Among other things in a skewering letter to the California Public Employment Relations Board, San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith writes, “Never in the history of this state … has there ever been a requirement to meet and confer over a citizens’ initiative placed on the ballot by voter signatures.”
That pretty much sums it up when it comes to the state PERB lawsuit alleging the city’s lack of utilizing the meet and confer process with public employee unions prior to placing the Comprehensive Pension Reform measure on the ballot. As Goldsmith notes, CPR is not a city council initiated measure.
Case closed, it seems, except when it come to PERB acting at the behest of its buddies.
Read the letter from Goldsmith.
Here too are declarations from Goldsmith and Council President Tony Young.
Comments 4
“As Goldsmith notes, CPR is not a city council initiated measure.”
The complaint focuses on whether Mayor Sanders violated labor law by crafting and advocating for the measure as a private citizen to avoid negotiations with employee unions. According to the complaint:
The complaint filed by the Municipal Employees Association alleged that Sanders created the so-called citizens initiative as a “sham device” to avoid the city’s obligations to meet-and-confer with unions over significant changes to the pension system.
“As the city’s CEO and chief labor negotiator, this mayor has used his city-paid time, resources, power, prestige, visibility and ‘good offices’ to inspire, write, negotiate, endorse and sponsor the proposed citizens initiative which he has described as his legacy as mayor,” the complaint said.” https://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/13/state-board-will-sue-block-401k-initiative/
Further: “Sanders and City Attorney Jan Goldsmith have maintained that because the initiative is a citizen initiative — placed on the ballot via signatures rather than legislative action — there is no need to negotiate its terms with labor.”
Question: From whence did this initiative originate? And on who’s time (City?)? Mayor Sanders, Council member DeMaio?
Really, did they do the work from their City office desks and time on the City clock?
As private citizens? REALLY?
Looks like an end run around the rules of engagement with labor. It will be very interesting what PERB comes up with. Hope they take their time to do an exhaustive in depth analysis.
According to recent financial analysis of the proposed CRP, the measure will not really save the City any money in the long run.
Gwendolyn: I have a better money saving idea. Terminate all the city employees and replace them with non-union people from the private sector who have been laid off. Give them a 401 k plan better than what they got in their private sector jobs. You will get a harder working employee who will be grateful for their well-paid job and who doesn’t have a huge sense of entitlement.
Gwendolyn – I don’t believe your legal argument, or any, that is summed up as “REALLY” is likely to hold much water in any court.
The reality is PERB’s complaint fails to acknowledge the constitutional rights (federal and state) of individuals, including elected officials, to participate in the electoral process. Their official position may limit the time/manner in which they participate/support, but cannot be used an absolute ban. The PERB Board and the Labor Union’s ridiculous claim attempts to violate Mr. Sanders’ right to be involved and participate in electoral activities.
Neither MMBA nor any other state laws that deal with labor relations trump Federal and State constitutional rights. If labor’s argument somehow does win, we all lose because of the dangerous precedent that would be set.
“Supposedly the PERB has found that Mayor Sanders improperly attempted to circumvent meet-and-confer requirements in helping to craft and promote the CPR initiative, and will challenge the measure’s validity in court.” But that’s not all. Supposedly, it really wasn’t necessary for the mayor and city attorney to “bless” this measure as ‘private citizens’. Since they did though, the PERB now has found that to be illegal. Looks like the CPR end run may have just hit a brick wall.
And to make it even more interesting, it appears that the private/public service boundary is not what it seems to be. Hence, Goldsmith’s statements benefit the initiative but also show conflict of interest. Here again is the Mayor (and city attorney) are playing fast and loose with legalities. Why not just play the pension reform game straight instead of using all this fancy footwork causing a lot of trip ups?