HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 5, 2000 E-18CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution Opposing SB 402 (Burton) regarding compulsory and binding
arbitration for Police and Fire employees
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2000
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council Adopt the Resolution opposing SB 402 (Burton)
regarding compulsory and binding arbitration for Police and Fire
employees.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SB 402 is legislation introduce last session by Senator John Burton
that Mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for the resolution of collective bargaining
disputes with Police and Fire employees. As currently written, the compulsory and binding arbitration
would apply to salary, benefits, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Attached is a letter
from the League of California Cities requesting Council opposition to SB 402. Also provided by the
League is background information regarding the legislation, and a letter from the California Police Chief's
Association opposing SB 402.
FUNDING: Not Applicable
Respectfully,
H. Dixon Flynn
City Manager
Attachment
APPROVED:
H. Dixon Iynn -- City Manager
fOVµ0E0 lgy8
Leaque of California Cities
oQt7NG TOGESa
March 1, 2000
LQdqUe of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.658.8240
FAX 916.658.8 2 40
w wwcacities.org
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, Police Chiefs and Human
Resources Directors. (PLEASE ROUTE!)
FROM: Chris McKenzie, Executive Director
Dwight Stenbakken, Legislative Director
Jennifer Cervantez, Policy Analyst
RE: Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Police and Fire Employees.
SB 402 (Burton) — Status: More Action Needed!
"` n yACTION:REQUESTED�`
Take ormal Action to.Ado0 a Resolution
v �` a
O osis SB 402 S mp1e�YA Rh )
2 � Continu Gon acts"�witk viedia abou vegat v
Impact of SB ;402 on4CiServices.,
3 Continue to —Secure,-( �Ed Pieces uzess R.
Representatives and Other _GbmmunitykGroug,µ
gaBA02
Where's the Binding Arbitration Bill? SB 402 is legislation introduced last session by
Senator John Burton, that mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for
the resolution of collective bargaining disputes with police and fire employees. The
measure is on the "Inactive File" on the Assembly floor, but can be taken up for debate at
any time with only 24 hours notice. This means that SB 402 is a "threat" for the entire
2000 session that adjourns on August 31, 2000.
The Politics of SB 402. The bill is currently stalled in a dispute between the sponsors,
the Police Officers Research Association of California (PORAL) and the Professional
Firefighters of California; and the Governor's office. The Governor will not sign the bill
in its present form. He will sign a bill that is narrowed to apply the arbitration process to
salary and benefits only. The sponsors are unwilling to amend the bill to meet the
Governor's objections. At the recent Employee Relations Institute of the League, a
representative from PORAC confirmed the stalemate, but added, "The bill will someday
be law." The stalemate could be resolved very quickly. You are strongly encouraged to
continue the pressure on Legislators and the Governor's office; and to keep the
issue in front of the local media.
The City Response. It has always been the presumption of the League that compulsory
and binding arbitration is a "hill -to -die -on" issue. It is the antithesis of the local control
and the authority of local elected officials to decide and prioritize the allocation of
resources in the community. However, the response from cities on the bill has been less
enthusiastic than expected. The following tally of correspondence on SB 402 was
compiled in February from files at the League office:
• 52 cities have sent correspondence to the Legislature indicating that
the city council has taken action to oppose SB 402.
• In addition, 50 cities have sent correspondence on city letterhead to
the Legislature or Governor expressing opposition to SB 402, but do
not indicate that city council action has been taken.
• There are now 474 incorporated cities in the state of California.
This tally of correspondence is not scientific, but seems to indicate that the solid
opposition from cities one would expect on an issue of this importance is not in evidence.
If you believe this record is in error or a piece of correspondence was not captured in our
files, please contact the League office and send us a copy of the correspondence sent to
Your Legislator and the Governor's office. If the city council has taken a public position
on SB 402, tell your Legislator and the Governor; and, tell us too! The point is: If city
councils will not go on record publicly against SB 402, don't expect your Legislator
to vote NO on the bill! Thanks.
Again, don't forget:
Media Contact. Newspapers have generally supported the position of local
government against SB 402. Please make contacts NOW with newspaper groups
and other media in your community!
Community Groups. Make outreach efforts to community groups with direct
interest in all city services, the quality of life and business climate in the
community. These groups can also be influential with Legislators and the
Governor.
When the proponents begin to move the legislation, we will be contacting you again and
requesting letters, FAX messages and phone calls to Legislators and the Governor's
office in opposition to the SB 402.
FACTSHEET
Compulsory and Binding Arbitration SB 402 (Burton)
League of California Cities
FACTS ON SB 402
Establishes Compulsory and Binding Arbitration. SB 402 amends the Code of Civil
Procedure, Title 9.5 to establish a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for the
resolution of collective bargaining disputes with police and fire personnel from cities and
counties. September 1999 amendments removed the state public safety employees from
the bill
Mandates Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Local Government Police and
Fire Employees. The establishment of compulsory and binding arbitration for the
resolution of collective bargaining disputes is a mandate on local government for which
the state is responsible. Both the Assembly Appropriations Committee and the
Department of Finance recognize this mandate.
Statutory Legislative Findings. The measure enacts "legislative findings and
declarations" regarding the need for the arbitration procedures proposed by the bill,
stating, in part, that strikes taken by firefighters and law enforcement officers against
public employers are a matter of statewide concern and are not in the public interest.
Additionally, these findings and declarations state that the dispute resolution procedures
contained in this bill provide the appropriate method for resolving public sector labor
disputes that would otherwise lead to strikes by firefighters or law enforcement officers.
Finally, the bill states in the intent section that it is not the intent of the Legislature to
alter the scope of issues subject to collective bargaining in this bill. That scope is now
determined as any issue relating to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment.
Declaration of Impasse. The bill provides that if an impasse has been declared after the
representatives of an employer and firefighters or law enforcement officers have
exhausted their mutual efforts to reach agreement over wages, -hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment and if the parties are unable to agree to the appointment of a
mediator, or the mediator appointed is unable to effect settlement, the employee
organization may request, in writing to the employer, that their differences be submitted
to an arbitration panel.
3 -Member Arbitration Panel. Provides for a 3 -member arbitration panel, with one
member chosen by each of the parties and the third (who serves as chair) picked by the
first two members. if the parties are unable to pick a third person, the mediator may serve
as chairperson. If the mediator is unable or unwilling to serve as chairperson, the bill
provides a process for choosing a person to service as chair culminating in the submission
of an odd -numbered list of names by either the American Arbitration Association or the
California State Mediation and Conciliation Service. Both parties then subject the list to
the striking of names until only one name remains and that person is appointed to serve as
chair. 1
Arbitration Proceedings/ Issue -by -Issue Last Best Offer. The arbitration panel is
required to meet within 10 days of its establishment, or any other period to which the
parties agree, to begin their investigation or to take any other action that they deem
appropriate. The arbitration panel may administer oaths, and subpoena both witnesses and
any information relating to the subject in dispute. Requires that, five days prior to the
beginning of the arbitration panel hearings, parties must submit the last best offer of
settlement on those issues not previously agreed to by the parties to arbitration. The
arbitration panel, within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, or any additional
period to which the parties agree, shall separately decide on each of the disputed issues
submitted by selecting, without modification, the last best offer.
