I’m in receipt of the 63 pg PERB decision of 2/11/13, but I haven’t had a chance to go over it with a fined-toothed comb.
But I will. This is my field of expertise.
Essentially, City put Prop B on the ballot without meeting and conferring with its unions first which is a violation of the MMBA (Cal. Gov Code sec 3500 et seq).
Essentially, this Decision and the certain litigation stemming from it will have the effect of holding Prop B in abeyance. And it has a better chance of striking it down through the courts than not.
Due to unlawfully jumping the gun, City has an arduous uphill climb in this case, IMO.
The employees City has hired since Prop B took effect (1/1/13?) may very well retroactively get DB plans after the “fat lady” finally sings her encores in this case.
City had until yesterday (3/1) to file objections to PERB’s Statement of Decision and request an oral argument of their objections to PERB.
Your “Cal Watchdog” commentator essentially claimed PERB is in the unions’ pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. In disciplinary cases, PERB usually sides with the employer. PERB is simply following the law here. City of SD didn’t. It’s as simple as that.
Perhaps if the City hadn’t taken a “wild west” approach in putting poorly worded and too-far-reaching Prop B on the ballot without first meeting and conferring with its unions, they wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. Now they’re no doubt wasting a whole team of attorneys at the City Attorney’s Office to fight the decision that they actually fought to get before themselves, lol.
Love it.
That’s your SD tax dollars at work, folks. In SD, politics ALWAYS wins out over potholes.
What I don’t understand is why City Attorney Jan Goldsmith didn’t advise those within the City supporting the Prop B pension reform initiative that they were going about it improperly and thus would never stick.
He’s smarter than this. Maybe he just figured he couldn’t change some of the mindsets of the council, mayor and city administration so they would just have to end up “learning the hard way.” After all, he and the attorneys in his office (one of the four “charging parties” in this case, lol) work 8 am to 5 pm regardless if they have six cases each or 60 cases each!
I noticed Goldsmith is not promising any particular outcome on the Cal Watchdog video.
Carry on, City. This “oral argument,” IF it happens, might be just juicy enough for me to trek on up to Oakland to watch it. WTH, I could take some city attorney employee friends along and visit some old haunts while we’re up there :=]
paramount, I’m not quite sure what your “Cal Watchdog” video was intended to accomplish.
