While California Cities Gear Up to Sue the State Over the Issue, the Local Fight Rages On

BY TRACY IDELL HAMILTON

They may not have generated the ad nauseam letter-writing campaigns of the SOAR initiatives, but proponents and opponents of the dueling Measures S and T are equally forceful in their doomsday rhetoric that a win for the other side will spell dire consequences for us all.

Measure S was placed on the ballot in San Luis Obispo with 6,400 voter signatures gathered by the city’s firefighter and police officer unions. It would replace the current bargaining system with binding arbitration for working-condition and wage issues that cannot be settled through the bargaining process.

If good faith bargaining between the city and either the firefighter or police officer association breaks down, a panel of three arbiters–one chosen by each side and third "neutral" party–would render a final judgment on whichever outstanding issues can't be resolved. That decision–based on the last, best, and final offers from each side as well as comparisons with wages and working conditions in similar cities–would be binding on both the city and the union.

Jeff Zimmerman, president of the SLO Firefighters Local 3523, said past difficulties reaching contractual agreements with the city led them to seek binding arbitration as relief.

"We've had enough," he said. "Now we're going to the voters."

From the city's point of view, binding arbitration removes the local control mandated over budget, wages, and working conditions. If the arbiters choose to side with the union on a wage increase the city says it can't afford, other city services could be in peril.

"The arbiter could go into the General Fund and find the money to pay for the increases," said former councilwoman Dodie Williams, one of several former city officials leading the No on S effort. "And the city would have to abide by it–even if it meant cutting other city services."

Other provisions of the measure are equally worrisome to the city.

If the city and the union cannot agree on a third arbiter, they’d be given a list of seven names from the state Mediation and Conciliation Service. The list would then be whittled down to one name by each side’s alternately striking names from the list.

Because the measure says the city must be first to strike a name from that list, city officials fear the third arbiter would not be neutral, but biased toward the union. S also requires that the arbiters use the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index when making salary decisions.

To head off this perceived usurpation of fiscal control, the City Council voted to place a competing measure on the ballot, Measure T, which would nullify many of Measure S's key provisions. It would require a taxpayers’ vote before any across-the-board wage increases could take effect, and limit binding arbitration to across-the-board salary increases only. It specifies that the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price index not be used as a factor by the arbiter.

Opponents of Measure S argue that the measure is about unrealistic salary increases sought by the unions, and little else. They say the SLO police and firefighters are already among the highest paid in the county, and have seen their salaries rise beyond the Consumer Price Index in the last ten years.

They also point to other cities that have binding arbitration, such as Anaheim, which was forced to pay an additional $1.2 million annually in salary increases at the end of the arbitration process.

Zimmerman is outraged that the city is focused on the money issue, and said working conditions are equally important if not more so.

"With all the growth in the city, we wanted an extra engine person at Station 3," he said.

In response to that need at Station 3, the city first proposed adding a volunteer, and in the end reduced firefighters’ beginning salaries to pay for the extra body. Zimmerman called the compromise unacceptable.

With a balanced budget, fat coffers from several years of economic prosperity, and millions in reserves, the city should be able to afford to fully staff every station, Zimmerman says.

It is difficult to sort out the "he said, she said" aspects of the fight. While the city of Anaheim was forced to raise salaries after an arbitrator found for the union, Brett Colson, the city's public information officer could not say exactly where city services had been cut to make up for the loss.

"Maybe we only trim our trees every 24 months instead of every 18. I don't know, that's just an example," he said

Firefighters in Anaheim, not surprisingly, are happy with the outcome. Mike Feeney, president of the local union there, said, "For years and years, the city always had the upper hand. Arbitration brought fairness to the process."

He also pointed out that the arbiter did not side with the union unilaterally, but found for the city on some working condition issues.

The neutrality of the third arbiter is a major concern for the city. Micki Callahan, division chief for the state's Mediation and Reconciliation Services, said her office computer generates a list of arbiters the two sides may choose from, and that either the city or the union may request that those people have experience with public safety issues.

She defended the neutrality of the arbiters.

"These people develop reputations for their decisions," Callahan said. "If they develop a reputation one way or another, they'll always be struck first by the other side, and they'll stop getting work."

Binding arbitration is already a hot topic all over the state, with last month's signing of a bill that would allow binding arbitration between any California city and its public safety associations on wage issues. Right now, of 475 California cities, more than 20 have binding arbitration.

The local proposal goes further by including working conditions in the arbitration. If Measure S, it will supersede the state law. (If Measures S and T both pass, they’ll both supersede state law–but Measure T is written in such a way that it will supersede Measure S.)

Already, the League of California Cities has announced it will challenge the constitutionality of the state law, which is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2001. The league argues that it is unconstitutional to place budget-making decisions in the hands of private outside persons or bodies–the same argument the city of San Luis is making.

While the debate rages on, at least for a few more days, the unions and the city may take a lesson from the city of Sunnyvale, which had similar competing ballot measures in 1998. There, the voters rejected both measures. Æ