Accusations of Deception Fly at Heated Debate on Measure D

If the opposing sides of Measure D agreed on only one thing Monday night during a League of Women Voters-sponsored debate,  it was that the other is engaged in a deception campaign against Palo Alto voters.

City Council Members Karen Holman and Greg Scharff, arguing on behalf of the Yes on D campaign, said opponents of the attempt to for public safety employees are lying about the neutrality of third-party negotiators.

Binding arbitration “places contracts in the hands of a single person who has a pro-union bias,” said Scharff, because that third-party is “primarily composed of former union attorneys” and therefore won’t base their rulings on the financial health of the city.

Dick Alexander called that argument a “myth,” however, saying that since both sides in a dispute have to agree upon the third party, “any arbitrator that seems biased will not be selected again by the other side.”

Alexander, who argued for the No on D side with council member Gail Price, insisted that repealing binding arbitration would equate to managing public safety workers though “tyranny and dictation,” with Price saying that the repeal would erode the rights of union labor and that the whole debate was really a “veiled conversation about [repealing] collective bargaining.”

“If we go down this erosions path,” said Price, then we are becoming like Wisconsin, and it’s very, very disturbing.”

Karen Holman rejected this characterization, saying firefighters are paid on average $50,000 more annually in salary than the average unionized city employee, not including the $20,000 in overtime firefighters make, plus benefits, for a total average compensation of $225,000.

“This year’s budget, perhaps for the first time in its history, was not balanced,” said Scharff, because general fund expenditures for fire increased 50 percent since 2002, compared to only 6 percent for all other city services, not including police.

Palo Alto Police and Fire Chief Dennis Burns, said Scharff, warned the council months ago that if the Firefighters Union didn’t come to the table, he’d have to lay off eleven police officers. The union and the city to a tentative new contract, negating binding arbitration for this round, but leaving it on the table for future disputes.

Gail Price said it is still important to defeat the measure, because binding arbitration is a “key part of the collective bargaining process,” which itself is part of the city’s legacy of treating employees fairly and a “matter of principal.”

She pointed out that the process has only been used six times since it was first approved by Palo Alto voters in 1978 as a means to prevent public safety workers from striking, while still fairly compensating them.

Dick Alexander noted that San Francisco, Oakland, and 19 other Northern California cities also use binding arbitration, and that it isn’t fair to say that these rules have led to lower general funds for Palo Alto streets, parks and social services, because city leaders have agreed to those deals in regular negotiations.

“The last time binding arbitration was used to decide firefighters’ wages and benefits was in 1980,” he said. “The vast majority of decisions over contracts were made by city officials at the negotiation table.”

Scharff said there’s a good reason for that: the mere threat of binding arbitration—and the high costs associated with it—has often been enough to force the city to make undesirable concessions.

“The threat of binding arbitration weighs heavily in union negotiations with Firefighters Union President Tony Spitalleri,” he said.

Karen Holman echoed those remarks, noting that in the last 16 months, while firefighters have been without a contract, the city has spent $140,000 on binding arbitration plus another $170,000 to put the repeal on the ballot.

“That’s $310,000 of taxpayer money, money better spent on city services to its residents.”

For a great in-depth guide to the pros and cons of Measure D, .