 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The committee charged with recommending changes to Santa Rosa’s bylaws has three options when it comes to binding arbitration of police and firefighter contracts.
It can do nothing, effectively recommending the City Council leave things as they’ve been since voters approved binding arbitration in 1996.
It can recommend that the City Council place on next fall’s ballot the elimination of binding arbitration from the city charter entirely.
Or it can recommend the City Council put on the ballot changes to how binding arbitration works.
The third option is the one gaining the most traction as the 21-member committee digs into the thorniest issue before it.
Binding arbitration was passed by 53 percent of voters in 1996 after a strong push by public safety workers, who argued they needed it because unlike other workers, they do not have the legal right to strike.
It works like this. If the city and its public safety workers can’t reach agreement on a contract, the issue goes before a three-member panel of arbiters who make a decision based on a number of factors. These include the history of negotiations, the pay and benefits awarded to public safety workers in similar cities, and the city’s ability to pay.
Public safety officials say binding arbitration has helped foster a better working relationship with the city. Others say binding arbitration has contributed to skyrocketing public safety compensation and improperly takes key decisions out of the hands of local officials.
Several committee members said doing nothing is not an option.
“I think it’s very clear the public want us to do something on this general subject,” Doug Bosco, a former congressman and a committee member, said at the most recent committee meeting.
City staff, however, have advised the committee that eliminating binding arbitration entirely might not be the best route, either. Cities without binding arbitration will be bound by a new state law that requires disputes to head to a “fact finding panel,” a process that could be as expensive or time consuming as binding arbitration.
So the committee is searching for changes to binding arbitration that would appear on the ballot and have established a three-member subcommittee to explore those changes.
The subcommittee will meet in private with representatives of police and fire unions and City Attorney Caroline Fowler. Its goal is to see what kind of changes the public safety groups might accept without a fight at the ballot box.
City officials have told the committee there are three ways they’d like to see the charter language about binding arbitration changed.
One is to define what the city can afford. Currently, the arbitration panel must take into account the city’s “ability to pay” in rendering its decision about whether a contract is fair. But that is “extremely ambiguous” from a legal standpoint, Fowler said.
“Does that mean, for example, you have to dig into your reserves? Does it mean you have to cut your recreation and park programs?” Fowler said at the most recent meeting.
Bosco proposed a simple solution: capping general fund spending for public safety at a specific percentage. That would clearly define for an arbitration panel what voters consider is the city’s ability to pay, Bosco said.
Retired reverend Ann Gray Byrd said with public safety now comprising 60 percent of the city’s general fund, those who warned in 1996 about the prospect of service cuts and higher fees have been proven correct.
“Let’s quit fooling around here folks and playing nicey nice — Measure A has hurt our city and the threat of binding arbitration has hurt,” Byrd said.
Others said, however, that the many cities around the state without binding arbitration find themselves in equally challenging financial straits.
Terry Price, a political consultant and also a committee member, said a level playing field for all workers has to be restored.
“It’s an issue of fairness of all the city employees, not just for fire and police,” Price said. “Their share of the pie keeps expanding while every other service in the city seems to be shrinking.”
The two other changes city officials would like to see involved limiting the panel from three arbitrators to one to save money, and not allowing disciplinary disputes to go to binding arbitration.
The subcommittee is made up of Sonia Taylor, a graphic designer and political activist; Tony Alvernaz, retired city programmer and former head of the city’s largest employee union; and Kurt Groninga, a retired Santa Rosa Junior College official.
The subcommittee is allowed to meet behind closed doors because state open meetings laws allow exemptions for such working groups, Fowler said. The subcommittee will report back to the full committee by Feb. 18.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
No insult was mentioned or implied in my posts. Again, reading comprehension is a biggie for law enforcement. Not so much for posters.
The retirement systemis being revamped. The unions tried two years ago to change them in the county. They weren’t having any. the unions in the county want sustainability. I am sure city unions want the same. Don’t believe everything the city says.
“I say fire all of them; dis ban the unions and hire some workers that appreciate their positions of authority.”
Yeah, you go from Roscoe P. Coltrane to the Toys R Us “Swat Team”. I have yet to meet a cop that does not appreciate their position of authority. That is the number 1 job perk.
So, Union Guy, the 2% at 50 vesting for Cops and Fire in the ’90′s was an insult?
Hardly.
That was a very generous benefit.
The 3% at 50 for Cops and Fire of the 2000′s is an unsustainable jobs killer.