Last Best Offer by Package. The arbitration panel is also given the authority in the
legislation to direct that five days prior to the commencement of its hearings, each of the
parties shall submit as a package the last best offer of settlement made in bargaining as
a proposal or counterproposal on those issues not previously agreed to by the parties prior
to any arbitration request. The arbitration panel, within 30 days after the conclusion of the
hearing, or any additional period agreed to by the parties, shall decide on the disputed
issues, without modification, in the last best offer package it chooses. The last best offer
on a package basis can be triggered only if the employer receives a written notice from
the employee organization that it has elected to be subject to this approach for a
settlement.
Charter Cities with Compulsory and Binding Arbitration. The measure states that it
does not apply to a city or county that has adopted in its charter prior to January 1, 2000,
a provision for compulsory and binding arbitration.
Sunset Clause. In September 1999 language was added to SB 402 to sunset (terminate)
the provisions of the law by January 1, 2005, unless a later enacted statute extends or
deletes the law.
OTHER FACTS ABOUT SB 402
General Law City Authority. The 372 general law cities, 44 general counties and all
special districts do not have the authority in law to adopt a system of compulsory and
binding arbitration. SB 402 would authorize compulsory and binding arbitration in 400 to
500 new local public jurisdictions in California.
Impact on a Local City Budget. In a typical full-service city, 60 percent of the city
budget goes for police and fire services. Under the provisions of SB 402, the arbitrator
would be fully in charge of 60 percent of a city's budget.
Statewide Pavroll Impact. On a conservative estimate, payroll for city police and fire
employees is between $2.5 and $3.0 billion. The provisions of SB 402 potentially place
this amount of payroll under the jurisdiction of an arbitrator not accountable to the
taxpayers.
Bill Status. SB 402 is currently on the Assembly floor and is on the Assembly's Inactive
File. The bill can be withdrawn from the Inactive File at anytime and set for a floor
hearing and debate. It can be taken up at anytime prior to the scheduled adjournment date
for the session, which is August 31, 2000.
KEY POINTS AGAINST SB 402
League of California Cities
The KEY arguments against a system of compulsory and binding arbitration are as follows:
COSTS LOCAL TAXPAYERS TOO INIUCH!
• Between $2.5 and $3.0 billion of city payroll for police and fire employees is moved from
city elected officials and placed under the authority of an arbitrator(s).
• A City of Anaheim study found that cities with a system of compulsory and binding
arbitration are on average 2 to 5 percent higher in wages than cities without compulsory
and binding arbitration.
• The Legislative Counsel opined in 1980 that the arbitration process was a state -mandated
cost for which the state is responsible, but it also opined that the cost of the arbitration
award above the employer's last best offer is also a state -mandated cost. Estimates have
this state -mandated cost for both the process and the arbitrator's award on a statewide
basis in the neighborhood of $100 million to $300 million annually.
• The police and fire union does not have to even invoke compulsory and binding
arbitration to achieve it goal; the mere fact that the union is given the threat to invoke
arbitration can be used to leverage higher wages and benefits and to further erode
management authority over city resources.
• The impacts of compulsory and binding arbitration cannot be examined only on a
jurisdiction -by -jurisdiction basis. On a statewide basis it is reasonable to assume that
arbitration awards will have a disproportionate impact on local jurisdictions that are
paying below the higher paid jurisdictions; or, for suburban or rural areas that are paying
below urban areas or below charter cities with a system of compulsory and binding
arbitration.
ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS LOST
• Under the provisions of the bill, the police or fire union can unilaterally invoke the
process of compulsory and binding arbitration over the objection of the employer. When
arbitration is invoked, the elected city officials in charge of city services are no longer in
charge of approximately 60 percent of the budget (the approximate percentage of a police
and fire budget) of a full-service city.
• The experience in other states and California charter cities that conduct collective
bargaining with police and fire employees under a system of compulsory and binding
arbitration is that the arbitrator(s) operates under little or no restraint on his or her
authority to make an award. Language has been placed in SB 402 to give the appearance
of adding restraints on the arbitrator(s). In practice, it means nothing!
• A California arbitrator made the following observation about the accountability of a
system of compulsory and binding arbitration: "I am not politically accountable,
number one, which raises substantial questions. I could come in knowing nothing
about the particular circumstances, and if they fail to educate me fully, I could
easily make a grievous error." Testimony of a University of California Law School
Professor at an interim hearing of the Assembly Public Employees and Retirement
Committee, December 9, 1981, San Francisco, pp. 49-51, Regarding: Present State of
Law Relative to Strikes in the Public Sector.
• To further illustrate the accountability problem, a Milwaukee arbitrator demonstrated
little or none of the fiscal responsibility public officials are required to have for their
taxpayers. This statement is extracted from the arbitrator's award in that city: ".. the
evidence would indicate that there are surplus funds available from which the
(police) association's economic demands, if awarded, can be paid. Additional funds,
if necessary, can be borrowed, and so, if the bottom line consists of HAVING TO
RAISE TAXES, THOUGH DISTASTEFUL, THAT MAY WELL HAVE TO BE
DONE" (Emphasis Added). Government Employee Relations Report, Bureau of
National Affairs, No. 833, October 22, 1979, pp. 23 and 24.
COMMUNITY NEEDS FORGOTTEN
• The measure completely ignores the needs/demands/requests of the community at large.
Despite the "intent language" in SB 402, the operative language in the bill threatens to
place the popular "community policing programs" of many communities in the hands of
an arbitrator(s) for a decision about the continued existence of such programs. The
community and its voters are disenfranchised. This legislation is an insult to city residents
and its taxpayers.
• The proper discipline of police and fire employees for misconduct can be placed before
an arbitrator(s) under the provisions of SB 402. There have been some high visibility
cases of police misconduct in this state.
• The "shooting policies" of a local police department can be placed under an arbitrator(s)
in the provisions of SB 402. The issues behind a department's shooting policies are
always highly controversial and require/demand a high level of community involvement.
Under SB 402 a community's involvement can be ignored.
• The proponents of SB 402 are asking for a very simple proposition: Put police and fire
personnel ahead of all other programs and employees regardless of a community's need
or the detrimental impact on other programs. The "public's safety" in a community rests
not only with public safety employees, but with recreation programs, libraries and other
essential services.
END OF "GOOD FAITH" COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
• "Good faith" collective bargaining that involves compromise and mutual problem solving
is essential to a cooperative effort between public employers and employee unions to
deliver the public services. Compulsory and binding arbitration is the end of "good faith"
collective bargaining. There is no good reason to compromise no matter how
unreasonable the demand. The reward for stonewalling is a hearing before an arbitrator(s)
where the worse that a union can do is the employer's last best offer.
• Former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young once observed the following about the end of
`'good faith" collective bargaining under that city's compulsory and binding arbitration
system. He said: "As each issue is discussed at the bargaining table, the underlying
position of the union is: `either give in or we'll arbitrate.' There is very little good
faith bargaining. There is very little mutual understanding and mutual problem
solving. Compromises are not made. Either we give in to the union or they
arbitrate." Address to "Legislative Forum on New Direction for Public Emplovee_
Relations," Lansing Michigan, December 1979.
-2-
EXAMPLES OF ARBITRATION ISSUES AND AWARDS
The following examples from both California and other states are provided to give city officials an idea
of the types of issues arbitrated and arbitration awards that have actually occurred under binding
interest arbitration. Proponents claim that the arbitration process is very limited in its application to
employment issues. These examples indicate just the opposite. It applies to virtually every aspect of
employment no matter how inconsequential. Please note that some of the binding interest arbitration
laws in other states are more limited in scope than the proposed SB 402 in California, indicating that
California's fate may be worse.
