Could give council members ability to declare results
detrimental and send matter to voters
n By serdar tumgoren Staff Writer
Gilroy – After months of heightening tensions between City Hall and Fire Local #2805 over the issue of binding arbitration, councilmen today will discuss a new option touted as a way to avoid asking voters for an outright repeal of third-party mediation.
A packet distributed to councilmen for today’s wide-ranging policy discussions contains a 2004 ballot measure that would have given voters final say on arbitration decisions, as long as county supervisors deemed the outcome harmful to the county’s financial health. The ballot item failed with the companion measure that would have established binding arbitration rights for county attorneys and nurses. But local Councilman Roland Velasco, who has followed the issue of binding arbitration since Gilroy’s first labor tussle with the fire union five years ago, tucked a copy of the measure away.
Today, he plans to float an idea modeled on the county measure that would give City Council the ability to declare arbitration results detrimental to city finances and send the matter to voters for final decision.
Velasco’s idea represents the first attempt to thread a compromise on the issue of binding arbitration since the fire union declared impasse in negotiations in early spring. The move came after the city refused to budge on all contract demands other than to offer a modified version of the union’s retirement proposal. In the midst of the breakdown, Mayor Al Pinheiro has led the charge to repeal binding arbitration, which he and other council members say gives control over the city’s financial fate to a non-elected official. Police and firefighters, who are prohibited by state law from using strikes as a bargaining tool, have defended binding arbitration as their only recourse for fair treatment.
“So far what I’ve read in the press has been two perspectives – either you’re okay with the way binding arbitration is or you’re opposed to binding arbitration,” Velasco said. “What I’m trying to suggest is there might be a third option. Let’s look at all the options and decide what’s best.
“Binding arbitration has the potential to rob the treasury at City Hall,” Velasco added. “The question I ask myself is ‘What’s our end goal?’ I believe our end goal is to give decision-making back to elected officials and the citizens of Gilroy. When I started thinking of that, I began thinking binding arbitration needs to be modified, and that’s why I put this on the table.”
Union officials, however, see the move as a power grab that relegates their strongest bargaining chip to the realm of politics.
“The arbitrator will never make a decision that will hurt the city,” union president Art Amaro said. “That’s not what an arbitrator does. An arbitrator looks at all the facts, financial reports, and makes a decision based on that.”
Amaro and other union officials have questioned the city’s cries of poverty, especially in light of an early state refund of $760,000 in Vehicle License Fees and a ballot measure passed last fall that makes it more difficult for the state to raid local tax coffers.
Sacramento County is one of the few California municipalities where voters hold veto power over the decisions of arbitrators. County voters instituted the measure in 1998 in response to several years of labor disputes with the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, according to Steve Lakich, the county’s director of labor relations. The board of supervisors pushed through the measure in tandem with a ballot item establishing binding arbitration rights for the sheriffs’ union.
Since the measures passed, labor negotiations have twice reached impasse – once in 1999 and a second time in 2003. The first time around, the county accepted the arbitrator’s decision. The second time, the board of supervisors, threatening to send a portion of the arbitrator’s decision back before the voters, forced the sheriff’s union to back down on the request.
“I don’t like binding arbitration in labor disputes,” Lakich said, “but if public agencies are going to have it, I think it’s a good safeguard to have the voter approval if the board of supervisors or city council doesn’t like it. Then it puts the decision back in the hands of elected officials. It equalizes the parties’ positions. Otherwise, it’s a one-way street.”
Marlin Weinberger, general manager for the sheriff’s union, acknowledged that “there are some restrictions – they have to show they don’t have any money and it’s going to cause a rise in taxes. But it’s been my experience that they always claim they don’t have any money.”
Weinberger views voter ratification of binding arbitration as an escape clause for local officials, one that allows them to shift an independent decision back into a political realm where they can play on voter sympathy.
“My personal opinion is it’s all politics,” Weinberger said. “It’s just another shot at the apple. If you have binding arbitration, a third disinterested party makes a decision based on comparable agencies. It’s all put out in a trial setting. This just allows the jurisdiction to take another shot at it if they don’t like the decision.”
The current debate over binding arbitration comes at a critical time, with just three weeks left before the Aug. 12 deadline expires to place measures on the November ballot. Councilmen, who cannot make official policy decisions at informal retreats such as the one today, have only one formal meeting on Aug. 1 where they can slip the measure on the ballot.
City Attorney Linda Callon is expected to inform councilmen today if the measure, assuming voter approval, would affect the current binding arbitration process. The rescheduling of arbitration hearings from September until early 2006 means voters would reach the polls at least once before the labor dispute is resolved.
Binding arbitration in Gilroy was instituted in 1988 for public safety workers, but was not invoked until five years ago, when the fire department won minimum staffing requirements. At the time, firefighters failed to win several benefits granted to police officers, such as a retirement package that would allow them to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their salary. The department is now demanding equal treatment, but city officials claim they no longer have the money for expensive benefits granted to police in more robust economic times.
Other than Mayor Al Pinheiro, who has led the charge to rescind binding arbitration, councilmen remain conflicted over the dispute resolution technique, especially those gearing up for the fall campaign season.
The three council incumbents facing re-election include:
• Charles Morales, who has said he favors binding arbitration and would oppose a ballot measure that could rescind the dispute resolution process.
• Craig Gartman, who has expressed mixed feelings on binding arbitration, but has said he would not oppose a ballot measure asking voters to decide the matter.
• Bob Dillon, who has strongly criticized binding arbitration in the past, but said he has grown “conflicted” in recent days about a ballot measure.
In an interview Thursday, Dillon declined to comment on Velasco’s proposal to allow voters final say over binding arbitration decisions.
“I’m going to wait until I hear the ideas expressed (at the retreat),” Dillon said. “What really drives me crazy about this is the financial situation we’re in and the future. I really think both sides here should be concerned about what the arbitrator’s going to do. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk this time for the fire union.”
New retreat schedule
The meetings will take place in council chambers at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna St.
The day’s schedule includes:
9:15 to 10:15am: Binding Arbitration
10:30 to 11:15am: Economic Incentive Program
11:15am to noon: High Speed Rail
noon to 1pm: Community Development Block Grant process
1 to 1:30pm: Open Space Authority
1:30 to 3pm: Street trees and sidewalk repairs, the Habitat Conservation Plan
3:15 to 4:30pm: Land Use issues
