AgdaPkt 2003-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

q. A -9 That "neither the language nor rationale" of an earlier Supreme Court opinion finding a "state- wide concern" exception to an earlier version of this constitutional provision applies in this case. This was the key focus of the League's amicus brief in the case. Distinguished between the power to regu- late labor relations and the power to delegate regulatory authority to a private arbitration panel. In expressing this opinion the Court also said that it was "skeptical" that there could be a "statewide concern" about public safety labor strife when the state exempted itself from binding arbitration – an argument that the League and others had made when SB 402 was under consideration in the legislature. Rejected arguments that the arbitration panel is a public body. governing body to establish local salaries. Two justices wrote concurring opinions on this issue. A strong majority—five justices out of seven — joined the conclusion that SB 402 "clearly violates' this section of the Constitution. Chief Justice George's concurring opinion shared his view that "the question of whether SB 402 violates article XI, section 1(b) [is] much closer and more difficult than the majority acknowledges." The chief justice said that he would have just decided the case on the delegation prohibition section of the Constitution, which he indicated was more directed at the'pardcular'evil or mischief reflected in SB 402. Chief Justice George ap- peared concerned that the majority's conclusion on this issue precludes the Legislature from enacting a binding arbitration system that relied on a public sector body. ( "In my view, it is improper to prejudge the question of the validity or invalidity of such a legislative measure that is not before us ... "). In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice George indicated that he would have started and stopped the Court's analysis with article XI, section 11 —the prohibition against delegating these issues to a private party. Counties' Authority to Set Employee Compensation The Court also addressed Riverside County's argument that SB 402 violates the Constitution's grant of authority over compensation matters to the county board of supervisors. Strictly speaking, this argument applies only to counties. However the county constitutional language is very similar to that relating to charter city prerogatives. Moreover, the Supreme Court heavily relied on charter city case authority in reaching its conclusion that SB 402 violates this aspect of California's Constitution as well. As a result, this part of the opinion is useful for charter cities. In reaching the conclusion that SB 402 also violates this constitutional provision, the Court emphasized "there is a clear distinction between the substance of a public employee labor issue and the procedure by which it is resolved." The Court concluded that SB 402 is not merely procedural because it permits a body other than the county's Justice Moreno also wrote separately, observing that he concurred in the result reached in the main opinion. His comments are also directed at the article XI, section 1 analysis. Justice Moreno shared his view that the court need not decide whether some kind of statewide emergency would constitutionally justify legislation like SB 402 be- cause no such emergency had been alleged. Interestingly, he referred to a "presumption of unconstitutionality for legislation such as Senate Bill No. 402" but said that the presumption had not been rebutted in this case. - For more information on SB 402, including copies of the League's amicus brief and the Court's opinion, visit the League's website at www.cacites.org /sb402. Visit the League's Official Web Site -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 9 COURT DECISION from page 8""••• ""•0 ••09""•0 ....... * ........