Minutes 1992 0305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - March 5, 1992 Page - 5 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Burdick said the chronology submitted by Mr. Rungis and Mr. Tarver is basically correct. He said in mid-October, Mr. Hathaway presented a Notice of Intention to Circulate Petitions to the City Clerk. He said at that moment, everyone in the City knew precisely what was going on. He said the POA and FFA had become so frustrated with the way they had been treated for the past three years, they felt compelled to go to the voters with a Charter amendment to resolve disputes over their wages, hours and working conditions. He said no group of police officers and fire fighters that had circulated such petitions had ever failed to get the necessary number of signatures to put the measure on the ballot. He said in January the Clerk was presented with the petitions, which everyone knew were coming. He said Mr. Tarver sent out a letter on February 27, 1992, with a one-page attachment, the City's measure, which basically said, if the arbitrator made an award which is more than the City's last, best offer, the voters would have to figure out if-they wanted to-"fund-that-award-by-an appropriation or tax. He said his clients were not opposed to it in particular, and therefore were in no great hurry to meet, but had some questions. He said at the meeting on February 21st, he asked Mr. Rungis if this was intended to apply to grievance arbitration, what was an appropriation, etc. He said while he was asking questions, Mr. Rungis and Mr. Tarver began to read the measure for the first time. He said Mr. Rungis and Mr. Tarver caucused for 95 minutes and came back with completely different language. He said this language no longer proposed a funding mechanism but contained provisions for mandatory referendum on the award and funding it. He said the two proposals could not be more different. He said he had asked at the start of the meeting if there were any time constraints and was told March 2, 1992, was the deadline, six working days later. Mr. Burdick said, just as the City Council has its procedures, so do his clients; and neither organization can enter into an agreement with the City unless the membership ratifies it, which Mr. Rungis and Mr. Tarver knew. He said the FFA requires a general meeting, five days' notice, etc. He was told he had to reach agreement in six working days. He said when they negotiate with the City they get 60, 90, etc. , days. Mr. Burdick said that, at the next meeting, he attempted to fully explore the philosophy of the City measure. He asked if the City was insisting that any offer over the City's last, best offer must go to the voters for any amount. He said Mr. Rungis said yes, the City would insist on this. He gave an example of uniform allowances and asked if that would have to go to the voters. Mr. Burdick said this means the City Council would want to give up any discretion it has relating to arbitration that costs one penny more than the City's offer. Mr. Burdick said he asked if the City insisted on mandatory referendum and tax override and was told yes. He said he explained that he had to go