Memorandum TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. FROM: Norberto L. Duenas MEASURE B SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS - QUO WARRANTO.

Transcription

1 COUNCIL AGENDA: //1 ITEM:. CITY OF SAN IPSE CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: MEASURE B SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS - QUO WARRANTO Memorandum FROM: Norberto L. Duenas DATE: May, 1 SUBJECT: MEASURE B SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS - QUO WARRANTO REASON FOR ADDENDUM On May, 1, the City received the Superior Court's denial of the third parties' Motion to Stay the enforcement of the Stipulated Judgment and Order (Judgment) in the pending Quo Warranto action. With the denial of the motion, the Writ of Quo Warranto and the Judgment are now effective. The Writ and Judgment require the City to take the necessary steps to declare Resolution No. null and void due to a procedural defect, and to declare that the pension modification ballot measure known as Measure B was not properly before the voters in and its provisions are therefore invalid and stricken. RECOMMENDATION Direct City staff to take the necessary steps to implement the Writ of Quo Warranto and Judgment in the San Jose Police Officers' Association's (POA) Quo Warranto action (Case No. 1--CV-0). ANALYSIS In March 1, Judge Beth McGowen of the Santa Clara County Superior Court signed the attached Writ of Quo Warranto and stipulated judgment and order instructing the City to take all necessary steps to declare Resolution No. (which placed the pension modification ballot measure known as Measure B on the ballot) null and void due to a procedural defect. However, the Court had temporarily stayed enforcement of the Judgment on a motion brought by third parties. The Superior Court heard arguments on the stay on April and rendered a decision dissolving the stay. The Court's denial of the motion to stay was received by the City on Monday, May, 1.

2 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May, 1 Subject: Measure B Settlement Discussions - Quo Warranto Page of With denial of the motion to stay the enforcement of the Judgment, the Court order is now in effect. The City is obligated to comply with the court order, and we recommend that the City Council direct City staff to take the necessary steps to implement the Writ of Quo Warranto and Judgment. Any resolutions and ordinances required to update the City Charter and the San Jose Municipal Code, including those to make the Municipal Code consistent with the Superior Court order and to implement the terms of parties' alternative pension reform settlement frameworks, will follow. COORDINATION This memorandum was coordinated with the City Attorney's Office. CEOA Not a Project, File No. PP-0(b), Personnel Related Decisions. City Manager For questions please contact Jennifer Schembri, Director of Employee Relations at (0) 0. Attachments

3 I 1 S j 1 1 f- a ra 1 lis CHARLES D. SAKAI (SBN 1) STEVEN P. SHAW (SBN ) RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 0 Sansome Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA Telephone: ()-00 Facsimile: () - Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE and CITY COUNCIL OF SAN JOSE / v % #. -' f L JhiA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF SAN JOSE and CITY COUNCIL OF SAN JOSE, Defendants. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No.: 1--CV-0 :r T i> '-u / ' < A % A V EXEMPT FROM FEES (GOV. CODE ) {PROPOSE } STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER Complaint Filed: April, Trial Date: None Set In this action, Plaintiff San Jose Police Officers' Association ("SJPOA") filed a Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto against Defendants City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose ("City") (collectively, "the Parties") on April,, alleging variotis defects in bargaining over the pension reform ballot measure (Resolution No. ) that subsequently became known as Measure B. The Court has been advised that, after extensive negotiations, the Parties have reached a Settlement Framework and Agreement of this action and related proceedings, and has received Stipulated Facts and Proposed Findings executed by the Parties, pursuant to the Settlement Framework and Agreement. The Court, having considered the Stipulated Facts and Proposed Findings and the other papers and pleadings filed, and good cause existing therefor, hereby issues the following as its Stipulated Judgment and Order herein. -1- [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER; CASE NO. 1--CV-0

