Hopeful residents who were anticipating the opportunity to
repeal the 1988 addition to the city of Gilroy’s charter which gave
public safety employees the right to binding arbitration, should
not be dismayed. The issue, despite a bump in the road at the
Council meeting this past week, is not dead.
1. New information will hopefully cause Council votes to change
Hopeful residents who were anticipating the opportunity to repeal the 1988 addition to the city of Gilroy’s charter which gave public safety employees the right to binding arbitration, should not be dismayed. The issue, despite a bump in the road at the Council meeting this past week, is not dead.
Attorney Charles Sakai, who has handled the binding arbitration process for the city when contract negotiations came to impasse, didn’t exactly give the City Council clear information on the state of a legal case that could make whether or not Gilroy has a binding arbitration clause immaterial.
New and clear information on the status of that case will hopefully cause the councilmembers who voted not to put binding arbitration before the voters to reconsider. Perry Woodward, Craig Gartman, Dion Bracco and Peter Arellano should do just that.
2. Status of court case has a direct bearing on the Council vote
The case started when the state legislature passed a law forcing public agencies into binding arbitration. Sonoma County went to court against its law enforcement union to fight the law. A state appellate court recently ruled that the law is unconstitutional.
Sakai told Gilroy’s City Council that the state Supreme Court would be reviewing that decision. But the court has not yet agreed to take the case. If it does not take the case, the appellate court ruling would stand.
That’s important to any decision our City Council makes with regards to a ballot measure because if Gilroy repealed its charter amendment only to have it replaced by a virtual carbon copy state law , then any effort would have been a waste of time and energy. But if the appellate court decision holds, then Gilroy is free to decide on whether to repeal binding arbitration.
Even if the state Supreme Court decides to take the case, the Council should not let the issue die. If an alternate arbitration process is in place in our charter, then it could take precedence over a state binding arbitration law. That would be preferable and, following Councilmember Cat Tucker’s lead, should be explored as a possibility.
3. Chamber should reconsider and strengthen its position on the issue
Perhaps Mr. Sakai could draft an alternative approach that would retain local control of our precious budget dollars.
Repealing binding arbitration is, of course, just one piece of the puzzle needed to fix the bleak long-term budget picture for Gilroy. Current public sector pay and benefit levels are simply unsustainable, and that’s a reality every Gilroyan has to deal with.
A two-tier benefit system is needed such that new hires do not receive the same health and pension benefits that current employees do.
Pension contribution benefits must be capped so that the city’s ballooning annual contribution to the public employee retirement system does not become a financial albatross around Gilroy’s neck.
Meanwhile, the Chamber of Commerce, which bravely brought the issue before Council, should consider a shift that moves its position from “Let the people decide” to strongly advocating repeal. This issue has to be tackled head on, full steam ahead.