City ofAnaheim
Over eighty issues were submitted to binding interest arbitration by the union, including:
Prohibiting increases in staffing to eliminate overtime
Reimbursement for theft or damage to personal property while on duty
Provision of forgivable $20,000 interest-free home loan by the city
City's Estimated Costs (Process Only): 5150,000 to $200,000.
City of San Jose
San Jose has had multiple arbitration experiences, including:
Two different arbitrators awarded significant salary increases to the police and fire unions
when the rest of the city was under a hiring freeze. Arbitrators considered money the city
had saved from the hiring and salary freezes as an "ability to pay" for the safety union
salary increases.
Control of city council eroded by an arbitrator dictating who can and cannot be appointed to
the civil service commission.
City's Estimated Costs (Process Only): S100,000 or more.
City of Palo Alto
• Recently, firefighters were awarded a change in the City's hiring policies to allow for
nepotism within the fire department.
State of Illinois
Illinois has experienced over 200 binding arbitration decisions. Some points of mention and examples
include:
• A fire department arbitrated over the use of liquid soap versus bar soap.
• One arbitrator, known as "20% John," gave a 20% raise in the first year of a contract.
• Arbitration resulted in permitting a union to solicit merchants, residents and citizens for
donations, when such solicitation had previously been prohibited.
Estimated Costs: Attorney time ranges from $20,000 to $40,000 per case.
EXAMPLES OF ARBITRATION ISSUES AND AWARDS (continued)
State of New York
New York has had binding interest arbitration since 1974, resulting in high costs:
• Arbitrated wage increases for local safety unions averaged 95% higher than wage increases
negotiated with state safety unions (who did not have binding arbitration) during a four-
year period in the 1990s.
State of New Jersey
• In New Jersey, salary increases under arbitration awards for public safety officers increased
an average of 7.17% each year, compared to the national average of 2.73%.
State of Washington
• In Tacoma, an arbitrator awarded the union a 10% salary increase when the union only
requested 6%. The city had offered 3%. Other similar cases exist in Washington.
2
RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATE BILL 402
WHEREAS, the California Legislature is debating Senate Bill 402, authored by Senator
John Burton, which mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for the
resolution of public sector collective bargaining disputes with police and fire unions; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 transfers the authority of the mayor and city council over
the most critical services in a city's budget to an outside, non -elected arbitrator who is not
accountable to city residents; and
WHEREAS, The arbitrator is given the authority to make binding decisions regarding
compensation, benefits, discipline, deployment of the workforce and virtually any issue
the arbitrator finds to be a term and condition of employment; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 would place at least 60% of a full-service city's budget in
the control of this outside, non -elected and unaccountable arbitrator; and
WHEREAS, The Legislation gives police and fire unions first call on the city treasury to
the detriment of other city services; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 gives unilateral control to police and fire unions to declare
an impasse, against the wishes of the elected mayor and city council, and call for
arbitration; and,
WHEREAS, a system of compulsory and binding arbitration destroys good faith
collective bargaining between an employer and the employees; and,
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 imposes a clear and costly mandate on all local public
agencies in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide, both for the arbitration process
and the cost of the arbitrator's award above the employer's last best offer; and,
WHEREAS, Proponents offer false claims that Senate Bill 402 is necessary to prevent
strikes by police and fire unions when strikes by these employees are already illegal
under current law and court decisions; and, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of declares its opposition to
Senate Bill 402, and calls upon State legislators and the Governor to recognize the
importance of local control of local budgets and public services, and to vote against this
unreasonable and inappropriate intrusion on home rule; and, now therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that copies of this action by the City of are being sent by the City
Clerk to Assembly and Senate Members representing the City, the Governor and the
offices of the League of California Cities in Sacramento.
SAMPLE LETTER FOR COMMUNITY GROUP
(Date)
(Assembly Member/ Senator)
State Capitol — Room _
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 402 (Burton) Compulsory and Binding Arbitration. Police and Fire Employees.
Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File: Oppose
Dear Assembly Member/Senator
The in the City of opposes SB 402 (Burton), which mandates
a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for the settlement of collective bargaining
disputes between public employers and police and fire unions.
Our primary objection is that SB 402 transfers the authority over police and fire services to an
arbitrator from outside of the community who is not accountable to the local taxpayers. Binding
interest arbitration erodes local control by placing decisions on compensation, benefits, staffing
levels and every other possibble aspect of employment in the hands of this non -elected,
unaccountable arbitrator. In the City of this would account for over _% of the City's
budget.
In our community, as in all communities across this state, city services are determined through
the give and take of community debate and dialogue. This is a necessary process to ensure that
the budget meets the needs of the citizens. There is no dialogue or debate under a system of
compulsory and binding arbitration. The arbitrator decides the city's priorities for its elected
representatives and the community. This is unacceptable. All other services take a backseat to
public safety. The Mayor and City Council were elected to city services and that's why they ran
for office. Arbitrators don't run for office and are elected by no one.
The bill spells the end of good faith collective bargaining. The end of an arbitration process
produces a winner and a loser. Issues are never settled, only postponed until the next arbitration.
The end of the collective bargaining process produces an agreement that both sides have a stake
in making sure it works. This does not occur with compulsory and binding arbitration. Both sides
posture under binding arbitration to secure the best possible position before the arbitration is
envoked. Binding arbitration builds labor unrest. This is not good for the community.
We urge you to vote "NO" on SB 402. Thank you for considering the impacts this bill would
have on our community.
Respectfully,
Community Leader C: Senator John Burton
League of California Cities
SAMPLE OP-ED PIECE
Dismantling Local Self -Government One Brick At A Time
Supporters of SB 402, the proposed binding arbitration mandate for police officers and
firefighters now pending in the Assembly have essentially urged the Legislature to overlook one
of the fundamental principles of self-government: That you only have self-government when you
can hold your elected leaders responsible for how public funds are raised (i.e., taxes) and spent.
Since most local governments devote more than half of their annual budgets to personnel
expenses, the amount public employees are compensated and the benefits they receive is one of
the most important decisions of elected officials. The supporters of SB 402, however, would
have the Legislature turn these important budgetary decisions over to non -elected arbitrators. If
SB 402 is enacted [without the substantial amendments offered by city and county
representatives], it will be a critical blow to self-government in California and place the budgets
of local governments in the hands of a small group of appointed arbitrators. The result will be a
far cry from self-government and much closer to government by an appointed elite who are
ultimately responsible to no one — no one's ideal of democratic self-government. It is time that
local policy decisions, such as whether to allow binding arbitration at the local level, be made by
local elected officials, with the oversight of the voters who elected them. It is essential that the
Legislature defeat SB 402 and allow elected officials to control the budgets of cities, counties
and special districts.
SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I oppose SB 402, which would require cities to participate in compulsory binding arbitration
with local public safety personnel. Masquerading as a matter of "simple fairness," SB 402
would turn over budget decisions about pay and benefits for public safety personnel (police,
firefighters, etc.) to appointed arbitrators who will have unlimited spending powers. In the final
analysis, voters will lose all control over spending decisions about public saf3ty personnel.
Instead, a group of appointed arbitrators will determine the spending level appropriate for this
purpose — no matter how dire the needs of other areas of the local government's budget. For the
sake of controlling spending, preserving the right to set local priorities, and avoiding setting a
precedent that will extend to other employee groups, I (we) urge the Legislature to defeat SB
402.
LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 626 305 1345 05/27 '99 10:29 NO.815 02/02
PtAL#A&~
Arbitration i*s SNO1
wrong answer
0
Z0/20'd Sb22 TSE
WZU dead set
•atabost a pcaposal
that would faire
sway local govern-
2tlenYs ability to
negothft wfth public szfty
unions, eros it with
state -man biading srbi-
ttation.
