Laserfiche WebLink
8A <br /> Page 5 <br /> - �eague of CaEifamia Cities ' <br /> Aftn: Natasha Kari <br /> 9400 K Stree#,4fh Floor <br /> Sacramento,CA 95814 <br /> For more information on the awards,contact League Legislative Analyst Natasha Karl at{916) <br /> ss8-azsa. <br /> CalPfornia Supreme Court Gran#s Review af Callective Barga3ning Case <br /> Lexin v. Superior Gourt wiU be reviewed by the Califomia Supreme Court,vacafing a 4th District <br /> Court ofiAppeal decision that had#he poten#i�l to fundamentally change the collective bargaining <br /> process. <br /> Ti�e case arose aut of a decision by the San Diega Employees'Reti�ement System(SDCERS) <br /> board of administra±ion to approve ar increase in pension benefi#s far city employees and at ihe <br /> same time,allow the pension fund to be undertunded. The San Diega County district atfomey <br /> brought a criminal pror�ding against the certain members of the board, alleging a violation of <br /> Govemment Code secfion 1090: <br /> The Court ot Appea!held that the salary exception to section 3 090 d3d not apply where public <br /> employees were participating in decisions that affected the deparkment in which they were <br /> employed, Because employees in thase departmer�ts were members of the bargaining unit <br /> negotia#ing with the city and as a result,would receive the increased pension benefits. <br /> 7he League joined witf�the Cafifornia state Association of Counties{CSAC},the Association of <br /> Califomia Water Agencies(ACWA), and the California Speciai Distnc#s Association{CSDA)to <br /> support Lexin's request that the Califomia Supreme Court graaf reviaw of fhis decision. The <br /> review was granted on Nov.28. The grant of review vacates the fower court's decision,aibwing <br /> the California Supreme Court to make its own ruling in the case. The review is scheduled for <br /> some time next year. <br /> Had the Caiifornia Supreme Gourt declined to reviewr the case,the 4th GourE of Appeal's decision <br /> would have left the open qusstian:if neither management nar a bargaining unit may be <br /> represented by city employees during safary negotiations,how is collective bargaining to work? <br /> Once the case is reviewed,another updaie on the status of this issue wiii be publishect in Priority <br /> Focus. For Pnority Focus'initial coverage of this case,please see"Legal Decision May Have a <br /> Profound Effect on Collective Bargaining"on Page 7 of the Sept.21 edition, located at <br /> www,cac ities.org/c�f2�07. <br /> California Agencies Rank`Average' in Study on Law Enforcement Records Access <br /> Califomians Aware(CalAware),a nonprofit organ�zatiort whose mission fs to support and defend <br /> apen govemmertt,concluded that collectively,California law enfo�ement agencies average a"C" <br /> far lega!compliance with the Public Recocds Act,and an'R"for customer serv�ce in regard to <br /> record requests. <br /> Ca#Aware's report,which examineti 116 Califomia law enforcerrtent agencies statewide,can be <br /> found at www.calawar�_orq. Ttre study is a f4llow-up to an ea�lier report that found law <br /> enforcement agencies av�raged an"F"in complying with Public Records Act requests for law <br /> enforcement agencies. <br /> The League af Cali€omia Cities was sharply criticai af the methodology used by CalAware in <br /> determining compliance in that report. To the organization's eredit,CalAware modified its <br /> methodology for this most recent current report to address some of the Leagus's concerns. <br /> 5 <br />