Just ask the tens of thousands of non Public Safety City employees laid off across the State in the past few years.
Here is a bit of education. Lots of people want to be cops. Less than 2% of all of those who WANT to be cops, are qualified. Can they shoot, can they drive, what more do you need, right?
Most can’t pass a reading comprehension test, thank you education system. Most can’t pass a criminal background check. Most can pass a pshyc test. They will have the power of life and death in their hands every day. You better hope they have the mental discipline to restrain themselves. Many can not pass a lie detector test, oops, because they are liars. Go figure. Many have medical issues discovered in the medical check. When you ignore or lower these standards, you end up with HUGE liabilities. How much did BART pay out for an accidental shooting by a new officer? A lot. How much did the CHP pay out for the crash on Hwy 101? A lot. These were caused by officers who went through all the previously mentioned evaluations. Imagine if the system and process were dumbed down to save $10 an hour. Quality officers who can pass all these evaluations are truly in demand. I know an officer who was about to be hired by one agency and 3 others offered him a job the next day because he had already made the cut. It would have saved one of those agencies tens of thousands in eval and training costs to snatch him away from another agency. Cops pay and benefits are the only bait in the market to make cops wnat to move to another agency. Those agencies need quality, to reduce liabilty.
But hey, as long and he can hear thunder and see lighting, give hime the keys and a loaded gun and pay him minimum wage. We would all be better off right?
The newer hires are worth less and should be paid less. They already waive integrity standards as well as education standards and physical standards – even psychological standards have been lowered – even criminal records or history of drug usage is off the table. The state just banned using credit reports too.
The higher bar of days gone by excludes anyone who still wants to be a cop in our cop hating society. So, what are we left with to pick the next generation of officers? I have to wonder how it works.
I think the Press Democrat has neglected to report the actual laws in place because I don’t think Santa Rosa can just unilaterally decide to abandon compliance with state laws that require binding arbitration that control these agreements.
But to get back to the issue, future homogeneous mediocre police personnel are all going to be paid less in the future. I think that’s inevitable. But can any of you Wellington haters debate that there will be unintended consequences?
I imagine officers bumping iPhones to accept their bribes and payoffs and even openly competing for graft. That’s the kid of people parents are raising these day. Lower crime with corruption.
I guess this stuff runs in cycles. But the next couple of generations are going to cause a lot of societal damage. The mushy grey middle ground is a dangerous place to want your police officers to come from.
Eliminate binding arbitration- and the union for public safety.
There should be no bargaining for a public job.
This is how it should work: City posts a job “Police officer” and this is what we pay for that position. Anyone qualified can apply. If they want the job- they accept the pay. Why after they are hired, should they get to “bargain” for more money.
It would be like an airline selling a seat on a plane. Then when you sit in your seat, the airline saying, well I want more money for that seat. Or the passenger saying, Oh wait, I want to pay less for this seat.
Nope, a deal is a deal. If you don’t like the pay (that the public is offering) then quit or get another job.
Who are you guys/girls in badges to tell us, the public, why you should DEMAND more money. You literally sit all day (in Herman Miller chairs) or in comffy Crown Victoria’s (air conditioned) and drive around all day. Yes, the job can be dangerous. Just like a window washer or high-rise contractor or Cal Trans worker on a busy freeway- there are many dangerous jobs.
You chose this job- you liked the high pay (for very little education needed ahead of time) and either take the pay or quit and go get a job somwhere else.
I am so tired of hearing the cops and firefighter whine about their low pay. You have a cush job, great hours, great pay, great benefits, incredible retirement, total job security, literally impossible to fire you even if you do nothing productive (just drive around and answer calls) and you want more.
I say fire all of them; dis ban the unions and hire some workers that appreciate their positions of authority.
Amen!
How long before the old guard of police die out and the next generation of participation trophy recipients working cheaper selfishly become corrupt? Wasn’t the original idea of professionalizing police and paying them well intended to circumvent corruption? Are our young officers morally superior, or less? Unintended consequences are nearer than you think. You get the law enforcement you demand and the criminals you deserve.
Ban the unions? Really? I think you should ask you social studies teacher in your 7th grade class next week about that. They might re-educate you in the freedom of speech, press and assembly. Then again, maybe they don’t teach that anymore. As for police stiking and becoming just another special interest group? You cop haters have been calling them that for years. You think they care what the likes of you thinks of them? Puff a few more weeder… Have a nice day.