Tbat's ezoeft what S$ 402
VVI do. Set to go befol the
Senate AppMXIAHM
conunittee
riyu
day, president�
to
PW tem Jolie IF,
suutaa's tar-
reachtn& irr+e, to
WMM h:Id VmM an � r
Other local ipftm IS a
ser7lou h,* twLpnolieft
for ati Of
US
and tnually strip elected of
ficiahs of a,,* abs to set
reasonableC limits for
Mar cities and counties.
Most lawmakers already pat
poike and Bre bIP on the
list of ftmdmg prxoritf+es, as
they shoux Ttrt vest Majosi
ty of resid=U want it that
M and Ore agree — public
�Y wt come first How -
em, are cannot give a stamp
d appesrval as nay alanyl to
vrrest7oeai coa�ol from those
dtkww:kd by the peapt&
Lfdfke eUcted awls, ar-
biteomm wbo would have the
final say is iss= ranging
*am salary to work ft Wedl
tions, aren't acow=bie to
the voters. Thars the most
6onspeiling rem wue elm
tbM of to ax tb le wilon pow-
er grab. Arbitr'ato:s have
shosva is ether cases that
they have no qualms about
a../1Y— L�7 w.........w....` M ....
929
meet union demands. " No"
daesa't seem to be pert of the
arbitration vocabulary.
Neither does good izith Dar•
her tielectcd ofyiciak saansean
learned that compromise and
tatxtnal umdtrstgtudiag were
Q�iY replaced with the
Rest of arbitration. And. it
only takes one anion member
to fora any
&Won and all ton-
tMet it= to
bl� arbitration.
rnelTts' abtMV aid ftvfloan
nego�la�e with pub- asing the nue
that binding
e 00M arbitration
bad deal ; prevrmt
strikes. How-
ever, state
law already
h>rohiDits public safety ear
pioyees frot7l SZt>iaug. so
&ore's really no Public goad
9ahetant in this wrong -horded
POMY ge of this legfalation
coats and Mtelp will open the
way for commpalsory and bind.
�gca for L public
promise of more and more
tones to meet escalating sma-
rt=s :ted bandits Ifkrly under
ffiis plea.
SS 402 is little more than
Iegat pidit of the public
poebet. The electorate is tired
of paying off political support•
M whether they come tram
industry or organized labor.
(all local lawntaken oa the
A&Ppropriafiolw conzoItttee.
sans. Marsha E9catia, l -Whit-
tier, at MW 7246175 and
Ria bard Mount3oy. R-Axsadia.
at (W 4463134 and tell dm
U"T "bWR +%own 411 al10D
t%6Wt", HCl AlIJ
9T:OT 666T-LE-Aw
Monterey, CA
(Monterey Co.) w,
Monterey Co. Herak' r
(Cir. D. 33,600)
(Cir. S. 35.3
AN f3 000 1999
,A&Ws P. c. s F,. isss
O T H E R V I E W S
Ma -an -dated
arbitration
a bad idea
eceptively and pretentious��YY titled the Burton-
Vi
urto I
Villaraigosa Public SafetyASsuranceAct, SB 402 is one
of the most dangerous threats to the budgets of
California cities and counties and the audnority of Iota(
elected officials ever introduced in the California
Legislature.
Authored by the two most powerful members of the
legislature, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and
Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, and sponsored by
their influential political backers—police and firefighter
unions — the bill mandates binding arbitration for police
and firefighters, which is a very bad idea.
Binding arbitration is a bargaining system that takes
away from elected representatives the power to approve
police and firefighter contracts and places that power into
the hands of unelected arbitrators.'Ibus, under the bill,
the most fundamental decision public officials are elected
to make— how to spend our tax money —would be given
over to arbitrators elected by, and accountable to, no one.
SB 402 doesn't just deal away the power of local elected
officials to manage city and county budgets. It also
seriously compromises the ability of
The most police and fire chiefs and county sheriffs
fUndamental to manage their departments and their
officers If the unions demand it, the
decision arbitrators, not the police or fine chief, can
pObIIC decide how many officers to deploy in a
given sector of the city or a fire station:
officials are when or if to discipline an officer and how;
elected to even the staffing levels of patrol cars or
make —how detective divisions. The issues potentially
to be arbitrated are endless.
to spend our Proponents of the legislation say it win
tax money promote labor peace by banning police
y — and firefighter strikes They ignore the
would be given fact that strikes by public safety officers
over to are illegal.
Police and firefighters in California are
arbitrators. among the best -paid and pensioned in the
country. At top step, a sheriffs deputy in
Sacramento County receives $3,935 a month in salary. if
the deputy has a bachelors degree, with salary and
benefits, she can bring home $6.674 month, or more than
$80,000 a year. Union representatives who are pushing SB
402 want more. They are betting that binding arbitration
will get it for them, and that's a threat to other public
employees. Richer contracts for police and firefighters
mean less for social workers, street cleaners, mental
health counselors and other dedicated public servants
How does SB 402 protect their interest?
The Burton-Vdlaraigosa measure is opposed by the
League of California Cities, the California State
AssociatiotToPCounties, California Police Chiefs'
Association and the County Sheriffs' Association. It is
s potentially devastating for local governments and a threat
to public safety. It should be defeated.
—SacmmexoBee
Fresno,
(Fresno
Fresno
(Cir. D.
(Cir. S.
APR
v�(LeK J P. C. B Fs r. 1888
More binding arbitration
Burton and Villaraigosa attack local
governments. t,q (->—
D
Y
Deceptively and pretentiously entitled
the Burton-Villaraigosa Public Safety
Assurance Act, SB 402 is one of the
most dangerous threats to local budgets and
the authority of local elected ofilcials ever in-
troduced in the Legislature.
Authored by the two most powerful mem-
bers of the Legislature, Senate President Pro
Tem John Burton and Assembly Speaker An-
tonio Villaraigosa and sponsored by their in-
fluential political backers, police and firefight-
er unions, the bill mandates- binding
arbitration for police and firefighters, a very
bad idea.
Binding arbitration is a bargaining system
that takes away from elected representatives
the power to approve police and firefighter
contracts and gives that power to unelected
arbitrators. Thus, under the bill, the most
fundamental decision public officials are elect-
ed to make — how to spend our tax money —
would be given over to arbitrators elected by
no one and accountable to no one.
SB 402 doesn't just deal away the power of
local elected officials to manage city and coun-
ty budgets. It also seriously compromises the
ability of police and fire chiefs and county
sheriffs to manage their departments and
their officers. If the unions demand it, the ar-
bitrators — not the police or fire chief — can
decide how many officers to deploy in a given
neighborhood or fire station; when or if to dis-
cipline an officer and how; even staffing levels.
The issues potentially open to arbitration are
endless.
Proponents of the legislation say it will pro-
mote labor peace by banning police and fire-
fighter strikes. They ignore the fact that
strikes by public safety officers are illegal. Do -
advocates of arbitration mean to suggest that
unless they win police officers will break the
law they've sworn to uphold and strike?
Police and firefighters in California are
among the best paid and pensioned public em-
ployees in the country. Union representatives
who are pushing SB 402 want more. They are :
betting that binding arbitration will get it for
them and that's a threat to other public em-
ployees. Richer contracts for police and fire-
fighters mean less for social workers, street
cleaners, mental health counselors and other
dedicated public servants. How does SB 402
protect their interest?
The Burton-Villaraigosa measure is opposed
by the League of California Cities, the Califor- ,
nia State Association of Counties, California
Police Chiefs Association and the County
Sheriffs Association. It is potentially devastat-.
ing for local governments and a threat to pub-/'
he safety. It should be defeated. .. .
San Rafael, CA
(Marin Co.)
Marin Independ
Journal
(Cir. D. 41 1
(Cir. S.
JUN 18 1999
,Al4n; P. c. e es,. ieax
,Ciy.councils stand
against bill for
binding arbitration
By Richard Halstead
IJ reporter
A state bill that would re-
quire municipalities to enter
binding arbitration with po-
lice and firefighters in case of
an impasse in contract nego-
tiations is opposed by an
overwhelming majority of
city council members in
Marin.
At a recent meeting of the
Marin County Council of
Mayors and Councilmem-
bers, almost every city and
town in Marin — with San
Anselmo the only exception
— announced its opposition
to the legislation.
"The overwhelming major-
ity feel this is an attack on
home rule and local control,"
said San Rafael Town Man-
ager Rod Gould- "It would
mean higher costs for public
safety, which would come at
the expense of quality -of -Life
services."
Gould said he sees no need
for such legislation, since po-
lice and fire workers are well
paid. "This is medicine for a
patient who isn't sick," he said.
San Anselmo Mayor Paul
Chignell, however, said he
does not believe binding arbi-
tration would result in higher
outlays for police and fire
salaries. "The evidence on ar-
bitration doesn't show that,"
said Chignell, a San Francis-
co police lieutenant.
Existing law allows police
and fire workers to unionize
but prohibits them from
striking, said Fairfax Coun-
cilman Frank Egger, also a
dissenter. "This is a means to
allow a contract conflict to be
resolved," Egger said.
In recent years, Fairfax po-
lice have repeatedly worked
months without a contract
because of drawn-out negoti-
ations, Egger noted. "We ran
about nine months behind on
the last contract," he said.
"This bill is going to pass. It
is going to be signed by the
governor," Chignell said. "We
should work with the author."
The legislation, now in the
Assembly, has passed the
state Senate, where it was in-
troduced by President Pro
Tem John Burton.
Under the bill, municipali-
ties could avoid the require-
ment by placing an initiative
on the ballot before the end of
2000 and having a majority of
voters reject the requirement,
said Dwight Stenbakken, a
lobbyist with the hof
Califor! nia Cities
Stenbakken says he would
like to see that reversed — so
that only cities that wanted
arbitration have to get the ap-
proval of voters.
Gould said that requiring
towns to pass initiatives to
stave off arbitration "is a
recipe for ugliness." %
Los Angel
(Los An Y7\
Los i
( 'r. 4,3
( 31,5
'Allen Is P. C. B. &t. 1885
Let's Keep Control of Local Spending
■ Legislation: Don't let
arbitrators decide police and
firefighter contracts. r i
By JEFFREY SLOAN t
One of this year's most sweeping and
costly legislative bills began its stealthy
flight through the state Legislature under
the radar of most of the California media.
This bill bears the ironic title, the "Bur-
ton-Villaraigosa Public Safety Assurance
Act." Far from ensuring public safety,
the bill would wrest away decisions about
millions of dollars worth of police and fire
labor contracts from elected mayors, city
councils, boards of supervisors, local
voters, the state of California (for state
public safety personnel, including the
California Highway Patrol), and even pri-
vate employers of safety personnel~ in-
stead investing these powers in une-
lected, unaccountable arbitrators.
The bill requires that disputes involv-
ing the wages, hours and working condi-
tions of firefighters and police throughout
California be resolved by professional ar-
bitrators, paid half by labor unions and
half by government. This process is
called "interest arbitration." Police and
firefighters unions support the bill, the
California State Assn. of Counties and the
Lague of CalifQruia.Ciiies oppose il✓
Public_sry unions have contributed
handsomely to political campaigns, hop-
ing to win support for this bill. Yet the
public agencies it will affect are legally
prohibited from making contributions.
Consequently, this legislation is on a fast
track. For a number of reasons, taxpayers
will need to get a tighter grip on their
wallets if this legislation passes.
First, interest arbitration invests enor-
mous powers in arbitrators to make
policy for local government—more power
than a mayor, city council, police chief or
even the voters. Unlike other forms of ar-
bitration, this type empowers arbitrators
to write a contract that includes terms
that one or even both parties oppose.
Second, arbitrators are unaccountable
to elected officials or the voters. Fre-
quently, they live outside the city or
county that their decisions affect. They
rarely have fiscal or government policy-
making experience and they usually are
unfamiliar with a city or county's existing
pay practices, public needs or policy pri-
orities. This bill would empower them to
effectively rewrite city budgets.
Third, interest arbitration is a long, ex-
pensive and adversarial process. Arbitra-
tion cases are like court cases, with law-
yers, witnesses, exhibits and briefs. The
arbitrator acts as judge, jury and execu-
tioner with sweeping powers to compel
employers to adopt contracts they can't
afford. Even the courts' powers are
usurped: An arbitrator's decision is final
and binding and rarely can be undone,
even if the arbitrator misapplied the law.
Fourth, interest arbitration isn't just
about setting compensation. The bill
would compel public safety agencies to
arbitrate such issues as work rules,
changes to police or fire department gen-
eral orders and discipline procedures. The
arbitrator—not the police or fire chiefs—
would effectively determine whether a
county could adopt new procedures for
putting out fires or fighting crime.
Fifth, because. the arbitrator selection
process requires that an arbitrator be ac-
ceptable to both parties, the pool of can-
didates includes many who cannot say
"no" to demands for wage or benefit im-
provements, even when the public inter-
est requires it. For example, public sector
unions often demand sizable wage in-
creases for their members at the same
time that the public agency is experienc-
ing serious fiscal problems. In interest ar-
bitration, the odds will be no better than
50/50 that the arbitrator will decide to
protect public resources rather than re-
quire additional wages or benefits.
Finally, interest arbitration does not
change relationships for the better or
eliminate the possibility of strikes, as its
proponents argue. Rather, it offers a le-
galistic alternative to the more balanced
process of reaching agreement through
bargaining. This is why commentators
say that interest arbitration has a "nar-
cotic" effect on bargaining.
Emotion tends to dominate discussions
of how police and firefighters' contracts
should be set. Public safety personnel put
their lives on the line and the public val-
ues the work they do. Unquestionably,
these workers deserve to be paid fairly.
But who should determine what is "fair?"
The trend in nearly every other arena
in which public -moneys are at issue is
toward greater democracy, public disclo-
sure and public involvement. If the proc-
ess is abused, the public has the most
democratic review process available: the
ballot box. This bill would effectively si-
lence the voice of California voters, and it
would increase the cost of public services,
with California taxpayers and businesses
picking up the tab.
Jeffrey Sloan, an attorney in San Fran-
cisco, represents public employers on la-
bor and employment law matters, includ-
ing interest arbitrations. E-mail:
jsloanCcdhkkxom.
San Diego Union -Tribune Archive Document
Page i of 2
t�"A Basebal�4yrbe Live]
6etr�it'� C:i'ie!'.pnU � �(j�
V1?e
age
Binding arbitration bill A blank check for public safety labor
unions
It is clear why Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigose, O -Los Angeles, and
Senate President Pro Tempor. John Burton, D -San Francisco, want to mandate
binding arbitration for California police and firefighter. These
Democratic leaders are politically beholden to the powerful labor unions
that represent public safety personnel, who stand to gain from the
legislation.
But there certairdy would be no benefit for cities and counties, which
would be saddled with the fiscally reckless process of arbitration. Indeed,
the big losers would be taxpayers. They would be forced to foot the bill
for expensive contracts for police and firefighters under the guise of
conflict resolution.
The Public Safety Assurance Act — talk about euphemisms — would require
that arbitrators set the terms of contracts when the two parties do not
reach agreement at the bargaining table. Ir. other words, third -party
referees would be called to end stalemates, but their marc presence cnida
state law would encourage stalemates.
As a practical matter, arbitrators would crunch the numbers and arrive at
an "equitable" pay raise. The term equitable, however, is very subjective
to unelected and unaccountable arbitrators who would not have to find the
money to pay for the mandated raise.
Public officials are responsible for protecting the public's finances.
That's one of the reasons why elected officials are required to do the
public's business in the open. But arbitrators are not responsible to the
public, let alone to taxpayers caught in the cross-fire of a labor dispute.
The Villaraigosa-Burton bill is bad news in nonmonetery matters as well. It
would erode the authority of police and fire chiefs, along with county
sheriffs. Under the measure, labor leaders could demand that the arbitrator
determine the deployment of personnel and intervene in disciplinary cases.
In short, it could give third parties considerable sway over how law
enforcement and fire -fighting departments are managed.
Burton. Villstaigosa and the bill's otter backers contend it is needed to
ensure labor peace by preventing police and firefighters from striping. But
that's a canard. Public safety professionals already are prohibited by
state law from walking off the job. That is the way it should be, because
str& a by public personnel jeopardize the safety of those they are
supposed to protect.
This measure is a time bomb that could blow a gaping hole in city and
county budgets. No wonder it is opposed by a slew of organizations,
Including the California Association of Counties, the League of California
Cities, the County Sheriffs' Association and the California Police Chiefs'
Association.
If this bill is rammed through the Legislature by the Democratic
leadership, Gov. Gray Davis should stand up to this powerful -- and
traditionally Democratic -- special interest and veto it.
Condsk Vnian-Nt--e P"b16Mne Co.
..✓idoc.egi?457134+unix+petergrantca+www.unionuib.com..SO+Union-Tzibune+Unioa-Tribune 5117/99
Press -Telegram
(Long Beach)
May 30, 1999
SUNDAYFORUM
Local budgets
threatened by
arbitration bill
By John Liebert
magine that control over the larggst
part of your city's budget was taken
away from your local, elected repre-
sentatives and given to a labor arbitrator
who is accountable to no one. This,is
exactly what the state is threatening to
do.
There is a bill making its way through
the state Legislature that will take the
bargaining authority for police and fire-
fighter compensation and working runes
out of the hands of locallyelected officials
and put i,ptnae hands of 4elected and
unaccountable third -party arbitrators.
Draffed by police and firefighter unions,
thartill, SB 402, enables union represen-
to ves to opt for binding arbitration dur-
in labor contract 'negotiations. Under
this , posed sV;tem, private labor arhi-
trators make the final decision on all
issues on which the parties cannot agree.
If a mutual agreement on any dispiRe
cannot be reached through direct bii�-
gaining, the bill would permit unions,
but not cities or counties, to compel bind-
ing arbitration. In essence, SB 402 would
give firefighter and police unions a cost-
ly, unfair advantage over public agency
employers in labor contract negotiations
and would undermine good -faith collec-
tive bargaining.
Traditional labor contract negotiations
between public agencies and employee
unions place both parties on equal foot-
ing. Either side is free to, fight for those
issues deemed most important to its cot:-
stituency. Compromises are made untiL'a
final agreement is reached. Under the
proposed legislation, this system would
be turned on its head. -
The process of arbitration sounds like,a
fair way of resolving contract impasses.
However, when only one of the parties
caninvoke the option, it becomes a tool of
intimidation. Under SB 402, once the
unions compel arbitration, the arbitrator
must decide between the "last' best
offers" of the two parties. The worst the
unions could expect under the proposed
system would be the employer's last best
offer.
Should the bill pass, there would be no
reason for police and firefighter unions. to
c.mpr.m..an in :rder to reach an ae eo-
meat. The unions' mantra for every
demand will be "either give in or we will
force arbitration." This refusal to com-
promise and subsequent arbitration will
turn an already lengthy process into„a
costly ordeal lasting many months or
even years, all at taxpayers' expense.
Who exactly will these arbitrators be?
Under the current system, taxpayers can
hold elected officials accountable for deci-
sions they make, and the costs they agree
to, in the local government collective bar-
gaining process. Under the proposed bill,
once union representatives force the bar-
gaining process into arbitration, a pri-
vate arbitrator will make the final deter-
mination. The arbitrator will be accouni:-
able to no one. As one California labor
arbitrator stated in connection with 'a
public agency arbitration, 'I am not polit-
ically accountable, number one, which
raises substantial questions. I could
come in knowing nothing about the par-
ticular circumstances, and if they fail`to
educate me fully, I could easily make a
grievous error.” The proposed legislation
will take the decision-making power
away from those in the best position to
make budgetary decisions- — local gov-
ernment.
Proponents of SB 402 maintain that the
bill will prevent police and firefighter
strikes by making them illegal. Such
strikes are already prohibited under
California law, but have at times
occurred nevertheless. SB 402 provides
no punishment or sanctions for unions or
employees who decide to strike regard-
less of the law.
The present draft of SB 402 encom-
passes all types of issues traditionally
addressed in the collective bargaining
process — from compensation to stan-
d`r s r f conduct and Performa—me SJch4d-
uling, staring, deployment and proms=
ffi
tion. Experience in scheduling, staffing,
assignments and_ promotions, and the
effect those actions have an community
safety, and on such programs as commu-
nity policing and diversification of the
workforce, is essential to making
informed decisions in local labor negotia-
tions. This knowledge rests with " the
responsible professionals — the police
and fire chiefs — and ultimately the
elected city or county governing body, not
with an unaccountable and untrained,
state -mandated private arbitrator.
SB 402 caters to labor interests at the
expense of local representative gover-
nance. The state should stay out of the
collective bargaining negotiations
between California cities and counties,
and their employees.
John Liebert is a founding partner df
Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson. The labor
and employment law firm with offices in
Los Angeles and San Fransisco repre;
sents numerous cities and public entities
throughout California.
Sacramento. CA
(Sacramento Co.)
Sacramento Bee
(Cir. D. 270.000)
(Cir. S. 338,000)
�r
JUN - 9 19%
. Alten's P. C. B 1 " meld
SB 402 leould almost certainly undercut the authority of police and ore cnleIs to
i<ne staffing and might eventually edge into issues of employee discipline
The Democrats"local unaccountability bill
Among all the attempts to bring
back some order to the govern-
mental mess created by two
decades of California initiatives, the
most promising, and certainly the most
visible. has been the Speakers
Commission on Slate and Local
Government Ilion nee.
The commission, which includes it
.vide spectrum of Californians - stale
and local government officials, business
executives, labor leaders, civic activists -
was formed earlier this year by
Assembly Speaker Antonio Villarnigosa
in an effort to restore some autonomy
and accountability to local government
and, in general, some order to a system
of governance that's often dysfunctional
and nearly always incomprehensible.
Villarnigosa himself has spoken elo-
quently- about the confusion and voter
alienation that the California nunsystem
has produced.
But last week the Democratic state
Senate passed a bill, SB 402, that will
inflict more damage on local control and
accountability than the commission can
reasonably expect to fur. In effect,
SB 402 would take most of the bargain-
ing power that local governments now
have in setting Lhe salaries of firefight-
ers, police officers and thousands of oth-
er public safety employees, and hand it
to outside arbitrators accountable to no
one but themselves. Elected local ofL-
PETER SCHRAG
cials, who have already been stripped of
virtually all authority to raise revenue,
would thus be stripped of a major part of
the power to control spending as well.
