pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf, 31
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 31 | on whether binding interest arbitration is a mandatory, permissive subject of bargaining; both the Public Employment Relations Board and District Court of Appeal found interest arbitration is a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining and expressly held that meeting and conferring with the union first is not necessary prior to putting the matter on the ballot. The City Clerk restated Councilmember Tam's motion: to move approval to reconstitute the Charter Subcommittee in preparation for the November 2011 election. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion includes beginning discussion in 2011. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a March election next year. The City Clerk responded elections are held in March in odd numbered years and in June and November every year. Councilmember Matarrese stated the three proposed amendments are critical and need to be put before the public because of serious budget implications and good government. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion remains the same; in all fairness to the proposed fire fighter initiative, it should be juxtaposed against each other and should not separately preempt the measure. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the matter would not be discussed until November. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion is to have discussions starting in 2011 in preparation for the November 2011 election and to reconstitute the Council Charter Subcommittee because the Subcommittee might change after the November 2010 election. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Subcommittee could start working on the matter before January, 2011; stated the start time should be flexible so that the current Council Subcommittee could start working on the matter sooner. Councilmember Tam stated under the Mayor's advisement, the Subcommittee would have the option to work on the matter sooner rather than later. Mayor Johnson stated the Subcommittee should start earlier because more cleanup language might be needed. Councilmember Gilmore stated the same process should be resurrected regarding asking Department Heads for suggestions; inquired whether the City Attorney's staff Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 31 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |