Minutes 1992 0305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - March 5, 1992 Page - 6 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) back to the members of the POA and FFA, and they have the same kind of time constraints in their bylaws as the City has. He said they were told this matter must be resolved by March 2, 1992. He said a lack of planning on the City's part did not constitute an emergency on his part. Mr. Burdick said he told Mr. Rungis his negotiating committees were out of their respective authority and would have to go back to their boards of directors. He said he was told this was unacceptable. Mr. Burdick said, when he got back to his office on Tuesday night, he found a FAX from Mike Oliver as MERO, demanding that he attend a meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday. He said when he and his clients appeared at the meeting, Mr. Oliver did not appear. Mr. Burdick said he was quite angry that Mr. Oliver did not appear at the meeting. Mr. Burdick said at that. meeting Mr. Rungis demanded that the Associations drop their opposition and allow-this measure'to"be put on the ballot without going back to the Associations' boards or members. Mr. Burdick said the POA and FFA have invested a lot of time and money getting their measure on the ballot, and they are going to be very upset that they can't even vote as members whether they should endorse or not oppose the City measure, or try to work something else out. Mr. Burdick discussed the merits of the two proposals. He said the City's proposal will divest the City Council of its discretion to refer to the voters something as minimal as a $200 uniform allowance, and he doesn't think that's good government. He said it also raises a question as to what "costs more" means. He asked if an award that is favorable to the City but "costs more" would apply. Mr. Burdick said neither collective bargaining agreement expires for thirteen months. He said, if the City really wanted some form of voter review, they can put the City's measure on the November ballot and take their time about it. He said they could wait and see if the Hathaway Amendment passes, then take their time to put the City's measure on the ballot after additional meeting and conferring. He said they have plenty of time before the Hathaway measure passes to put something on the November ballot. Mr. Burdick commented regarding Mr. Rungis' baseball arbitration analogy. He said there is a strong public policy in this State which supports arbitration. He said in the baseball context, the arbitrator is not required or asked to consider the employer's ability to pay, but simply considers two choices. He said the Hathaway proposal says the arbitrator must consider the employer's ability to pay. Mr. Burdick asked the City Council to decline to put the City measure on the ballot. He said it is ill considered and poorly thought out. He said the City Council has all summer to get something on the ballot in November if the Hathaway proposal passes in June.