City's charter provision (Article V) on binding arbitration for public safety was passed in 1978 the courts have settled the law on strikes by public safety employees in favor of public agencies to expressly prohibit firefighters and police officers from striking. As a result, protecting the City from work actions by public safety employees is no longer one of the clear rationales for binding interest arbitration. GMB:sh cc: James Keene, City Manager Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager Dennis Burns, Interim Fire Chief Donna 1. Grider, City Clerk 100714 sh 0111483 Respectfully submitted, ~_~J./~~_ Gary M. Baum City Attorney Vallejo's experience with bankruptcy, arbitration refonn may spur action in San Jose -Sa... Page 1 of 4 m~eJtertur!\ News A TT ACHMENT "C" MercuryNews,com Vallejo's experience with bankruptcy, arbitration reform may spur action in San Jose By John Woolfolk jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com Posted: 07/03/2010 10:13:45 PM PDT Updated: 07/04/2010 04:54:56 AM PDT Forty years ago, after a strike by police and firefighters, Vallejo became the first California city to let arbitrators -private judges for hire -settle pay and benefit disputes with its unionized work force. In June, voters made the bayside city of 120,000 the state's first to repeal that provision as it struggles to emerge from bankruptcy driven by runaway employee costs. That vote -and the experience in Vallejo, once known for its bustling naval shipyard -has been closely watched in San Jose and other cities where costs for police, firefighters and other unionized employees are outpacing revenues and devouring funds for roads, libraries and other public services. Vallejo's successful repeal has emboldened San Jose city, business and neighborhood leaders to consider a similar ballot measure. And if they succeed, San Jose's labor leaders will be bracing for a similar fight. "Something has got to change," said Jerry Mungai, president of San Jose's Almaden Valley Community Association, whose board this month will consider Advertisement Help people in need. Donate your car, boat or RV Free Towing • Tax Deductible asking the City Council for a November ballot measure repealing the arbitration rights city police and firefighters won in 1980. "It was sold on the idea that we'd have labor peace, and what it's done is given us something more than maybe we bargained for." Public safety unions that kept a wary eye on Vallejo's measure are girding for more battles. "It affects police officers around the state," said George Beattie, president of the San Jose Police Officers' Association. "Repealing this would be bad for the citizens, bad for the police officers and bad for the city." Spending by unions The San Jose officers association contributed $5,000 toward the campaign against Vallejo's arbitration repeal initiative, Measure A, which narrowly passed with about 51 percent of the vote June 8 despite heavy opposition from police and firefighter groups around the state. The Coalition for a Safer California, sponsored by public safety organizations, spent more than $40,000 fighting the measure. The measure's backers -mostly city officials and citizen activists -said they were outspent by a ratio of about 10 to 1. After Vallejo voters approved arbitration in 1970, city officials made two failed attempts in that decade to get it repealed, said San Francisco labor lawyer Alan C. Davis, who represents city workers. But measure backers said Vallejo's 2008 bankruptcy filing, which made it the largest California city to declare insolvency, and public scrutiny of city fU' "111.,. w"". to. .......... L Dlllloll·Frl!"e flail "t • .. -cn '-"'-SC 1-877-225-9384 "hif ,h·Blilld http://www.mercurynews.comlbay-area-news/ ci _1543812 7?nclick _ check= 1 711212010 Vallejo's experience with bankruptcy, arbitration refonn may spur action in San Jose -Sa... Page 2 of 4 ll}ej1trtUr!\ News MercuryNews.com employee pay and benefits made repeal an easier sell. City records showed that a dozen police and fire employees were paid more than $200,000 last year, ranking from chief down to captain and engineer. Nearly half the city's employees are paid six~figure salaries. "This just needed to be done," said Carlyle P. Johnson, 73, a photographer who voted for the repeal measure. "The unions are too powerful." The dispute resolution process officially called "binding interest arbitration" has seldom aroused such interest beyond bureaucrats, lawyers and labor leaders. Unlike "rights" arbitration that settles contract interpretation fights, interest arbitration decides disagreements over compensation. The way it typically works with govemment unions is when contract talks reach an impasse, the union and employer choose the arbitrator, often a retired judge, from a dispute-resolution firm. The arbitrator considers the opponents' positions on the disputed points and picks the winner for each. There's no attempt at middle-ground compromises: If the union wanted a 4 percent raise, and the city offered 2 percent, the decision is either one or the other. Once made, it's final. Does arbitration work? Though arbitration is often sought as a less costly altemative to the courts, it isn't cheap. San Jose Employee Relations Director Alex Gurza said that with stenographers and expert witnesses, the city bill can reach $500,000. Advocates say the process offers a fair and efficient way to resolve compensation disputes through a neutral observer having no stake in the outcome. It Advertisement can prevent strikes from disrupting public services. Or in the case of police and firefighters -who thanks to law changes since the 1970s are effectively barred from striking -restore balance to the negotiating table. Beattie said that otherwise, "We're really resorting to collective begging." 'We'd just have to take what they offered us," Beattie said. "We believe we should have some recourse to negotiate a fair contract or have somebody come in and take a look at it. n Critics argue that the process takes budget decisions out of the hands of elected officials. Vallejo City Councilwoman Marti Brown, who helped lead the measure campaign, said that with three quarters of the city's budget spent on employee pay and benefits, arbitration effectively left her deciding just the remaining fraction. A senior planner for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency who has negotiated for her own union, Brown found a very different dynamic with binding arbitration in Vallejo. Unions had no incentive to bargain, and city officials felt pressured to make generous offers to avoid a more costly arbitration award. ''They'd really have us over a barrel," Brown said. Twenty-two other California cities and one county - all in Northern Califomia except for Anaheim - followed Vallejo in adopting binding interest arbitration, said Davis, who said he has "been involved in almost all" of those efforts. Vallejo's arbitration covered all city workers, but most jurisdictions limit it to police and firefighters, as San Jose does. Santa Clara County voters in 2004 rejected Measure C, which would have given binding arbitration to county nurses, jailers and http://www.mercurynews.comlbay-area-news/ci _1543 8127?nclick _ check= 1 7112/2010 Vallejo's experience with bankruptcy, arbitration reform may spur action in San Jose -Sa... Page 3 of 4 It)eJlerturg News MercuryNews.com lawyers. Vallejo setting a trend? Davis thinks city officials in Vallejo and elsewhere unfairly blame arbitration for money woes. Vallejo's bankruptcy had much to do with the city's ineptitude in attracting development, he said, and most employee pay and benefit decisions were agreed upon rather than arbitrated. Beattie and San Jose Firefighters President Randy Sekany agree, saying their unions have invoked arbitration just a couple of times each. They say the arbitrator takes the city's financial health into account, and they don't see the process skewed in their favor -Sekany notes that the city prevailed on wages in the firefighters' 2007 arbitration. But San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said binding arbitration has directly or indirectly driven the city's nine-year run of red ink. Average employee costs have risen more than three times faster than revenues, and police and firefighter expenses almost doubled in a decade. The 2007 arbitration gave firefighters a richer pension that cost the city $5 million more a year. While the city has reached agreements for 10 percent pay cuts with most other unions to help close a record $118.5 million deficit, it will likely get less than half that from police and firefighters because of arbitration, Reed said. He called it the "biggest impediment we have to good-faith negotiations" and said he is weighing whether to put a repeal or modification measure on the ballot, possibly in November. A county civil grand jury this year recommended such a move. Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio said more than 83 percent of those responding to his online survey on the budget this year favored modifying arbitration. Advertisement Eat Gre~t, !:l.ose" Vallejo, nestled along the olive waters of San Pablo Bay on the north end of Interstate 80's Carquinez Bridge, has seen its ups and downs. Briefly the state's capital, the city's fortunes rose as the 148- year home of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard. After that fell victim to defense downsizing in 1996, a housing boom helped take up the slack. Six Flags Discovery Kingdom still attracts visitors. But the city has suffered unfavorable headlines, from the 1999 kidnapping and murder of 7-year-old Xiana Fairchild to its recent bankruptcy. But longtime resident Keith Vincent, 85, a retired pediatrician, said Vallejo's repeal of binding arbitration may show the city on the leading edge of govemment reform. "Several other cities are all going through this . problem," Vincent said. "We're just the beginning of everything." Contact John Woolfolk at 408-975-9346. cities with binding arbitration California cities that have adopted binding interest arbitration for employees: Vallejo: 1970 for all employees. Repealed 2010. Oakland: 1973 for police and ftreftghters. Hayward: 1975 for fIreftghters. Palo Alto: 1978 for police and fIreftghters. San Jose: 1980 for police and fIreftghters. Alameda: 1980 for fIreftghters. Redwood City: 1987 for fIreftghters. Gilroy: 1988 for police and fIreftghters. San Francisco: 1990 for police and fIreftghters, later other workers. Petaluma: 1990 for fIreftghters. San Leandro: 1992 for police and fIreftghters. Call1-888-378-31S1 and get a FREE week of meals plus a BONUS $25 gift! t=:'~~~:"';"r';': "=~::~~=;(~ allItOfCOl.'INilslf"t.< ''';' ;:. .., .. -':"'~ ::.--'~." ::-.. ~ '" ". :,:...~' ---.;:., http://www.mercurynews.comlbay-area-news/ ci _1543 8127?nc1ick _ check= 1 7112/2010 Vallejo'sexperience with bankruptcy, arbitration refonn may spur action in San Jose -Sa... Page 4 of 4 m,eJlerturgNews MercuryNews.com Stockton: 1992 for fIrefIghters. Santa Rosa: 1996 for police and fIrefIghters. Napa: 1996 for police and fIrefIghters. Santa Cruz: 1996 for fIrefIghters. Sacramento: 1997 for police, 1998 for frrefIghters .. Sacramento County: 1998 for deputy sheriffs. Anaheim: 1998 for fIrefIghters. Modesto: 1998 for police and fIrefIghters. Salinas: 1998 for frrefIghters. Watsonville: 1998 for frrefIghters. San Luis Obispo: 2000 for police and frrefIghters. Monterey: 2002 for police and fIrefIghters. Oroville: 2004 for frrefIghters. Source: Alan C. Davis, attorney at law Advertisement _, ·,v. "~_~, __ ."....,.. •. ~_,.'., ... _ Print Powered By f:'~J~~::::2]~j~~QXr:!9_r:!:l_i5??, http://www.mercurynews.comlbay-area-news/ci_15438127?nc1ick_check=1 7/1212010 City of Vallejo -Questions & Answers A TT ACHMENT '';c'' Page 1 of2 Date: 3/18/2010 Search: I I @£l -i1""'-_ Measure A: Charter Amendment to Remove Binding Interest Arbitration from the Vallejo City Charter Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is binding interest arbitration? A: Binding interest arbitration is a process that requires the final decision on the wages, hours and working conditions for City employees to be made by a~ outside arbitrator and not by voters or the City Council. The .decision by the outside arbitrator is final and the City Council cannot overrule it. Q: Why does Vallejo currently use binding interest arbitration? A: The current binding interest arbitration process was added to the City Charter more than three decades ago after a strike by Vallejo public safety unions. The City Charter section requiring binding interest arbitration was seen as a tool to ensure contract disputes with the City's public safety unions did not end in strikes. California law now prohibits firefighters and police officers from striking. other City employees are not subject to this prohibition. Q: Is binding interest arbitration used in other California cities? A: 25 of California's 479 cities use binding interest arbitration to resolve contract disputes with public employee unions. More than 94 percent of all California cities rely on eXisting state law (known as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act or MMBA) to ensure employees have a right to be represented fairly in negotiations with the City. IQ: What Is being proposed? I A: Since binding interest arbitration was adopted by the voters as part of the Vallejo City Charter it can only be repealed by another vote of the people. The City Council voted on February 9, 2010 to place Measure A, which asks voters to decide if they would like to remove binding interest arbitration from the City Charter, on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Q: What would Measure A do? A: Measure A allows VallejO voters to decide if the City Council -and not an outside arbitrator -should have the authority to make decisions on the wages, hours and working conditions for City employees. Q: How will repealing binding interest arbitration affect City spending? A: Spending on public employee wages and benefits accounts for approximately 75 percent of Vallejo's current year general fund budget. By removing binding interest arbitration from the City Charter, the City Council will gain the final authority to set spending for public employee salaries and benefits and therefore have greater control over how to allocate Vallejo's tax dollars. Q: Is Measure A related to the City's bankruptcy filing? A: No. Measure A is not related to the bankruptcy filing, which is still on-going. Q: How did the City Council decide to put Measure A on the ballot? A: In 2009,the City Council appointed a fourteen member citizens' committee charged to review the City Charter. The committee held several public hearings on binding interest arbitration and its effects on the City of Vallejo. The hearings included an educational session on binding interest arbitration by two disinterested labor law attorneys; advocacy presentations from a citizen committee and union groups; and comments from the public. After review of all of the information provided, the Committee voted to recommend that the City Council place a measure on the ballot to repeal binding interest arbitration. The City Council voted on February 9, 2010 to place Measure A, which asks voters to decide if they would like to remove binding interest arbitration from the City Charter, on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Q: How can I find out more about binding interest arbitration and Measure A? A: Additional information on binding iRterest arbitration and Measure A may be found on the City's website www.cLvallejo.ca.us. If you have additional questions please email MeasureA@ci.vallejo.ca.u5 or call 707-551- 4422. http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp?serviceID1=764&Frame=L1 3/18/2010 City of Vallejo -Measure A: Charter Amendment to Remove Binding Interest Arbitration... Page 1 of 1 Contact Us Official Documents Date: 3/18/2010 Search: I I [§2] MMIMMMA Measure A: Charter Amendment to Remove Binding Interest Arbitration from the Vallejo City Charter Questions & Answers The Vallejo City Council voted on February 9, 201010 place Measure A on the June 8, 2010 ballot, which would remove Binding \. ) Interesl Arbitration (Section 809, entitled 'Employer-Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration) from the City Charter .. ~------~ Measure A allows Vallejo voters to decide if the City Council-and not an outside arbHrator -should have the authority to make decisions on the wages. hours and working conditions for CHy employees. By removing binding inleresl arbitration from Ihe City Charter, the Cily Council will gain the final authority to set spending for public employee salaries and benefits and therefore have greater control over how to allocate Vallejo's tax dollars. This webpage was created as an informational tool to help voters understand why Measure A was placed on the ballol by the City Council. We urge you 10 check back frequently for updales and announcements. If you have additional questions please. email MeasureA@cjvallejo ca us or call 707-551-4422. For addHional voter information, please Click here. 5S5 Santa Clara Street. VallejO, California 94590 Home I Autwt V<JUi:!jc I DepartmelHS i City Coul".iI I E-Govemme.nt I Contact I Sit2: t-lap 1 Cale.nd.lr ! Dis:r.laitner Copyright i002-2010, City of Vallejo California http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp?serviceID 1 =763 &Frame=L 1 3/18/2010 ADMIN D Agenda No. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: February 9, 2010 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Robert F. D. Adams, Interim City Manageav ~ ~ Craig Whittom, Assistant City Manager ICommunity Developmen~ John Nagel, Assistant City Attorney d) SUBJECT: CONSIDERAllON 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 B, 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, Med;ation 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. J:IJNICharter Section 809 6-10102-09-10 Binding InterestArbltration Staff Report (Final).docx ADMIN 0 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 qn.d the Intemational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -(I SEW}; Vanejo 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, IAFF, and ISEW 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 lnitial 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 J:IJN\Charter Section 809 6·10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbitralion Staff Report (Final).docx ADMIN 0 Page 3 the provisions of Section B09, 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 procesB 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 B, 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 J:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-10\02-09-10 !3inding InterestArbitralion Staff Report (Final).docx ADMIN D Page 4 the City Council: PROPOSED MEASURE TITLE AND BALLOT QUESTION CHARTER AMENDMENT TO REMOVE BINDING INTEREST ARBITRATION FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER Shalf 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:IJNICharter Section 809 6-10102-09-10 Binding InterestArbilration Staff Report (Final).doCJ( 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 fer or more than one argument against any city measure is submitted to the city elections official within the time prescribed, he or she shalT 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 8,2010 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:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-10\02-09-10 Binding InlerestArbltralion Staff Report (Final).docx ADMIN D Page 6 the City Council calls the election, and if the Resolution is adopted then it applies "at the nexfensuing 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. J:\JN\Ch:arter Section 8096-10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbilralion Slaff Report (FinaO.docx ADMIN D Page 7 DOCUMENTS ATTACHED AlTACHMENT 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". AlTACHMENT B -RESOLUTION SElTlNG PRIORITIES FOR THE FILING -OF WRllTEN 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 AlTACHMENT 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 SUBMllTED 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) 648-4579 cwhittom@ci.vallejo.ca.us or John Nagel. Assistant City Attorney (707) 648-4545 nagel@ci.vallejo.ca.us J:\JN\Charter Section 8096-10\02-09-10 Binding InterestArbitration Staff Report (Final).docx RESOLUTION NO. 10-_ N.C. ADMIN 0 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". WHEREAS, on March 10, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 09-043 N.C. establishing the Charter Review Committee, and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2009, the Charter Review Committee recommended to the City Council that a measure to repeal Section 809 (Employer-Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration) of the Charter of the City of Vallejo be submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2009; and. WHEREAS, the City Council desires, on its own motion, to submit to the voters a question relating to the repeal of Section 809 (Employer-Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration) from the Charter of the City of Vallejo at a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Statewide Direct Primary Election to be held on June 8, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS, THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council pursuant to its right and authority under Article XI, section 3(b) of the California Constitution and Government Code section 34458, does order to be submitted to the voters at a Special Municipal election the following question: -1- J:WN\Charter Section 809 6-10\Binding Interest Arbitratiori Resolution Call Election (Final}.doc ADMIN D 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 mattt;rs relating to wages, hours, and working conditions and NO instead to use the method of resolving such disputes set forth in state law? SECTION 2. The proposed complete text, with additions indicated by underscoring and deletions indicated by strike through type, of the proposed Charter Amendment submitted to the voters is as attached in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 4. 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 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Solano County Board of Supervisors and the Solano County Registrar of Voters. SECTION 6. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions necessary under law to prepare for and conduct the June 8, 2010 election and appropriate aU monies necessary for the City Manager and the City Clerk to prepare and conduct the June 8, 2010 election consistent with law. J:IJNICharter Section B09 6-101Binding Interest Arbitrnlion Resolution Call Election (FillaQ.doc ADMIN D SECTION 7. Pursuant to Section 15378 (b) (3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQAn) in that it is not a Project as it concerns the submittal of a proposal to the voters of the City and is not subject to environmental review. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a Notice of Exemption with the Solano County Clerk. J:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-1 o\Binding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election {Final).doc ADMIN 0 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: Section 809 Employer Employee Relations, Mediation Arbitration. Consistent with applicable law, the Cit,. Council shall by ordinance provide a system of collective negotiating to include: a. It shall be the right of City employees individually or collectively to negotiate on matters ofwage5, homs, and working conditions, but not on matters in',01'lin9 the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law, or on any matter arising out of Sections 803(n) or 803(0) of this Charter. . b. The City Manager and/or his/her designated representative(s) shall negotiate in good faith 'lJith the recognized employee organizations. The City Council may appoint a committee which shall be composed solely of Council members to assist the City Manager and/or hislher designated representati'.'e(s) in said negotiations if the Council in its judgment deems such in the best publio interest. c. Both parties shall exchange their ' .... ritten demands at least 180 oalendar days before the expiration of the then current agreement or arbitration award. Collective negotiations shall commenoe at least 150 calendar days before the expiration of the then ourrent agreement or arbitration cPNard. d. Agreements reached between City representatives authorized in (b) abo'/e and the representatives of the recognized employee organizations shall be submitted in writing to the City Council for its appro\'al, modification, or rejection. All such agreements shall provide for expiration at the end of a fiscal year. All phases of negotiations, mediation and arbitration including the final binding decision of the mediator,larbitrator shall be I completed at least 25 calendar days before the end of the fiscal year. J:\JN\Charter Section B09 6-10\Binding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election (Flnal).doc ADMIN D e. Both parties shall select and schedule a mediatorlarbitrator at least 200 calendar days before the expiration of the then current agreement or arbitration award. If they are unable to agree upon a mediator/arbitrator, they shall select such person from a list of seven names to be provided by an impartial third party mediationJarbitration service mutually acceptable to the parties. The parties shall provide the mediation/arbitration service with sufficient notice to insure receipt of the list at least 1 gO calendar days before the expiration of the then current agreement or arbitration a'Nard. If at least 180 calendar days before the expiration of the then current agreement or arbitration a'Nard the parties still cannot agree upon a mediator/arbitrator, they shall immediately alternately strike names from the list, the choice of the first strike to be determined by lot. The last remaining unstruck name shall be selected and scheduled as mediator/arbitrator. f. If, 90 calendar days before the expiration of the current agreement or arbitration a'Nard, no agreement can be reached, or if the City Council refuses to ratify the agreement arrived at or modifies such agreement in any manner unacceptable to the employee organization, the parties shall commence mediation. g. If no agreement between the parties has been shed within 14 calendar days after the start oJ mediation, the mediatorlarbitrator shall thereupon commence arbitration proceedings to deal with the issues still in dispute. Each party shall put in '.witing its last best offer on each of the issues still in dispute 'Nithin 14 calendar days after the start of arbitration proceedings, and these offers shall immediately be made public. The mediatorl-arbitrator shall choose one of the parties' last best offer far each issue still in dispute and shall have no power to modify or compromise the last best offers of either party. The mediator/arbitrator shall hear the evidence presented and oonsider all factors relevant to the issues from the standpoint of both employer and affected employees, including the interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the City to meet those costs. If one of the parties fails to submit its last best offer \~Jithin the above allotted time, then the mediatorl-arbitrator shall be obligated to make an award incorporating the terms and conditions of the last best offer made by the party that has submitted its offer llt'ithin the above allotted time. To the extent permitted by laIN, the decision of the mediator/arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties. Any arbitration alNard issued shall provide for expiration at the end of a fisoal year. h. The costs of mediation and arbitration, including the scheduling of the mediatorlarbitrator, shall be borne equally by all parties. Arbitration hearings shall be conducted within the City of Vallejo and closed to the public, unless otherwise mutually agreec upon by the parties with the concurrenee of the mediatorlarbitrator. i. Nothing in this section shall modify the authority of the Civil Service Commission to exercise the pm· .. ers expressly confirmed upon it by this Charter. J:\JN\Charter Section B09 6-1 O\Blnding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election (Final).doc ADMIN 0 j. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed as making any of the prO';lsions of Seotion 923 of the Labor Code of the State of Califurnia applicable to City employees. The provisions of this Section pertaining to arbitration shall be construed as an "arbitration agreement" fur the purpose of making applicable to the extent not in conflict herewith the provisions of Chapter I (commencing with Section 1280), Title 9, Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Califurnia. Any employee 'I/ho at any time participates in a strike or other work stoppage or other ooncerted 'NOrk related action against the City of Vallejo 'lIiII be considered to have terminated histher employment with the City and neither the Council nor the Civil Sep/ioe Commission shall have any power to provide by reinstatement or otherwise fur the return or re entry of said employee into the City service except as a ne'll employee 'tYho is employed in accoFClance with the regular employment practices of the City then in effect fur the particular position of employment. The question of '.vhether an employ€e oharged with participating in a strike or 'NOrk stoppage or other concerted work related astion did, in fast, engage in such conduct shall be determined through the disciplinary procedures applicable to employees generally. (Amendment adopted by the electors oOhe city, 11t4l80: amendment adopted by the electors of the city, 1117/00.) J:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-10lBinding Interest Arbitration Resolution Call Election (Final).doc ADMIN D ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 10-_ N.C. 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 WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Vallejo on Tuesday, June 8,2010, at which there will be submitted to the voters of said City a measure in substantially the following form: 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? NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS. THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby authorizes _____ (Council Member in Favor) _____ (Council Member in Favor) _____ (Council Member in Favor) _____ (Council Member in Favor) _____ (Council Member in Favor) 1 _____ (Council Member Against) _____ (Council Member Against) _____ (Council Member Against) _____ (Council Member Against) _____ (Council Member Against) J:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-10\Binding Interest Arbitration Resolution Argument (Final).doc ADMIN 0 members of that body to file a written argument(s) with the City Clerk regarding the City Measure (Charter Amendment) as specified above, accompanied by the printed names(s) and signature(s) of the author(s), not exceeding 300 words, and in accordance with the Elections Code of the State of California, Section 9280,et seq., and may be changed untiland including the date fixed by the City Clerk, after which no arguments for or against the measure may be submitted to t!1e City Clerk. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the City Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall cause to be prepared 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. 2 J:\JN\Charter Section 809 6-1 Q\Bindin9 Interest Arbitration Resolution Argument (Final).doc ADMIN D ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 10-_ N.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 WHEREAS, Section 9285 of the California Elections Code authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions for the filing of rebuttal arguments for city measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 9285 of the California Elections Code, when the elections official has selected the arguments for and against the measure which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the measure to the authors of any argument against the measure, and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments. 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. A rebuttal argument may not be Signed by more than five persons. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf 1 J:\JN\Charter Section B09 6-10\Binding Interest Arbitration Resolution Rebuttal Argument (Final).doc ADMIN 0 of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Declaration by Author(s) form to be supplied by the City Clerk. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. All previous resolutions· providing for the filling of rebuttal arguments for City measures, if any, are repealed. SECTION 3. The provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, and shall then be of no further force and effect. 2 J:IJN\Charter Section 809 6·1 O\Binding Interest Arbitration Resolution Rebuttal Argument (Finall·doc Number of issues likely to be on November ballot I Recordriet.com By Daniel Thigpen July 14, 2010 Record Staff Writer ATTACHMENT "C" News NUMBER OF ISSUES LIKELY TO BE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT VOTERS TO HAVE LOUDER VOICE STOCKTON -Expect a heavier ballot this November. Page 1 of2 Voters this fall could change how Stockton's fire chief is hired, how labor disputes with firefighters are handled and whether medical marijuana is taxed. The City Council on Tuesday asked city staff to draft ballot language for all of those items and indicated it is likely to place them on the ballot at its next meeting, on July 27. Already deep into a bitter labor dispute with the city's fire union, a push to change long-held Fire Department provisions in Stockton's City Charter would create a new, months-long battle. As for marijuana, the cash-strapped city is hoping to create some extra revenue as it is poised to allow and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the coming weeks. "We certainly wouldn't want that to go up in smoke," Councilwoman Leslie Baranco Martin said of a proposed marijuana tax. Mayor Ann Johnston called changes to the Fire Department provisions of the City Charter a top priority. City leaders want to remove a charter section that requires labor disputes with the fire union to go to a third-party arbitrator whose decisions are final and can be enforced in court. Another target is a charter provision that dates back to the 1970s and requires that the fire chief be hired from within the department's ranks. ' Also, the city may ask voters to repeal another charter section that allows firefighters to earn and use no less than 15 days of vacation a year. "This is something that just doesn't seem necessary," Deputy City Manager Laurie Montes said. Critics say charter mandates and union contracts have stifled the city's ability to control staffing and employee costs. Stockton Professional Firefighters Local 456 opposes the proposed changes. The marijuana tax originally was part of a broader proposed business tax overhaul that requires voter approval to make changes. But Chief Financial Officer Mark Moses cautioned that to propose the changes this year, there would be little time for input from the business community. The City Council decided to put off those changes until a future election but made clear it wanted to continue to pursue a separate marijuana tax measure. Also expected on the November ballot is a measure to allow Stockton to develop publicly assisted low-income housing. The city can go to voters every 10 years for the authority. Voters last approved such a measure in 2000. The council chose not to pursue a revision to a conflict-of-interest section of the City Charter that came under http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dl1lartic1e?AID=1201 00714/A _NEWS/1 007199501-11... 7/1412010 Number of issues likely to be on November ballot I Recordnet.com Page 2 of2 scrutiny after last year's controversial firing of Deputy City Manager Johnny Ford. Instead, the council opted to include the item in a possible long-term charter revision process that could include a citizens committee. Ford was accused of using his influence to get free tickets to city entertainment venues. A council investigation found Ford did not violate a city ticket policy and said the applicable conflict-of-interest charter provision was vague. Contact reporter Daniel Thigpen at (209) 546-8254 or dthigpen@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at record net.com/th ig penblog. . http://www.recordnet.comJapps/pbcs.dlllarticle?AID=/20100714/A _ NEWSIl 00719950/-11... 7114/2010 City weighs charter changes I Recordnet.com By Daniel Thigpen July 03, 2010 Record Staff Writer ATT ACHMENT "C" News CITY WEIGHS CHARTER CHANGES STOCKTON COULD TARGET FIREFIGHTER LAWS WITH BALLOT Page 1 of2 STOCKTON -Already Stockton's elected leaders are trying to break their contract with the city's fire union. Now they may go for more, seeking changes in municipal laws written specifically for firefighters. Later this month, the City Council will discuss several proposals for November ballot measures. Foremost in city leaders' sights are charter provisions that govern labor disputes with firefighters and dictate how the department's chief is hired. Expect another fight. The fire union's leader said he will oppose any efforts to alter the department's sections of the City Charter. The move comes at a time when firefighters have taken City Hall to court for its attempts to suspend pay increases and to close a truck company -which the fire union's contract prohibits -to help close a multimillion-dollar budget deficit. And the ballot debate won't just be about firefighters. Also in the works are a proposed overhaul of the city's decades-old business tax rules, including the possibility of taxing marijuana sales, and a review of a much scrutinized conflict of interest City Charter section. The City Council will discuss what, if anything, to put on the November ballot at its next meeting July 13, just two weeks before the deadline to qualify for the fall election, officials said. "Yes, we understand it's a short window of time," Mayor Ann Johnston said. Fire provisions targeted City leaders want to repeal a section in the City Charter, enacted by a public vote in 1992, that requires labor disputes with the fire union to go to a third-party arbitrator, whose decisions are final and can be enforced in court. City governments frequently criticize binding arbitration for often siding with unions. Fire Capt. Dave Macedo, president of Stockton Professional Firefighters Local 456, said those concerns are exaggerated. For city leaders, the issue centers on their ability to get out from under the union's contract, which mandates minimum daily staffing and other directives that critics say have eroded the city's power to manage fire personnel and limit employee costs. Binding arbitration, Johnston said, "ties our hands, and takes away some control that rightfully should be in the hands of the council." http://www.recordnet.com!apps/pbcs.dlllarticle?AID=120100703/A_NEWSI70303351-lIa_... 7/1412010 City weighs charter changes I Recordnet.com Page 2 of2 Another potential target is a charter provision that dates back to the 1970s and requires that the fire chief be hired from within the department ranks. • Outgoing interim City Manager Kevin O'Rourke said he has been pushing council members for months to consider the changes. He said the fire chief provision doesn't make sense. "What it breeds is just the internalization of the existing culture" in the Fire Department, he said. Macedo said he will never support repealing the law. "You want somebody who has moved up through the ranks and are invested in the city," he said, cautioning against "career chiefs" who bounce between cities. Other items mulled Outside of fire matters, the City Council may also discuss rewriting a conflict-of-interest charter section at the center of last year's controversial firing of Deputy City Manger Johnny Ford. Former City Manager Gordon Palmer, who retired in September, fired Ford, saying Ford used his influence to get free tickets to city entertainment venues. Hundreds of people protested, some saying Ford was fired because he is black, a claim Palmer denied. A City Council investigation found Ford was unethical in appearance to take tickets from promoters but that Ford did not violate a city ticket policy. The council committee also called the applicable charter provision concerning gifts "nebulous and ambiguous,"and recommended it be rewritten. Meanwhile, city officials also are proposing a citywide business tax ordinance overhaul, changes that also would require a public vote. Fees for some businesses could increase, while others may drop. The ordinance changes include a proposal to levy a 2.5 percent tax on gross revenues at pot dispensaries. That annual tax could apply to marijuana sold for medical purposes or otherwise, depending on whether state voters legalize marijuana for recreational uses. Contact reporter Daniel Thigpen at (209) 546-8254 or dthigpen@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/thigpenblog. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic1e?AID=/20100703/A_NEWS/7030335/-1/a_... 7114/2010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 10f8 ATTACHMENT "C" lbis is an archive of a past election. See http:_iLw-'1_w .. O)r[lCir:t::v9t~:r::.O :r:9I<::?b.<::J / for current information. iii League oflWomen Voters of California Education Fund Santa Clara County, CA November 7, 2006 Election Measure B Binding-Arbitration City of Santa Clara Majority Approval Required QFail: 9,853/43.86% Yes votes ...... 12,612/56.14% No votes See Also: lml~~_QL~Jl.M~~~lJt~$ Results as of Dec 41:58pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (53/53) Information shown below: y"~SmQM~~DjJlg I h:!W~I1jflLAn.i!!y~is I ArglJm~l}ts I EIJILT~~j: Shall a section be added to the City Charter which would require binding arbitration before a three person arbitration panel of all unresolved disputes between the City and certain personnel of the Police and Fire Departments on all matters relating to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment, including the interpretation and application of any existing labor agreements? YES NO Meaning of Voting YeslNo A YES vote on this measure means: A "yes" vote would establish binding arbitration. A NO vote on this measure means: A "no" vote would retain existing City procedures. Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of V oters for the official version.] This measure, if approved, would add a new City Charter section requiring binding arbitration on unresolved labor issues between the City of Santa Clara ["City"] and the Santa Clara Police Officers' Association and the Santa Clara Firefighters' Association [collectively "Public Safety Employees" or "PSE"]. Under existing law, the City is required to negotiate in good faith with its employee organizations about wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment ["labor issues"]. In the event http://www.smartvoter.org12006/11/07/ca/scl/meas/B/ Official Information Proponents CQmmitt~_~JQ __ Pr9J~.GtEix~_<!JlQ P9Ijc~.SelYi(;~$ __ Y~$QlJM~<!$lJJ~ 13 FPPC: 1265036 Opponents At this time there are no known opponent webpages News and Analysis This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart V oter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page. Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for infonnation only and do not imply endorsement. 712012010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA that the parties cannot agree, an impasse exists. Currently, the City Council has discretion on how to respond to impasse situations. Past practice has included directing further negotiations, voluntary mediation and/or City Council imposition of terms and conditions discussed during negotiations. After an agreement has been reached between the City and its employee organizations, the current process authorizes the City Manager to ultimately resolve disputes regarding the interpretation or application of existing labor agreements ["grievances"]. This measure would eliminate the City Manager's grievance resolution authority. If the measure is approved, instead of the City Council resolving impasses with PSE, the labor issue dispute would be submitted to binding arbitration ["interest arbitration"]. This measures also requires establishment of binding arbitration for grievances ["grievance arbitration"]. This measure would also prohibit the City from eliminating or changing any existing benefits or conditions of employment for PSE unless the change was either (1) the result of a negotiated agreement or (2) a decision resulting from the arbitration procedure. The measure would provide for a three-member Board of Arbitrators ("Board") to hear interest arbitration or grievance arbitration. City and PSE would each select one arbitrator. The third arbitrator would be