If Stockton’s 2012-2015 bankruptcy taught us anything, it is to be wary of taking budget authority from qualified officials and substituting some procedure or cryptic formula which ends up gushing red ink.
So with skepticism — though hopefully not a closed mind — we report that the City Council on Thursday will okay placing a measure on November’s ballot requiring binding arbitration to resolve negotiation impasses between the city and police or firefighters.
“I’m not looking to bankrupt the city,” said Det. Patrick High, president of the Stockton Police Officers’ Association, where the proposed measure originated. “But I can’t idly sit by and let contacts be decided by one or two people, and they decide what’s best.”
The Council’s action is not an endorsement of the Keep Stockton Safe measure. A majority may oppose it. But they are required to okay placing it on the ballot after the public safety unions gathered the requisite 20,000 signatures.
Under the current system, if negotiations over public safety salaries, benefits, and working conditions reach an impasse, the city can impose its last, best, and final offer.
Under the proposed system, upon reaching an impasse a three-member “Board of Arbitrators” — one arbitrator chosen by the unions, one by the city, one agreed upon by both — would convoke a hearing. Both sides would make arguments and present evidence. The arbitrators would decide the just, responsible outcome… in theory.
Their decision would be final. Binding.
Given fiscally prudent management, the current system has kept Stockton solvent, even fiscally robust. Which is not to say either citizens or public safety employees have no legitimate gripes.
For instance, negotiations over the last three police contracts have all run overtime, “many of them going back several months, if not a full year,” High said. “And are they applied retroactively? If we have a three-year contact and we’re 18 months in, we basically have a year-and-a-half- contract. So it can be beneficial to a city to stall over minute things.”
Mario Gardea, president of the Stockton Professional Firefighters local 456, also voiced complaints with the process. For instance, the city’s use of outside consultants to negotiate.
“It’s been a waste of time,” Gardea said. “We brought so many operational needs to the city when it comes to retention and recruitment,” and the city rejected them. “I don’t know if the consultant even shared that information with city officials.”
As things stand, recruitment is the “worst it’s ever been,” Gardea said. “We lose qualified people who are taking positions in other cities.”
Points taken. Yet unions tend to soft-pedal what binding arbitration is primarily about: money. More money. That can be legit, if, for instance, in the fire department’s case, Gardea is right that below-average wages and benefits cause good hires to leave.
We need not accuse current public safety employees of the avarice behind the over-the-top wages and benefits Stockton’s public employee unions enjoyed in the run-up to the city’s bankruptcy. But if we didn’t learn then to be skeptical about public employee compensation proposals, we learned nothing.
Police, like all public employees, get annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAS being cityspeak for perpetual raises). In 2023 they demanded a whopping 34% raise. They were given 18% and the promise of more in coming years. This year’s Measure A revision freed up tens of millions of dollars more for more officer compensation. A recent city study found police compensation is currently 10% over market.
Currently police take $176.6 million of Stockton’s General Fund pie, at 54% by far the largest slice. Together Police and Fire take 74%. That crowds out such things as libraries, tree crews, and roadwork. And it’s important to remember that for every $1 the city pays a public safety employee, it must pay 80 cents to their pension fund. That’s a whole lot of money.
Which is not to say other cities do not pay more, or that the city should not ensure cops or others get competitive pay. But who is best to decide?
Few California cities have binding arbitration. Salinas is one. There, two fire unions (not police) have had binding arbitration since the 1990s.
Asking Assistant City Manager Jim Pia his take on binding arbitration, while admittedly no scientific survey, still was interesting.
“It really takes the authority seemingly away from the people elected … and then gives it to the third party,” Pia said. “Then the community cannot participate in the process from that point forward.”
The process is not transparent. Neither are negotiations today; but the buck at least stops with the council and the city manager.
On the other hand, binding arbitration has been used in Salinas only a few times since the ’90s. Perhaps because arbitration is expensive to city and union, who must split costs.
“The reality is very rarely do people who have binding arbitration have to use it,” High said. “Nobody wants to go there.”
Then why have it? Possibly because the threat of a fiscally imprudent arbitration ruling compels the city to concede more in negotiations.
“The fiscal implications would be terrible for our city,” said District 4 Councilmember Susan Lenz. “I’m totally supportive of our police and fire departments–110%–but out of 482 California cities, only 15 have binding arbitration. What does that tell you? Right?”
The public safety unions say avoiding a “Chapter 18” — a second municipal bankruptcy — is in their interests too.
“The last thing that Stockton Fire Department local 456 wants is to go back to us laying firefighters off,” Gardea said. “Or putting the city in a financial situation where they are unable to secure funds for retirement.”
Are public safety unions trying to claw back some of the overcompensation they lost in Stockton’s bankruptcy? Or have they run up against unfair structural or management issues? We should hear more arguments from both sides before the November election.
Until then, skepticism.
Michael Fitzgerald’s column runs on Wednesdays. On Twitter and Instagram as Stocktonopolis. Email:mfitzgeraldstockton@gmail.com