One of Lite two chief sponsors of that
bill is Senate President Pro Tem John
Burton. The other is Villaraigesa him-
self.
Villarnigosa says it's a fairness issue
for workers with tough jobs who are not
allowed to strike- a safely valve that
"won't unduly burden local government'
But the real explanation looks a lot sim-
pler. When it curries to paying off political
debts from big contributors and faithful
supporters - and for Democrats, none
are bigger or more faithful than the pub-
lic employee unions - it's no contest.
This, as the late Sen. Milton Marks once
told a staffer, is about labor, not local
government.
The bill covers a broad range of gov.
ernment employees, state and lord -
firefighters, police officers, sheriffs
deputies, parole officers, park rangers,
correctional officers, school cops, the
California I lighway Patrol. In cases
where their negotiations with state and
local employers reach an impasse, each
side would name an arbitrator. Together,
they would name a third, presumably
neutral, arbitrator who would have the
power to impose a settlement based on
Lite last beet offer of one of the parties.
The arbitrator is supposed to consider
a range of factors in making Itis
decision, among them wages, hours and
working conditions of similar workers
elsewhere, the consumer price index, the
availability of funds to pay for the settle-
ment and the public interest. In theory
that sounds even-handed; in practice, as
one observer put it, arbitrators can only
get work if they support unions half the
time end management half the time.
And since the prevailing wage some-
where else is almost always higher, the
process ratchets up costs everywhere.
The easiest way to understand the
issue is to see who's for this bill and
who's against it: On one aide virtually
every state and local union of cops and
firefighters; on the other, the Calfforvia
State Association of Counties, the
California Police Chiefs Association, the
California State Sheriffs Association, the
California Eire Chiefs Association and
the League of Califomia Cities, as well
as scores of individu edges, from
Alameda to Whittier.
California's cops and firefighters are
already among the hest compensated in
the country, and the state's spending for
public safety one of the highest in the
nation. But the stakes here go well
beyond bread-and-butter issues.
Although SB 402 would cover only
"wages, hours and other tenon and can.
ditions of employment," the last is an
elastic term: There's no way to tell how
far its impact will go. But it would
almost certainly undercut Lige authority
of police and fire chiefs to determine
stalling and might eventually edge into
issues of employee diacipline as well.
More immediately, it would sharply
reduce what little accountability local
ngencies - cities, counties, special dia-
tricts - still have to manage their own
affairs.
Even now, responsibility is often hard
to assign; when money runs out and pro-
grams are cut, is it the fault of the local
officials who overspend or does the
blame belong to the politicians in
Sacramento who fail to appropriate
enough to cover mandated costs? ft's
that kind of buck-peasiug that
Vllaraigosae commission is supposed to
concern itself with. But if SB 402 hands
control over a large part of the local bud-
get to an arbitrator who s not even
known to the voters, the opportunity for
fiscal mischief and buck passing would
be greater still.
Which brings the story to what's per-
haps the most cynical part of this bill.
The Califonua Constitution requires the
state to compensate local agencies for
certain costs mandated by the state. To
get around that requirement, which
could potentially cost the state billions,
the authors wrote into SB 402 a provi-i
cion that would allow each local jurisec'.
tion to seek voter approval to exempt_ '^
itself from the requirements of the bill:;
That, in theory, makes bbnding arbitrit, I*
Lion optional and thus not a mandate:,;,
But since only the public employee
unions have both the big bucks and the_
interest to engage themselves in ouch an
election, the whole promtision is a fares._.'
The proponents assert that the mea-;
sure would foster labor peace among
Californias public safely employees. Brit
what's most likely to be fostered is more
dysfunctional government, and more vot-
er cynicism and alienation. The bill stilt.
needs approval in the Assembly and the
governor's signature; Villaraigosa sayf'-.
We a work in progress that could still f
change, but it's hard to imagine how.
What's the speaker's commission going?
to do with this little stint bomb?
iv
Peter Schrag's column appears in 71rr
Bee on Wednesday. lie can be reached by
fax at 321.1996, or by letter at Box
15779, Sacramento, CA, 95852-0779.
FROM City Of San Carlos PI -r LJF NO. :650+595+21044 Jin. 28 1999 03: b1 PM P2 FROM City or San Carlo$ PHONE N0, 650+595+2044 Sun. 28 1999 03:02Pt1 P?
AGE;SA R' THEINDFPF[VDENf tk
r, ;
-- . ,i .:. 'bbJ111QiZiidtlSS
P l 0 q I0
1. NII..:
THE INDEPENDENT
Tto FAM JOHN T. C. &NG MARC Buatrbsaur
Padtuaer rubiWnEaeri3O.s Alamein; Edgar .
EDITORIAL
Legislature undermines
f local government
City managers around the county are dations reach an impasse with state and
expressing concern with SB 402. which local employers, each side would name an
was passed by the State Senate recently, The attitrator. Together they would nate a
law would take away umsE of the bargaining third. putty, who would be impartial, w
power that local .governments have in set- lmpoae a settlement based upon the last
ting the salaries of firefighters. police offs• best offer of one of the parties.
can, and thousands of other public safety But the fly in the ointment is that arbiter
employees. tors would be at the mercy of unions and
In its place, the bill would turn over that management who would decide the nego-
porter to outside arbitrators, who would be tiatnr s future employment based on how
left accountable to no one but themselves, they sad* both sides in salary disputes. it
This bill would put another damper on the takes the management of salaries for public
.responsibilities of elected local officials tafEtyemployeaout ofthe hands ofelected'
who have already been stripped, of .all office. holden ,and once again, places
authority in raising aevenaes. Nisi
ai:yiane adt�,}n>J1e.I,Cpskkste:.:;
share ofbudgetspendioZ.wotild degraded'�"TbE, .Ca�stitttiim•seguires she
> rt ... r
by outtddearbltramrs.;.. . ,aa «t AAriaetea.forow
Sponsors of the bill argue that ilk a � ".416i sK .lhandtifnid by; sate Iaat lb dr
tress lune for workers with tough1obr'twho tdlilitentatLai. reipiitement which' could
are not agowed m suike and cLuactesiie toot the inti billions of dollars, the authors
the legislation as a safety valve that won't wrote a prevision in 68 403, that would
unduly burden local government yi; they allow each local Jurisdiction to seek war
are-wrong.Ifriotalty elected'coudt5l nem•►p�ivial`*4exempt `itself'13om`Tequire•
bar or supervisor agrees to a salary'coiitraet mmb4� the' bi1L chat in theory would
that is unpopular with -the publie;'the vot.•malceNdd{ng arbitration optioumland thus
on can throw the person out of OT=r- :_ not a-hdmdate.
If, on the other hand. an outside arbitrator' So.faitenyour seat bels and get ready for
comes in and makes an unpopular decision; Zipproaching elections because public
there is no public recourse and no. public . aifety employees are coming alters us. They
accountability. Covered in the bs71 are fire-°'vdlf be seeking vow approval of this pmvl-
110u s,. police offices, shesltrs deputies, - siqu-indready wypend whatewtit takes a .
parole officers. park rangers. coerectional ;wia!thase elections. It will'be mother other divi-
oEfleess, school cops and .She, �1qs�, Qrevensood t oa.�
ifighway patrol. i:, - ;.:: s 22 � F + :>E 1etkFiedA%f lithe'
ThatiMprovidesthat incam. be{k 'IYijustbad slationr.
