Dear Editor,
Are the majority of Gilroy’s City Council tone deaf to the
voters?
On May 18, the Gilroy City Council was asked to vote to put
”
binding arbitration
”
on the ballot. We all now know that a slim majority said
”
NO
”
on a 4-3 vote.
Council majority tone deaf on spending despite election results
Dear Editor,
Are the majority of Gilroy’s City Council tone deaf to the voters?
On May 18, the Gilroy City Council was asked to vote to put “binding arbitration” on the ballot. We all now know that a slim majority said “NO” on a 4-3 vote.
Those voting to put it on the ballot were Mayor Al Pinheiro, Councilwoman Cat Tucker, and Councilman Bob Dillon. The remainder said “NO”. They succumbed to the pressure of the special interests, specifically the members of the fire and police union. They were “tone deaf” to the voters of Gilroy when making their considerations.
California held a statewide special election the next day (May 19) to decide on six propositions and the results are in.
Californians issued an angry and emphatic “NO” to measures 1A thru 1E and a resounding “YES” to measure 1F (don’t give raises unless our elected officials do the work we elected them to do). Gov. Schwarzenegger said that he now hears and understands the citizens of California, he is no longer “tone deaf”. I wonder if the ears of those majority members of Gilroy’s City Council who voted to NOT put binding arbitration on the ballot at the request of the Chamber of Commerce will now begin hearing the “TONE” of their real interests – people and voters of Gilroy. I certainly hope so.
The residents of Gilroy will not care one wit why this issue was not added to the ballot given the chance. All they will remember is that the majority said “no”, “no”, “no”, and “no” when the request was put to them. This is the reality of today’s world, it’s far different than 21 years ago.
Ron Kirkish, Gilroy
Reviewing binding arbitration at a later date makes good sense
Dear Editor,
As reported in the Dispatch’s online edition Wednesday morning, the City Council on Monday evening considered a request from the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce that the Council place a charter amendment question on the November 2010 ballot.
The Chamber’s proposed measure would ask voters to eliminate public safety binding arbitration; in effect reversing Measure Q, which was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in 1988.
In principle, I certainly have no objection to allowing the voters their day at the polls on this issue or any other issue. However, ballot measures are expensive. The estimated election expenses that our cash-strapped city would have to pay to put this measure on the November 2010 ballot would be about $46,000. The city would pay much more, however, if this same measure were put on an earlier ballot. No one – not even the Chamber representatives – spoke at Monday’s meeting in favor of placing this measure on the ballot before November 2010. Everyone recognizes that would be wasteful.
After reading the Dispatch’s online coverage of Monday’s meeting it became apparent that reporter Chris Bone had missed an important point; in fact, he omitted what I thought was the most important point to come out of the Council’s roughly hour-long discussion.
His report makes no mention of the fact that if the Council decides to grant the Chamber’s request that the Council does not need to take any action whatsoever until July 2010. This oversight is uncharacteristic for Mr. Bone, whose reporting is virtually always accurate and complete.
Those attending the Monday meeting heard from the city’s legal expert on binding arbitration, Charles Sakai, who said that without binding arbitration under the city charter it is not clear how a labor dispute with police or fire would be resolved. That is because without a charter provision, the city would be obligated to follow state law. The recently-enacted state law that similarly requires binding arbitration of public safety labor disputes is currently under review by the state Supreme Court.
If the high court decides that binding arbitration stays as enacted by the Legislature, would it still make sense to spend $46,000 to try to eliminate binding arbitration under the city’s charter? Why, so we can then have binding arbitration under state law instead? I simply cannot imagine anyone thinks that is a good idea.
Holding a study session in December – which at my urging is what the Council voted on Monday to do – will allow us the opportunity to conduct further examination of the issue seven months before any decisions have to be made.
Perry Woodward, Gilroy City Council
Editor’s note: Since the writing of this letter it has come to light that attorney Charles Sakai, gave the City Council unclear information. The state Supreme Court has not at this time decided to review the decision by the state appellate court which stymied binding arbitration from becoming state law.
Gilroy planning to lay off 10 police officers – are ‘we’ nuts?
Dear Editor,
The announcement that the City Council is planning to layoff 10 police officers is disturbing. Are they completely unaware of the conditions in this city? There are a number of current factors that threaten the safety and quality of life in this community.
Gilroy is home to over 700 know gang members and associates. Approximately 3 percent of our residents are on probation or parole. We have the highest per capita rate of homelessness in Santa Clara County. Graffiti is visible everywhere, in every neighborhood, and getting worse.
And coming soon, an influx of known felons. A federal judge panel recently ordered the early release of one third of all California prison inmates onto our streets over the next three years, about 55,000 prisoners. The order is being appealed to the Supreme Court but our prisons are grossly overcrowded and I would expect this is going to happen.
We are about to face the perfect storm. The city has a known gang problem with acts of violence happening on our streets in broad daylight, has a large population of known criminals, and is potentially planning to decimate the one group of people, our police, who stand between the law abiding citizens and the renegades. Add to that an influx of felons getting a free pass out of prison.
With all the violent crimes happening in Gilroy, the visible gang presence that has spilled into almost every neighborhood, and the obvious future issues when California releases all those prisoners, we cannot afford to lose one officer.
In fact, we need to bring back the officers we lost recently, and probably hire more. If not, as residents, we all lose. If you think your home prices are depressed now, wait until our city becomes the safe haven for gangs, felons, taggers, and the homeless.
Kathy Hahn, Gilroy
