Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Political establishment split over labor measure
Current and former City Council members at odds over proposed repeal of binding arbitration for police, firefighters

by Gennady Sheyner

When Palo Alto's firefighters spearheaded a ballot measure last year that sought to freeze staffing levels in the Fire Department, former Councilman John Barton was in the forefront of the opposition.

Barton, whose term ended in 2008 and who chose not to run again, took part in a debate against union President Tony Spitaleri and co-founded a group of former elected officials to fight the ballot measure. The voters ultimately handed Measure R an overwhelming defeat.

This year, however, Barton and Spitaleri find themselves on the same side of another election debate involving firefighters. The City Council voted in July to place on the November ballot a measure that would repeal the binding-arbitration provision in the City Charter. The provision, which has been in place since 1978, empowers a three-member panel to settle labor disputes between the city and its public-safety unions.

In placing the measure on the ballot, four council members — Karen Holman, Greg Scharff, Pat Burt and Greg Schmid — have argued that the provision is undemocratic because it strips the council of its power to balance the city budget. But Barton, who last year called the firefighter measure a "power grab," now applies the term to the council.

Voters adopted binding arbitration in 1978 to prevent police and fire unions from striking. State law has since made it illegal for these units to strike.

"If we take away binding arbitration and combine it with the fact that firefighters and police officers don't have a right to strike — you've essentially gutted their union," Barton told the Weekly.

Barton isn't the only current or former elected official to oppose Measure D, the proposal to repeal binding arbitration. Former Councilwoman LaDoris Cordell has also signed the argument opposing Measure D, as have current Vice Mayor Yiaway Yeh and Councilwoman Gail Price, the council's most outspoken critic of the repeal effort.

Other council members, including Larry Klein and Nancy Shepherd, supported modifying rather than repealing the existing binding-arbitration provision. Their proposal fell one vote short of adoption.

The decision by Barton and Cordell to join the election fray illustrates a major difference between last year's ballot measure and the one voters are being asked to consider on Nov. 8. Last year, the city's political establishment was united in opposing Measure R, which would have required the city to hold an election before it could reduce staffing levels in the Fire Department or close a fire station. This year, Palo Alto's elected officials and their predecessors are almost evenly split over the merits of the repeal.

The council placed the measure on the ballot through a 5-4 vote, with Yeh giving the four critics of binding arbitration the bare majority they needed. Yeh said he wanted to give the voters a clear say on the issue even though he personally opposes the repeal.

Other former elected officials have joined the council majority. Lanie Wheeler and Yoriko Kishimoto, both former mayors, have signed on to the argument in support of the repeal.

Kishimoto cited the growing expenditures in the Fire Department as the main reason for her supporting the repeal measure. According to the city's 2010 Service Efforts and Accomplishments report, total Fire Department spending increased by 37 percent between fiscal years 2006 and 2010.

Repealing the binding-arbitration provision, Kishimoto said, is one way to encourage the department to bring down its costs.

"There is a structural impediment to the firefighters getting the incentive to look at innovations in service delivery and cost cutting as the other departments have been forced to do," Kishimoto told the Weekly.

The official argument in favor of Measure D largely reiterates many of the points that Holman, Scharff, Burt and Schmid have made over the past year — namely that repeal of binding arbitration is necessary to ensure that all labor groups contribute in cutting down employee costs during the ongoing economic downturn.

"While City policy is for fairness across employee groups, binding arbitration for public-safety unions has prevented the City from ensuring equitable reforms across employee groups and balancing the budget," the pro-Measure D argument states.

Proponents of the repeal also note in the argument that the city's current budget assumes $4.3 million in salary and benefit reductions from the police and firefighter unions.

"Without these concessions the City may be forced to cut police staff, reducing vital emergency services," the argument states. "Alternately, the city may need to cut public services including streets, parks and libraries."

Opponents of Measure D counter in their official argument that the binding-arbitration provision has a "proven track record that works." The provision has been used six times, with each side scoring several victories. But the arbitrators had also rebuffed the city's earlier efforts to change the pension formula — a major driver in the recent escalation of employee costs.