4 1 1 cs CO I 1 I 1 Factual Findings of the Court 1. The California Supreme Court has held that a charter city (such as the City of San Jose) must comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act ("MMBA")- which govern relations between local public agency employers and local public employee organizations before placing an initiative measure on the ballot that would affect matters within the scope of the Act.. It is clear from the Parties' submissions and recitations of the relevant facts that the Parties did, in fact, meet and exchange proposals over a period of several months, reaching an agreedupon impasse on October 1,.. The MMBA's "duty to bargain requires the public agency to refrain from making unilateral changes in employees' wages and working conditions until the employer and employee association have bargained to impasse..." If an impasse exists, however, it may be broken, and the luty to bargain revived, by a change in circumstances that suggests that bargaining may no longer be Eutile,. In this case, the issue is whether impasse existed and, if so, whether it had been broken by uost-impasse ballot changes made by the City and whether the City Council should have negotiated further with SJPOA prior to placing the matter before the voters. Conclusions 1. Here, both Parties met and conferred in good faith before reaching an agreed-upon mpasse on October 1,.. However, continued modification of the proposed ballot language after impasse - ncluding concessions made by the City - created a further obligation to meet and confer before placing vfeasure B on the ballot.. The City's failure to do so is deemed to be a procedural defect significant enough to ieclare null and void Resolution, which placed Measure B on ballot. -- [PROPOSBD] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER; CASE NO. 1--CV-0

5 I 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Resolution, which placed Measure B on ballot, is null and void due to a procedural defect in bargaining. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Measure B was not properly placed before the electorate and it and all of its provisions are therefore invalid. I 1 CO 1 I 1. Dated: Hon. Beth A.R. McGow&n Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Beth McGov -- [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER; CASE NO. 1--CV-0

6 ( 1 Gregg McLean Adam, Bar No. gregg@maj labor.com Jonathan Yank, Bar No. jonathan@maj Iabor.com Jennifer S. Stoughton, Bar No, 0 jennifer@maj labor.com MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP 0 California Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, California Telephone:..100 Facsimile:..1 Attorneys for Relator-Plaintiff San Jose Police Officers' Association SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF SAN JOSE, and CITY COUNCIL OF SAN JOSE, Defendants. Case No. 1--CV-0.-P&esasED] Writ in QUO WARRANTO To the City of San Jose and City Council of San Josd ("City"), Defendants: WHEREAS, Plaintiff San Jose Police Officers' Association ("SJPOA") filed a Verified Complaint in Quo Warranto ("Complaint") against Defendants City of San Jose and City Council of San Jose ("City") (collectively, "the Parties") on April,, alleging various defects in bargaining over the pension reform ballot measure (Resolution No. ) that subsequently became known as Measure B; WHEREAS, the parties subsequently engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and entered into the attached Stipulated Facts and Proposed Findings, Judgment and Order which concluded that the continued modification of.the proposed ballot language after impasse created a WRIT IN Quo WARRANTO

7 1 1 1 further obligation to meet and confer before placing Measure B on the ballot and that the City's failure to do so is deemed to be a procedural defect significant enough to declare null and void Resolution, which placed Measure B on ballot. WHEREAS, the Court, having considered the Stipulated Facts and Proposed Findings, Judgment and Order, and the other papers and pleadings filed, under the authority vested in the judiciary via California Code of Civil Procedure section 0 has determined that Resolution, which placed Measure B on the ballot, was null and void due to a procedural defect in bargaining. THEREFORE, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, upon receipt of this Writ in Quo Warranto, to take all necessary steps to comply with the attached Stipulated Facts and Proposed Findings, Judgment and Order, and declare Resolution null and void due to a procedural defect. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to declare that Measure B was not properly placed before the electorate and it and all of its provisions amending the City of San Jose Charter are therefore invalid and are stricken. Subsequent ordinances amending the Municipal Code to conform with Measure B shall be replaced. Dated:, 1 1 By Hon. Judge of the Superior Court Judge Beth McQowen -- WRIT IN Quo WARRANTO

8 ( < APPROVED AS TO FORM Dated; &.1 MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP sanadara ; for Relator-I i Jose Police Officers' Association Dated: //T1 CITY OF SAN JOSE and CITY COUNCIL OF SAN JOSE. Charles Sakai Attorneys for City of San Jose Dated; 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA By Marc J. Nolan Deputy Attorney General -- WRIT IN QUO WARRANTO