selected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the measure. The third arbitrator would serve as the neutral arbitrator and as the chairperson of the Board. The arbitration provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure would apply. At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Board would direct each of the parties to submit a last offer of settlement on each issue in dispute. The Board would decide each disputed issue by selecting whichever party's last offer of settlement on that issue the Board finds most nearly conforms with (1) the salary and benefits of the other designated public agencies for its public safety employees and (2) those factors traditionally considered in the determination of labor issues including, but not limited to, consideration of inflation, the financial condition of the City and the City's ability to meet the cost of the binding arbitration award. The parties would have ten days after the Board's decision to mutually 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 on the parties. No voter or City Council approval would be required. A "yes" vote would establish binding arbitration. A "no" vote http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/scl/measlB/ Page 2 of8 7/20/2010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 3 of8 would retain existing City procedures. Prepared by Michael R. Downey, City Attorney Arguments For Measure B [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of Voters for the official version.] Measure B is about one thing and one thing only; a fair decision making process for our police officers and fIrefighters. It's not about wages, hours or working conditions .. .it's about fairness for our public safety officers. Public safety officers need binding interest arbitration because it's the right thing to do. Currently when there is an unresolved dispute during negotiations, and the issue cannot be resolved, the City's final decision will be imposed on the police officers and firefighters. The City's decision cannot be appealed. All other Santa Clara City employee bargaining units have the right to exercise one last step ... the strike. Police officers and fIrefIghters are prohibited by law from going on strike, and rightly so. Santa Clara's citizen's safety is too important to jeopardize with a strike. Police and fIrefighters cannot strike; therefore there is no recourse to resolve disputes fairly. Our police offIcers and firefIghters deserve to have a fair process that provides a level playing field. Measure B will provide that fair and impartial process to resolve disputes. The arbitration process provided by Measure B does not guarantee that our public safety offIcers will win every time. But it gives them a fair chance, a chance they don't have now. V ote to give our police officers and fIrefIghters a fair system to settle disputes, they deserve it for putting their lives on the line for us every day. We ask for your YES vote on Measure B. Give Arguments Against Measure B [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of Voters for the official version.] Don't put your City services and tax dollars at risk! Passage of Measure B will take away final authority from your Elected City Council, Elected Police Chief and Fire Chief to control wages, benefIts, and day-to-day operating procedures for Police Officers and FirefIghters. AN OUTSIDE ARBITRATOR SHOULD NOT DECIDE: • How to spend your tax dollars. • How to staff the Police and Fire Departments. • What hours and days of the week employees work. • How much the City should pay its public safety employees. • How City services are delivered to residents and businesses. • Employee grievances. Basic democratic philosophy of city government puts control in your hands and those of your elected officials. An arbitrator accountable to no one removes that control. Keep these decisions in your hands. Don't give away your democratic right. Those in favor of binding arbitration say this is a matter of fairness. Santa Clara taxpayers through their elected offIcials have always been fair to these employees. Santa Clara Police Officers and FirefIghters rank among the highest paid public http://www .smartvoter.org/2006111 /07/ cal scl/meas/B/ 712012010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 4 of8 our dedicated police officers and fuefighters a fair system to settle disputes. lsi Elaine Alquist State Senator lsi Gary Niblock . President Santa Clara Firefighters IAFF Local 1171 lsi Edward C. Rose Assistant Fire Chief SCFD (ret.) lsi Lisa M. Gillmor safety employees in the Bay Area. After four years on the job police officers earn $107,076 and Firefighters earn $100,452 annually plus generous benefits and retirement. Binding arbitration is costly. Highly paid arbitrators will decide issues. The elected City Council and voters having NO say in the spending of your tax dollars. An arbitrator's award can reduce the money currently available for senior and youth programs, care of your parks, maintenance of your streets and your City library. BusinesswomanlFormer Santa Clara City Council Your NO vote will retain local control of these Member Issues. lsi Patrick Nikolai President, Santa Clara Police Officers Assoc. Rebuttal to Arguments For [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of Voters for the official version.] Firefighters and police officers are well paid in Santa Clara because we value their service and commitment. They are among the highest paid in their professions, have great benefits and can retire after thirty years at 90% of their salaries for life. The fire and police departments already use more than 50% of the city's operating budget. More money allocated by an arbitrator will cut into other services such as the senior center, parks and recreation, street maintenance and library. Fairness in the negotiation process is mandated by state law. In the last quarter century Santa Clara has never imposed a contract on the police and fire departments. Under the current system, fire and police employees have AL WAYS been treated fairly. When asked, fire and police cannot identify a single current issue on which they h~ve been treated unfairly. So why are they paying for this measure? To tilt an already fair negotiations process in their favor. • Don't change the City Charter and take control away from your City Council ..... . ...... VOTENOonB • Don't let three outside Arbitrators control your Police and Fire .............. . VOTENOonB • Don't jeopardize City Services .... VOTE NOonB lsi Will Kennedy Council Member, City of Santa Clara lsi Steve Lodge Police Chief, City of Santa Clara lsi Bill Gissler Former Mayor, City of Santa Clara lsi Don Von Raesfeld Former City Manager & Council Member, City of Santa Clara lsi Robert Ricks Chair, Board of Directors, Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Rebuttal to Arguments Against [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of Voters for the official version.] Measure B is about providing a fair decision making process for police and firefighters. http://www.smartvoter.org/2006111/07/ca/sel/meas/B/ 7120/2010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 60f8 lsi Patrick Kolstad City Councilmember lsi Edward C. Rose Assistant Fire Chief SCFD (ret.) lsi Patrick Nikolai President Santa Clara Peace Officers Association lsi Gary Niblock President Santa Clara Firefighters IAPF Local 1171 Full Text of Measure B [There may be errors in the retyping. Contact the Registrar of Voters for the official version.] Article XI, Sec. 1109. Binding Arbitration for Fire and Police Department Employee Disputes (a) BINDING ARBITRATION + DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Santa Clara that strikes by fire fighters 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 Santa Clara fire fighter or police officer 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 of Santa Clara through its duly authorized representatives, shall negotiate in good faith with recognized employee organizations of the City of Santa Clara Fire Department and the City of Santa Clara Police Department 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 disputes concerning the interpretation or application of any negotiated agreement. Unless and until agreement is reached through negotiations between the City of Santa Clara and a recognized employee organization representing Bargaining Uriit 1, which includes, but may not necessarily be limited to, the classifications of Firefighter, DriverlEngineer, Fire Captain, Fire Paramedic, Deputy Fire Marshal and Assistant Training Officer, or between the City of Santa Clara and a recognized employee organization representing Bargaining Unit 2, which includes, but may not necessarily be limited to, the classifications of Police Officer, Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Recruit, or determinations are made through the arbitration procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefits or conditions of employment for said fire department or police department employees shall be