The argument against Measure D notes that arbitrators are already required to take into account the city's financial position before making a ruling.

The provision, encoded in Article V of the City Charter, calls for the arbitrators to consider the final offer from each side and then select that one that "most nearly conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration" in setting compensation. These factors include the average consumer price index for goods and services, other employees' conditions of employment and "the financial condition of the city and its ability to meet the cost of the award."

"Binding arbitration, in the rare occasions it has been used since 1978, has proven to be a fair resolution process for the City, police and firefighters," the argument states. "Join respected city leaders and citizens for a fair process and Vote No on repeal of binding-interest arbitration."

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Posted by Who-Cares?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Who cares what John Barton or La Doris Cordell thinks. Neither of them showed any understanding of the budget issues that were confronting the City .. and during their respective "tours of duty" salaries kept rising for virtually everyone on the City's payroll. Neither of these two ever asked: "so .. what's the pay scale for firemen and police officers going to be in ten years, at the current rate of increase?"

No .. they just voted "Yes" on every budget that grew bigger over the years. Neither of them ever took the adversarial role of being the taxpayers' "champion". Neither of them ever gave any real sense of understanding what the budget meant.

So .. who cares what either of these two people think.

They are both gone .. and with good riddance ..

Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Barton and Cordell...part of the past, not the future.

Posted by Svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 6:53 pm

Who cares what barton, cordell, wheeler and kishimoto think. They are all former politicians who accomplished little while in office, ignoring what the city needed while pursiing their own little private agendas. Funny how even more of these former council members sign their letters to the papers using the title"former mayor". As if they actually won something more than a popularity contest within their little club. Do not forget also that during election time these people are always endorsing more candidates than there are seats up for election.

Everyone should read the proposition and decide for themselves how to vote. Do not rely on these former council members for guidance.

Posted by JA3++, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 7:15 pm

"According to the city's 2010 Service Efforts and Accomplishments report, total Fire Department spending increased by 37 percent between fiscal years 2006 and 2010."

This trend is unsustainable. It's time for significant change.

I sincerely hope the voters pass this measure.

Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm

A mere 37%? The National Debt increased 60% (8.51T to 13.56T). Maybe we should let children vote.

Posted by Jim, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 7:02 am

I bet the repeal of binding-arbitration will NOT be on the Nov 2011 Ballet.

Posted by Bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 11:59 am

Whether it is arbitration or mediation, it is still decision making by unelected individuals who may not even live in Palo Alto. Let our elected City Council make the staffing and budget decisions. At least we can hold them accountable for whatever they decide.

Yes on D to return control of our taxpayer money to the Palo Alto elected representatives.

Posted by David Pepperdine, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Cordell is a champion of union benefit bloat. (Recall the 100% free lifetime benefits for part-time workers she voted for, and for which we're all now paying.) Any time she takes a stand, it helps me figure out my position, which is 180 degrees opposed to hers.

Posted by Taxpayer, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm

"If we take away binding arbitration and combine it with the fact that firefighters and police officers don't have a right to strike -- you've essentially gutted their union," Barton told the Weekly.

What will be "gutted" is the ability for union employees who spend more time sleeping than working to continue to make $150K per year. These folks should be making $50K per year (more than the national average for ff's) but thanks to the power of the unions they have become a rich entitled class. Taxpayers and their progeny are going to work late in to their lives to pay for these exorbitant salaires and benefits. It is unsustainable. Eliminating binding arbitration is a small first step in correcting this massive problem. We need to remove Price and the other politicians who work for the unions at the expense of the citizens.

Posted by Jaime, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 6:08 pm

I agree with the Taxpayer.

Why are we who work until we're 67 for meager Social Security footing the bill for overpaid government workers to retire at 50 with six figure lifetime pensions?

Firefighters should make 50-60K (topping out in the low 100's for senior and leadership positions) and deal with 401K plans like the taxpayers who are paying their salaries. We need to eliminate this bloat before it becomes our children's problem.