Ipljn
We accept hometown
Mara Sarkbmdt
A
news.calendarsubmis•
ManagingEdltor
sions. engagement and
Amy Wall"*
wedding announce.
Redwood Oty, Sen Carlos,
v
mems, both notices, '
&boon[
THE INDEPENDENT
obituaries and other
js icor pagans gonad
f,
[alisoflocahintegre[_:
Tyrer cit} &Afigame;
S' p/gea
Submissions should be
Mbvroagh
82¢ Cow,m Road
maned at lent two
Jot Must
Burlingame. CA 94010
weeks prior in the date
San Matin
6929406: 692+7587 (AAM
of publication. All items
Skeet Sake, Ridana
are nm on a spaceavail-
Millbrae, San Bruno, South San
Esdweed M' Offica
able basis. For more
Pnancisco, Colnra, Brisbmu.
7317 Broadway, Suite 110
informatiom.on submit-
Daly City
Redwood Wry G 94063
dog andsh�P P ubli
laaaa >Kmilln
367-9834:3674745 (FAX)
now In our various pub
Sports
limboos, please contact
NO,,,, Falls" ,
the following editors:
Arts b Enurtagnment
7OLICE CHIE
•
1 L.1 _- Gie
i•
1455 Response Rd., Suite 190 Sacramento, California 95815 Telephone (916) 263-0545 (9117 263.0541 FAX (916) 263.6090
March 23, 2000 E-mail: caichiefs@cpoa.org Website: cpcachiers.org
The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of the State of California
OFFICERS State Capitol — first floor
President
CRAIG STECKLER
Fremont Sacramento, California 95814
1st Vice President
BOB BLANKENSHIP
Redding Dear Governor Davis:
2nd Vice President
BOB McDONELL
Newport Beach
3rd Vice President The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm the opposition of the California Police
RICK TERBORCH
Arroyo Grand& Chiefs' Association to Senate Bill 402, which deals with binding arbitration for
4113 ce PresCAMISANCH'EZ ` police and fire services. This bill has been removed from the Assembly
San Rafael
Immediate Past President Inactive File and may be voted on at any time.
RICHARD TEFANK
Buena Park
DAVID
IRECTORARANO Representatives of the California Police Chiefs' Association recently met with
San Diego Marty Morgenstern, of your staff, in connection with SB 402. We pointed out
13ILompoc
mpoc to him that SB 402 is so broad that fundamental public safety decisions are
1-0CY�osRLTON effectively removed from a sheriff (who is directly accountable to the voters) or
B. WARREN COCKE
Retired, San Bernardino from a chief of police (who is accountable to a community through his/her city
RICHARD Yuba CityDOscHER council). Instead, those decisions are placed in the hands of a third party
LARRY HANSEN
Lodiarbitrator who is not accountable to anyone. Moreover, these public safety
RON INGELS decisions will be made by people with no public safety expertise. SB 402
La Verne
BARRY KALAR effectively undermines decades of law enforcement professionalism and public
Morega
ERIC MATLOCK accountability.
Bakersfield
PAT MEDINA
Rio Dell
JOE SAMUELS While it may be true that "working conditions" or "other terms and conditions of
Richmond
LLOYD SCHARF employment" are within the scope of binding arbitration in other industriesr the
Onta
io
BOBrVALES public safety "industry" is unique. It is impossible to permit binding arbitration
Carlsbad of "working conditions" or "other terms and conditions of employment" without
COMMITTEE CHAIRS
LAW & LEGISLATION encroaching on the delivery of public safety services to a community.
MICHAEL EFFORD
Chico
NOM lb
RCHARDITEFANK For example, under SB 402, the issue of creative staffing designs of an
Buena Park agency, the issue of whether or not to have a SWAT team or a K-9 unit or the
PAST PRESIDENTS (
RICHARD
ena ParkEFANK
Buquestion of the level of training required to serve in those specialized units),
FRANKWI�SS deployment policies, domestic violence response policies, even the question
Was Covina
RETIRED MEMBERS of the firearms officers may carry in the field could all be subject to the
SAL ROSANO
Retired. Santa Rosa decision of an outside arbitrator who possessed neither public safety expertise
STANDARDS dETHICS nor public accountability for his/her decision.
GUY EISENBREY
Montclair
TRAINING
JOHN ZROFSKY The recent Rampart Division scandal - probably the most serious police
Shafter
WAYS d MEANS scandal in the history of this state - is rooted in the failures of management
BARRY D. KALAR
Moraga and the hamstringing of management. The recently released Board of Inquiry
' ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' ' report on the Rampart scandal eloquently noted how limitations on
SPECIAL COUNSEL management's ability to run the department committed to the scandal. Senate
Martin J. Mayer
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ross D. Hutchings, CAE
The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of the State of California
Page 2
Bill 402 would institutionalize those limitations on police management into
state law - an unsuitable public policy when viewed against the backdrop of
Rampart Division.
Effective public safety policy depends on the public trust. Given that reality, it
seems singularly inappropriate to place so many important elements of public
safety policy in the hands of someone who is not accountable to the public we
are sworn to serve.
If this bill comes to you in its current form, I would respectfully request that the
California Police Chiefs' Association be given the opportunity to show you -
with specificity - how this bill will impair the delivery of public safety services to
our communities.
Thank you for your attention to our views.
Sinrer,ely,
URAI{ -
G T. STECKLER
F OF POLICE
SIDENT, CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION
CTS/bdh
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING
SENATE BILL 402, WHICH MANDATES A SYSTEM OF
COMPULSORY AND BINDING ARBITRATION FOR THE
RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISPUTES WITH POLICE AND FIRE UNIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the California Legislature is debating Senate Bill 402, authored by
Senator John Burton, which mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for
the resolution of public sector collective bargaining disputes with police and fire unions;
and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 transfers the authority of the Mayor and City Council
over the most critical services in a city's budget to an outside, non -elected arbitrator who
is not accountable to city residents; and
WHEREAS, the arbitrator is given the authority to make binding decisions
regarding compensation, benefits, discipline, deployment of the workforce and virtually
any issue the arbitrator finds to be a term and condition of employment; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 would place at least 60% of a full-service city's budget
in the control of this outside, non -elected and unaccountable arbitrator, and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 gives police and fire unions first call on the city
treasury to the detriment of other city services; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 gives unilateral control to police and fire unions to
declare an impasse, against the wishes of the elected Mayor and City Council, and call for
arbitration; and
WHEREAS, a system of compulsory and binding arbitration destroys good faith
collective bargaining between an employer and the employees; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 402 imposes a Gear and costly mandate on all local public
agencies in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide, both for the arbitration process
and the cost of the arbitrator's award above the employer's last best offer; and
WHEREAS, proponents offer false claims that Senate Bill 402 is necessary to
prevent strikes by police and fire unions when strikes by these employees are already
illegal under current law and court decisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lodi
declares its opposition to Senate Bill 402, and calls upon State legislators and the
Governor to recognize the importance of local control of local budgets and public services,
and to vote against this unreasonable and inappropriate intrusion on home rule; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this action by
the City Council of the City of Lodi are being sent by the City Clerk to Assembly and
Senate Members representing the City, the Governor and the offices of the League of
California Cities in Sacramento.
Dated: April 5, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2000-50 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held April 5, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Land, Nakanishi, Pennino and
Mann (Mayor)
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
JA UELINE L. AYL
Inte im City Clerk
2000-50