CCMIN100102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala began her comments by saying Pleasanton has the best staff and she did not want people to think this was about the individual employees. It has to do with her view of fiscal responsibility. She said she has not been able to talk to others about this until now because all prior discussions had been in closed session. When the police and fire benefit packages were approved, she was told that because the state had approved the benefit, that cities would follow suit. She believed that money is better spent at the local level because the local representatives can see the needs and solve them better at the local level. She felt the cities were being forced to do things that were fiscally irresponsible because of decisions made at the state level. Even though she felt Pleasanton was a very wealthy city, it had a responsibility to look beyond that. She was concerned that the economy of California was declining and this proposal was part of that. She believed the decision on the retirement package has already been made, but she felt strongly that the public needs to know how its money was being spent. She was concerned about other cities in the Tri-Valley area, because once Pleasanton adopts this plan, they will be forced to follow in order to remain competitive in the job market. Ms. McKeehan indicated the labor negotiations are similar to negotiating a lawsuit settlement or claim settlement. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Labor Relations Act sets up the rules for discussing the parameters and guidelines. Staff discusses that with the Council and once agreement on the guidelines is reached, then staff goes to the bargaining units to negotiate an agreement. As with a claim or lawsuit, Council would not announce publicly that staff had direction to settle at $30,000, then expect those with whom staff was negotiating to negotiate a deal for less. The parties involved would of course hold out for the maximum amount established. By necessity, negotiations must take place in a closed setting. Ultimately the agreement is announced publicly and the vote on the issue is public. While it is true that Council can change its position at a public meeting, it is also true that the negotiations with the employees would not have taken place if the parameters were not reasonable. Council has generally been in support of the parameters presented to the employees in this instance. Staff has been negotiating in good faith based on those guidelines. Ms. Ayala said her point had been to make this information available to the public and to emphasize what she sees as a failing of cities and the state in general and she felt it was all based on politics. She believed this was a concern of the public and Pleasanton was contributing to the bankruptcy of other cities by adopting this plan, even though it can afford it. She referred to the nine cities that were used in comparison for this retirement plan and asked how many adopted a new retirement plan and what formula was chosen? Ms. McKeehan commented that the nine cities were chosen years ago as the survey agencies to be used during all negotiation processes, not just the current one. Of the nine cities, six adopted new plans; two adopted 2.7% at 55, four adopted 2.5% at 55; none had adopted 3% at 60. Pleasanton employees chose the middle of the three options. Ms. Ayala asked if the terms of the agreements or the percentage of raises in the agreements were considered for these other cities? Ms. McKeehan said one city did it as part of a one year agreement; one city did this as part of a three year agreement and one city did it as part of a seven year agreement. Of the three Pleasanton City Council 6 10/01/02 Minutes