Binding Arbitration = holding a city hostage. P/S is already at 60% of the budget, if this continues the way it is now it will be greater than that in a few more years and who can afford that? Other departments in the city have take furlough pay cuts and P/S did not, p/s did wage deferrals, but that is not actual cash like the other units did that can not really afford to have these pay cuts.
Tony, alas, I agree with you!
Calvin Coolidge, the governor of Massachusetts and facing a strike by Boston police officers:
“There is no right to strike against the public safety.”
And if police ever gain the right to strike they will descend from highly admired by the community to viewed as just another special interest group out to get all they can.
Leave it all in place. It will bring the whole rotten system down much sooner. Then there will be no money to pay any pensions and life can begin anew.
Yes, eliminate binding arbitration, on the condition that police and fire regain the right to strike.
How about just banning Public Employee Unions all together & be done with it?
What are the leaches going to do, QUIT?
GOOD RIDDANCE to those who do. They will be quickly & easily replaced in this economy.
What happens to all that talent, experience & skills?
They go to WORK in the private sector were they can thrive, innovate & produce.
And if they can’t, ten I guess we just flushed out all the “dead wood” didn’t we??!!
We have been down the “you can’t get good talent without ridiculous pay” road & look were it has gotten us!
I’m NOT buying it anymore.
Call their bluff.
Ban the Unions.
While watching the public safety associations’ obviously disingenuous presentation to the Charter Review committee, I smiled when Doug Bosco interjected. It’s one thing for Brad Conners to sidestep Terry Price’s reasonable questions. But once Mr. Bosco spoke about the need to reform Binding Arbitration, I knew Herb Williams’ shoulders sunk as he realized his political machine was about to get even more difficult to run. Unless his current City Council majority is willing to vote against the reforms that will be proposed, and lose elections as a result, the city’s public safety officials are about to be humbled and find it more difficult to cough up over $30,000 each two years to smear progressives and elect Williams’ machine candidates. No amount of Tony Alvarez rants can stop reform if Mr. Bosco supports it. Watch it yourself! Wait for Mr. Bosco to respond to the nonsense. That’s the moment the political landscape changed: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Pages/20111201_CR_Video.aspx
The City Council’s Business Majority (Sawyer, Ours, Olivarez and Bartley)were endorsed and given thousands by the Police and Fire. Do you really believe they are going to take away public safety’s Binding Arbitration? This whole exercise is a big show so that the business backers Bosco & Herb Williams who is Sawyer’s campaign consultant for Supervisor by the way, and the council majority can pretend to have addressed the public cries for pension reform for public employees while continuing to retain the very lucrative political endorsements and money of the public safety associations.They hope to fool voters into forgetting the deal they made with public safety last year by “tweaking” binding arbitration so they can say they did something, while giving a wink and a nod to their public safety friends. I guarantee they will not eliminate arbitration. If they do anything but a cosmetic change I’ll eat my hat.
“…union organizer’s dream team?”
Do you know who’s on there? Bosco part of the dream team? Even Byrd, who you might’ve guessed, is obviously not a dream team member.
“Look at the Santa Rosa city council. Does that group look like a mob that would actually take on the cops and firefighters?”
You are correct here. After all, our illustrious mayor is a retired cop, pulling down over $100,000/year, AFTER spiking his pay his last year of active duty. Must be nice. Also, the newest “pro-business” council members met with public safety behind closed doors while campaigning, and LO AND BEHOLD, public safety has done very well with the “pro-business” majority. Again, must be nice.
Actually, in a play on Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be public safety.”
When mayor, Susan Gorin said binding arbitration was one of the policies responsible for wage and benefit increases the city could not afford. She was clear: The city’s ability to align its employee costs with budget realities would, unfortunately, need to wait until existing multi-year contracts expired. Until then the city was at the mercy of voluntary employee “givebacks.”
So, what has the council done? Routinely extend existing contracts in exchange for very modest givebacks. And now it’s talking as though binding arbitration will also survive with some slight modification.
Given the above, can we safely predict budget crises will be part of Santa Rosa’s future for many years to come? I think so.
The answer is yes. Eliminate binding interest arbritration for police and fire safety employees in Santa Rosa.
But the real question is will anything happen? That answer is a resounding NO. Look at the makeup of the committee reviewing the proposal. It is a union organizer’s dream team.
Look at the Santa Rosa city council. Does that group look like a mob that would actually take on the cops and firefighters?
This is just another public relations stunt with lots of hand wringing from the city council who always want blame shifted away from the spotlight shining on them.
Money, time and lots of hot air wasted on an idea going nowhere.