League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Santa Clara County, CA November 2, 2010 Election
	Measure V Binding Arbitration City of San Jose binding arbitration - Majority Approval Required Pass: 148,368 / 66.41% Yes votes ...... 75,038 / 33.59% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure V

Arguments Against Measure V

It's time to get control over the runaway costs of public employee wages and benefits that drive us to cut community services like police, fire, libraries and parks year after year. Each year, San Jose taxpayers foot the bill for an average of over $180,000 for each police officer and firefighter. Increases in pay and benefits dictated by outside arbitrators have driven up these skyrocketing costs, as have contracts negotiated under the threat of binding arbitration. Payments for retirement benefits have tripled over the last ten years, even as budget cuts have forced us to reduce our workforce by 20%. The 2009-2010 Santa Clara County Grand Jury's report "Cities Must Rein In Unsustainable Employee Costs," concluded the arbitration process in San Jose "has resulted in wage and benefit decisions that have been greater than the growth in basic revenues sources." www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJ.html#reports. In 2007, an outside arbitrator granted a pension increase to firefighters, many of whom now enjoy six-figure pensions. That decision created a projected unfunded liability of $30 million, borne wholly by San Jose taxpayers. Vote YES to place common-sense limits on the power of unaccountable, unelected outside arbitrators: Keep outside arbitrators from giving pay raises that exceed the average increase in designated revenues over the past 5 years. Require that the arbitrators' primary factor in settlements be based on the City's financial ability to pay from on-going revenues without reducing City services. Prevent outside arbitrators from giving retroactive benefits or creating unfunded liabilities. Vice Mayor Chirco and Councilmembers Constant, Herrera, Liccardo, Nguyen, and Oliverio support Measure V because it stops arbitrators from spending money the City doesn't have. Help San Jose regain control of the budget and protect the taxpayers with honest negotiations and good faith bargaining. Vote YES on Measure V. http://www.SanJoseFiscalReforms.com /s/ Chuck Reed Mayor of San Jose /s/ Patricia M. Dando CEO-President, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce /s/ Marc B. Liebman School Superintendent /s/ Douglas A. McNea President, Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Association /s/ Nanci C. Williams Small Business Owner

Firefighters and Police Officers oppose Measure V! Spending by city politicians is wildly out of control and has led to the layoff of 49 firefighters, the closure of five fire engine companies and the elimination of 80 police officer positions. Emergency response times are getting slower and will only get worse. Measure V puts our safety in jeopardy. Please vote NO on Measure V, it is not what it seems. City Council Members voted to exclude the full text of the measure in this pamphlet. Why? Look at the fine print and you'll see it makes it easier to layoff firefighters, police officers and close neighborhood fire stations. Measure V could cause San Jose to fall below National Fire Protection Association recommended minimum staffing levels for fire companies, leaving staffing decisions to bureaucrats. While closing fire companies and cutting neighborhood police patrols, city politicians continue to waste taxpayer dollars. They have spent millions for a fleet of city cars, tens of millions annually to pay the debt on their new City Hall, and millions more for pet projects, bonuses and consultants. The current system resolves disagreements between the city and firefighters/police officers using an independent arbitrator who makes decisions after weighing all the facts and data. Measure V is ill advised and was rushed on the ballot at the last minute. Even some of the supporters of the measure have admitted that the language is largely untried and is sure to invite lawsuits causing an intended costs. Our politicians spend money we don't have. Now they want to make up for their overspending by balancing the budget at the expense of public safety. Let's hold City Hall accountable, VOTE NO on Measure V. /s/ Thomas Wheatley Assistant Chief of Police, Retired /s/ Juan F. Diaz Fire Battalion Chief /s/ Jeffery J. Ricketts Retired San Jose Police Sergeant /s/ Richard M. Wardall Fire Captain /s/ Jim Shore Advisory Board Member, Crime Victims United