eliminated or changed. (d) IMPASSE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Charter, all disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City of Santa Clara and a recognized fire department employee organization or police department employee organization which represents the bargaining unit Classifications set http://www .smartvoter .org/2006/11 /071 calscl/meas/BI 7/20/2010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 70f8 forth in subsection 11 09( c) above, shall be submitted to a three-member Board of Arbitrators upon the conclusion of impasse proceedings (utilizing the impasse procedures in place on June 6, 2006) by the City and the recognized employee organization. Representatives designated by the City of Santa Clara and representatives of the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute shall each appoint 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 member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agreement between the two arbitrators selected by the City and employee organization, and shall serve as the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson 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 the State of California Mediation and Conciliation Service to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experienced as labor arbitrators. Ifthe arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one ofthe seven (7) to act as the third arbitrator, they shall alternately strike names from the list of nominees until one name remains and that person shall then become the third arbitrator and chairperson of the Arbitration Board. 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 Arbitration Board shall hold public hearings, receive evidence from the parties and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The Arbitration Board, in the exercise of its discretion, may meet privately with the parties and mediate or mede-arb issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board may also adopt 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. At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Arbitration 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 fmds 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, and the financial condition of the City of Santa Clara and its ability to meet the cost of the award. 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 (10) day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board, incorporating any amendments or modifications agreed to by the parties, shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding upon the parties. The City of Santa Clara and the recognized employee organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the [mal Arbitration Board award and incorporate any amendments or modifications agreed to by the parties as provided above. The expenses of any arbitration convened pursuant to this article, including the fee for the services of the Chairperson of the Arbitration Board, shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses http://www .smartvoter .org/20061 11 1071 cal scl/meas/BI 712012010 Measure B: Binding Arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 80f8 which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses. Created: January 4, 2007 09:39 PST Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.orgl> Copyright CO League of Women Voters of Cali fomi a Education Fund htfp;lb:f}1.'wJ'>J'}I(2,grg The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties. http://www.smartvoter.orgI2006/11/07/ca/scllmeas/B/ 712012010 Measure T: Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA ATTACHMENT "C" Page 10f6 Santa Clara County, CA November 3,1998 General Measure T Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration City of Sunnyvale Charter Amendment 15,009/49.6% Yes votes ...... 15,276/50.4% No votes Infomation shown below: I!11PClJj:jilLAn<!ly~i_s I Arg urnte!1is I Eq!lText Shall the Sunnyvale City Charter be amended to provide that disputes about wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment that cannot be resolved by negotiations between the City imd the Public Safety Officers Association and the Communications Officers Association be subject to binding arbitration which is final without City Councilor voter approval? Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney Measure T would add a section to the Sunnyvale City Charter to create a system of binding interest arbitration to resolve labor disputes between the City and the Public Safety Officers Association and Communication Officers Association. Under existing statutory law, firefighters are prohibited from striking or recognizing a picket line while performing their official duties, and police officers are similarly limited under case law. Also under existing law, the City is required to negotiate in good faith with the employee organization representing the public safety officers about wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 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 conciliation, and if conciliation does not resolve the impasse, advisory arbitration may be requested. If no agreement is reached and impasse procedures have been exhausted, the Council may adopt and implement the City's last best offer. Measure T alters the process for resolving labor http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/sc1/meas/T/ Sllgg~stJlljnkl~lElJ~Q tQ_ this_contest Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement. 7/2012010 Measure T: Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA disputes. It provides that following good faith negotiation by the City and the labor organization, either party may declare an impasse, thereby requiring the unresolved issues to be decided through binding interest arbitration. The arbitration procedures would apply to all disputes or controversies over issues pertaining to wages, hours, terms or conditions of employment or grievances concerning the interpretation or application of a negotiated agreem'ent. If approved, this measure would require that the arbitration be conducted by a single, neutral arbitrator and conform to the California Arbitration Act (Code of Civil Procedure 1280 et seq.) If the parties don't reach agreement before arbitration hearings are concluded, the arbitrator would direct each party to submit a final settlement offer on each disputed issue. The arbitrator would take each issue and select one of the parties' last offer on that issue. Selection would be based on factors traditionally considered to determine wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Factors include, but are not limited to, changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services; wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employees performing similar services in comparable cities; and the City's financial condition and its ability to meet the costs of the decision. Measure T provides that the arbitration decision in its final form would be publicly disclosed and binding on the parties. Prior to release of the decision, the parties would be able to meet privately to attempt to resolve their differences and would be allowed to jointly amend or modify the arbitration decision. Costs of the arbitration proceeding would be split between the City and the labor organization. The Measure states that neither the City Council nor the electorate are permitted or required to affirm or approve the decision of the arbitrator. A "yes" vote would establish binding interest arbitration. A "no" vote would retain the existing procedures. VALERIE J. ARMENTO City Attorney http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scl/meas/T/ Page 2 of6 712012010 Measure T: Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 30f6 Arguments For Measure T Measure T is proposed by Sunnyvale police and firefighters as a fair, efficient method to settle labor disputes with the city. Currently there is no fair or equitable process toresolve such differences. Occasionally police and firefighters disagree with the city regarding safety procedures,use of equipment, work rules, or compensation. Presently our public safety officers are forced to accept whatever the city proposes. Unlike other workers, public, safetypersonnel cannot and don't want to strike, so city bureaucrats have no incentive to negotiate. If passed, Measure T will establish "binding arbitration" to resolve disagreements between public safety and the city before they become major disputes. • Measure T requires the city, police and firefighters to negotiate in good faith on work rules, grievances, wages, hours and other conditions of employment; • Measure T allows an impartial, independent arbitrator, if necessary, to study the facts and resolve disputes between the city, police and firefighters; • Measure T requires that the arbitrator's decision be based on the "interest and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the city to meet costs." The arbitrator's decision is binding on the city, police and the firefighters. • Measure