Council Votes 6-2 (Austin, Neal dissenting, DeLong absent) To Have City Attorney Draft And Return For Discussion Possible 2013 Ballot Measure To Cap/Roll Back Total Pay/Benefits For City's Non-Public Safety Workers To FY 2010 Levels For FY 2014 & 2015 While Simultaneously Negotiating w/ IAM

City Att'y cautions measure can't be put on ballot until negotiation/meet-confer/collective bargaining process is entirely concluded

The ballot measure is aimed at the Int'l Ass'n of Machinsist (IAM), City Hall's largest public employee union (representing non-public safety and mainly lower paid employees) whose membership voted in mid-August 2012 to reject a pension change (paying the full employee share of their pensions with their contractually agreed raises) in their current contract (which doesn't expire until roughly a year from now).

During last night's Council colloquy, City Attorney Bob Shannon said that while the Council could ask his office to prepare such a pay cap/rollback ballot measure for Council discussion, the Council can't lawfully put it on the ballot until all aspects of the collective bargaining process, including meet-and-confer and related negotiations are completed. [The item as agendized by Councilman Johnson acknowledged the need to comply with union-management negotiating requirements.] The IAM's current contract with City Hall runs until Sept. 30, 2013.

The pension change sought by Mayor Foster and a Council majority attempts to revise part of the IAM contract that Mayor Foster recommended and a Council majority approved without pension reform in May 2008 (7-2, Gabelich and DeLong dissenting). LB's police and firefighter unions agreed to the change last year.

At last night's Council meeting, Financial Management Director John Gross [who wasn't with the City in 2008 although City Manager Pat West was] said the IAM's current contract was worth 18% in increased pay when negotiated and entered into in May 2008. When the IAM contract came to a public Council vote in May 2008, Councilwoman Rae Gabelich turned to City Manager West and asked, "How are we going to pay for this?" When the Manager's response didn't satisfy her, Councilmembers Gabelich [and DeLong] voted against the IAM agreement. [During last night's Council discussion, Mayor Foster didn't acknowledge the dissents at the time and attributed the contractual fiscal issues to the Great Recession, which he suggested was unforeseeable, but by May 2008, an economic slowdown was already evident, which escalated with Wall Street financial failures in Sept. 2008.]

To a Council Chamber roughly 1/3 filled with orange-T-shirted IAM members, Councilmembers Johnson, Garcia and Lowenthal variously said they appreciate city workers and the services they provide...and contended the ballot measure they proposed to roll back their salaries to 2010 levels supports city workers by preventing future layoffs. Garcia added many steps remain before the measure would go on the ballot.

Councilmembers Steven Neal and Al Austin voiced disappointment with the propsoed ballot measure, and Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske was more blunt, describing the proposed ballot measure as grandstanding, accusing its proponents of demonizing the union and its workes, urging negotiations with IAM to deal with management-union issues and noting publicly that Mayor Foster had supported the current IAM contract that he now opposes.

That brought applause from IAM members, to which the Mayor responded by calling Councilwoman Schipske's remarks grandstanding. Councilwoman Lowenthal then echoed Mayor Foster's grandstanding charge aimed at Schipske...and said that she and Garcia supported city workers.

Mayor Foster noted that the police and firefighter unions had accepted the pension reforms that IAM's members rejected...and at one point suggested that he might reconsider his push for a ballot measure if the union's membership were to reconsider and re-vote the issue.

Councilwoman Schipske makes a substitute motion to instruct city management to resume immediate negotiations with IAM (failed 3-5, Yes: Schipske, Neal, Austin; No: Garcia, Lowenthal, O'Donnell, Andrews, Johnson; DeLong absent). At the request of Councilman Neal, the main motion was amended to instruct city management to simultaneously begin negotiating again with IAM in addition to preparing the proposed ballot measure for future Council discussion...but Neal then voted (with Austin) against the measure as amended.

The net result: the City Attorney will bring a draft ballot measure back to the Council for further discussion which the Council can't legally put on the ballot until union negotiations are completed...and city management has been instructed to resume negotiations with IAM which it is already legally required to do.

Proponents of the ballot measure say its special election cost (roughly $800,000) would be offset by nearly $10 million in General Fund savings annually, which proponents say could be used to fund/restore police, fire, parks and libraries that Council majorities have cut over the past three years.