Full Text of Measure V

That Section 1111 of the City Charter be amended to read as follows: SECTION 1111. Compulsory Arbitration for Fire and Police Department Employee Disputes. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of San Jose that strikes by firefighting and peace officers are unlawful in the state of California and not in the public interest and should be prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to such strikes. If any firefighter or peace officer employed by the City of San Jose willfully engages in a strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employment and may not be reinstated or returned to City employment except as a new employee. No officer, board, council or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City. (b) The City, through its duly authorized representatives, shall negotiate in good faith with the recognized fire and police department employee organizations on all matters relating to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment, including the establishment of procedures for the resolution of grievances submitted by either employee organization over the interpretation or application of any negotiated agreement including a provision for binding arbitration of those grievances. Unless and until agreement is reached through negotiations between the City and the recognized employee organization for the fire or police department or a determination is made through the arbitration procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit or condition of employment for the members of the fire department or police department bargaining unit shall be eliminated or changed. (c) All disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City and either the fire or police department employee organization shall be submitted to a three-member Board of Arbitrators upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute. All issues concerning the scope of the Arbitration Board's authority, jurisdiction or powers shall, upon the request of either party, be resolved by petition to the Superior Court. (d) Representatives designated by the City and representatives of the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute, controversy or grievance shall each select one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three (3) days after either party has notified the other, in writing, that it desires to proceed to arbitration. The third member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agreement between the two arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization, and shall serve as the neutral arbitrator and Chairman of the Board. In the event that the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot agree upon the selection of the third arbitrator within ten (10) days from the date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, then either party may request the State of California Conciliation Service to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experienced as labor arbitrators. If the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of seven (7) to act as the third arbitrator, they shall alternatively strike names from the list of nominees until only one name remains and that person shall then become the third arbitrator and chairman of the Arbitration Board. the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara to appoint an arbitrator who shall be a retired judge of the Superior Court. Any arbitration convened pursuant to this section shall be conducted in conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that such procedures do not conflict with this Charter Section. Unless otherwise mandated by state or federal law, all arbitration hearings shall be open to the public and all documents submitted in arbitration shall be public records. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter to the contrary, the authority, jurisdiction and powers of the Board of Arbitrators are limited by the provisions of this Section. (e) At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Board may establish, a last offer of settlement on each of the issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds by the preponderance of the evidence submitted to the Arbitration Board satisfies section (f) below, is in the best interest and promotes the welfare of the public, and most nearly conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private employment, including, but not limited to, changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services, the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services, and the financial condition of the City and its ability to meet the cost of the award . (f) In all arbitration proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, the primary factors in decisions regarding compensation shall be the City's financial condition and, in addition, its ability to pay for employee compensation from on-going revenues without reducing City services. No arbitration award may be issued unless a majority of the Arbitration Board determines, based upon a fair and thorough review of the City's financial condition and a cost analysis of the parties' last offers, that the City can meet the cost of the award from on-going revenues without reducing City services. The arbitrators shall also consider and give substantial weight to the rate of increase or decrease of compensation approved by the City Council for other bargaining units. "Compensation" shall mean all costs to the City, whether new or ongoing, for salary paid and benefits provided to employees, including but not limited to wages, special pay, premium pay, incentive pay, pension, retiree medical coverage, employee medical and dental coverage, other insurance provided by the City, vacation, holidays, and other paid time off. (g) Additionally, the Board of Arbitrators shall not render a decision, or issue an award, that: 1. increases the projected cost of compensation for the bargaining units at a rate that exceeds the rate of increase in revenues from the sales tax, property tax, utility tax and telephone tax averaged over the prior five fiscal years; or 2. retroactively increases or decreases compensation, including, but not limited to, enhancements to pension and retiree health benefit for service already rendered, but excluding base wages; or 3. creates a new or additional unfunded liability for which the City would be obligated to pay; or 4. deprives or interferes with the discretion of the Police Chief or Fire Chief to make managerial, operational or staffing decisions, rules, orders and policies in the interest of the effective and efficient provision of police and fire services to the public. (h) Compliance with the provisions of this Section shall be mandatory and enforceable pursuant to section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; failure to comply with these provisions shall also constitute an act in excess of jurisdiction. (i) After reaching a decision, the Arbitration Board shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall not be publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten-day period the parties may meet privately, attempt to resolve their differences, and by mutual agreement amend or modify any of the decisions of the Arbitration Board. At the conclusion of the ten-day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board together with any amendments or modifications agreed to by the parties shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding upon the parties. The City and the recognized employee organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the award. (j) The expenses of any arbitration convened pursuant to this section, including the fee for the services of the Chairman of the Arbitration Board, shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses. (k) This Section shall be effective immediately upon passage by the voters, and shall apply to any arbitration in which hearings commence after November 2, 2010. (l) The voters declare that the provisions of this Section are not severable, and none would have been enacted without the others. Should any portion of this Section 1111 be enjoined or declared invalid, all provisions shall be deemed invalid and inoperative and there shall be no compulsory arbitration for fire and police department employee disputes.