AgdaPkt 2007-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 8 contained its own exception where the decision "directly involves the department of the government entity that employs the officer or employee...." The Court reasoned the public employees serving on the board were participating in decisions that affected the department in which they were employed, because employees in those departments were members of the bargaining unit negotiating with the city and as a result, would receive the increased pension benefits. The Court concluded, therefore, the salary exception did not apply. Impact of the Court's Decision The Court seemed unaware of the profound effect its interpretation of the salary exception will have. Typically in collective bargaining, a bargaining unit will select one or more employee representatives to represent the unit in negotiations with management over compensation and work conditions. The negotiations will inherently involve the department or departments of the bargaining unit representatives because most, if not all, non-management employees of a department will be members of the same bargaining unit. So, under the Court's interpretation of the salary exception, no member of the bargaining unit could participate in negotiations with management over salary and benefits. To take the analysis further, often management employees who are charged with negotiating agreements with the bargaining units have their benefits tied to those benefits provided to employees within the bargaining units. If this is the case, these management employees may also be unable to participate in negotiations if the outcome of the negotiations would affect the management employee's department because they will not be able to rely on the salary exception to section 1090. The Court's interpretation leaves an open question: if neither management nor a bargaining unit may be represented by city employees during salary negotiations, how is collective bargaining to work? The League of California Cities was informed that the defendants will be petitioning the California Supreme Court for review. The League will likely be filing a letter with the Supreme Court in support of review. Stay tuned to future issues of Priority Focus for updates on this critical collective bargaining issue. To read the 4th District Court of Appeal's opinion, visit courtinfo.ca.gov, look up the court, and then the published opinion of Lexin v. Superior Court. California Transit Association Sues Over State Budget On Sept. 6, the California Transit Association (CTA) filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior Court to prevent approximately $1.3 billion of transit funds slated for bus and light rail service from being used to balance the FY 2007-08 state budget. To help balance the budget, the Schwarzenegger Administration proposed diverting funds from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) to the general fund. The money is now earmarked for debt repayment and other transportation related programs including home-to-school transportation. Part of PTA's funding comes from the sales tax on gas and diesel and is supposed to be used for transit-related purposes. In recent years, high gas prices have helped increase the PTA's balance. The Administration has asserted that these transit funds can be shifted because they are still being used for transportation purposes as well as paying off the state's debt. The CTA's lawsuit (which was filed against California Director of Finance Michael G. Genest and State Controller John Chiang) contends however, that shifting these funds is illegal. In addition, it alleges that shifting the funds violates voter-supported constitutional amendments that designated 8