T will save tax dollars. Protracted, expensive labor disputes are avoided. V oters in Santa Cruz, San Jose, Gilroy, Palo Alto, Hayward~ Vallejo, Napa, San http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scI/meas/T/ Arguments Against Measure T Don't be fooled by the Union's claim that this is about fairness and respect. This is a battle for control of our tax dollars. This measure is a power grab by the Union which is unnecessary, undemocratic, and puts our quality of life at risk. It's unnecessary because Sunnyvale public safety officers are among the best treated and most highly compensated officers in the entire nation. In fact, the average Sunnyvale officer receives more than $100,000 per year in total compensation and works in one of the safest cities in America. It's undemocratic because it takes decision making authority away from the City Council and gives the citizens of Sunnyvale no say in how their tax dollars are spent. Final decision making authority would be placed in the hands of non elected third party arbiters accountable to no one. If the City Council makes poor fiscal decisions, we can vote them out of office. If a non-elected arbiter does, we're stuck with it. It puts our quality oflife at risk because we lose control over how our tax dollars are spent. If public safety costs go up because ofthe decision of a non-elected arbiter, we will be forced to make up the deficit by cutting other services. These services are parks and recreation, libraries, and street maintenance. The Union says this is about fairness and respect. It's really about money and power. Right now that power is held by elected officials accountable to the voters. If this measure passes, public accountability will be lost and citizens of Sunnyvale will no longer have a say in how their money is spent. Protect our award winning city services and our democratic right to choose. Vote 7/20/2010 Measure '1': FaIled negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Leandro, Santa Rosa and Petaluma have no on measure T. amended their city charters to provide similar provisions to avoid public safety disputes and to establish a fair and JIM ROBERTS equitable way to resolve labor differences. Mayor of Sunnyvale More than 13,000 Sunnyvale citizens signed petitions to place Measure T on the ANN HINES ballot. Measure T is supported by Former Director, Leadership Sunnyvale neighborhood leaders and organizations throughout our city. If Measure T is approved it would replace an unfair system THOMAS F. LEWCOCK with a much fairer one. Please vote YES Former Sunnyvale City Manager on Measure T JAMES W. DAVIS Sunnyvale Public Safety Officers Association RONSWEGLES Chair Parks & Recreation HELEN M. DeWOLF Page 40f6 Advisory Committee for a New Sunnyvale JOSEPH F. CALA Business Owner TONY SPIT ALERI Firefighter SUSAN CAROL CALDWELL Homemaker Sr Center Text for Measure T If Measure T carries, the Charter shall be amended by adding Section 1110 to read as follows: Section 1110. Impartial And Binding Arbitration For Public Safety Department Employee Disputes. A. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Sunnyvale that strikes by public safety employees (employees in the Sunnyvale Public Safety Department assigned to fire suppression and law enforcement duties, including those dispatching them to assigned calls and other emergency situations) 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 public safety employee as defined above, or employee union, association, or organization representing same, shall strike, slow down, http://www .smartvoter.orgI199 8nov Ica! scl/meas/T I 7120/2010 Measure T: Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 5 of6 sick out or engage in such concerted economic activity against the City. Disputes unresolved by negotiations shall be resolved by the procedure set forth herein. Any such employee who fails to report to work without good cause or who aids, abets or encourages strikes, slow downs or sickouts against the city shall be subject to disciplinary action, including, but not limited to, termination from City employment, subject to the provisions of this Charter, the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations and lawful procedures. C. Obligations to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized representatives, shall negotiate in good faith with any employee organization that is recognized by the City as the representative of a representation unit or representation units comprised solely of public safety employees as defined above, 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, including the establishment of procedures for the resolution of grievances concerning the interpretation or application of any negotiated agreement that includes a provision for binding arbitration ofthose grievances. Unless and until agreement is reached through negotiations between authorized representatives of the city and said employee organization or a determination is made through the impartial procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit, term or condition of employment for the public safety employment employees represented by said employee organization shall be altered, eliminated or changed. 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 between the City and said employee organization shall be submitted to an independent, neutral Arbitrator upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by said employee organization. 2. The City and employee organization will attempt to reach agreement as to the neutral Arbitrator; In the event that the City and the employee organization cannot agree upon the selection of the neutral arbitrator within ten (10) 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 (or a neutral replacement if same ceases to exist) to provide a list of seven (7) persons to act as the neutral arbitrator. If they still cannot agree as to the neutral arbitrator, they shall alternately strike names from the list of nominees until one name remains, and that person shall then become the neutral Arbitrator; The first party to strike shall be determined by lot. 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 (CCP 1280 et seq.), as the same exists as of January 1, 1998. The Arbitrator shall hold hearings, receive evidence from the parties, and cause a transcript ofthe proceedings to be prepared. The Arbitrator, in the exercise of hislher discretion, may meet privately with the parties and mediate the issues in dispute. The Arbitrator may also adopt such other procedures that are designated to encourage an agreement between the parties, expedite the arbitration hearing http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scl/meas/T/ 7/20/2010 Measure T: Failed negotiations subject to binding arbitration -Santa Clara County, CA Page 6 of6 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 Arbitrator shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as he/she may establish, a last offer of settlement on each of the remaining issues in dispute. The Arbitrator shall then decide each issue by selecting whichever last best offer of settlement on that issue he/she 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; the wages,hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employees performing similar services in comparable cities of similar population; and the financial condition of the City of Sunnyvale and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the Arbitrator. 5. After reaching a decision, the Arbitrator shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy of hislher decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitrator 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 Arbitrator. At the conclusion of the ten (10) period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitrator, 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 Councilor by the electorate to confirm or approve the decision of the Arbitrator shall be permitted or required. 6. The expense of any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article, incl uding the fee for the services of the Arbitrator and the costs of preparation of the transcript of the proceedings, shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the partyincurring such expenses. 7. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed as making any of the provisions of Section 923 of the Labor Code of the State of California applicable to City public safety employees. The provisions of this Section pertaining to arbitration shall be. construed as an "arbitration agreement" for the purpose of making applicable to the extent not in conflict herewith the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1280, et seq., described above. S<tj1taCI(ira Home P<ige II St;ltewide Links II Abollt Smart Voter II feedback Created: February 16, 1999 18:55 Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/> Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates/or public office or political parties. http://www.smartvoter.orgI1998nov/ca/sc1/meas/T/ 7/2012010