pages: CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf, 32
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2018-06-05 | 32 | so original motion failed due to a lack of second. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution with modifying the language to: "that the Alameda City Council urges the Acting City Manager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Alameda post a Janus V. AFSCME Supreme Court case decision by cooperating to mitigate impacts and by engaging in good faith discussions, which could include implementing membership cards and release time for rank and file union leaders to explain the implications of a Janus decision," which is a little less specific direction and leave open the possibility that there could be more items that could be addressed. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion and in response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated by changing the language, the Council is not providing specific direction to staff, but is suggesting the topics; there could be other issues that have not been contemplated because the decision has not been seen. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the intent is include the specific things, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the word negative was removed, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she did not mean to remove the word negative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed to "which could include, but not be limited to stated that she is trying to understand the intent. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that is the intent. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she prefers the language in the motion because it is not as directive and leaves the door open to other things that will support the unions' position. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her motion stands. Mayor Spencer inquired whether saying "could include" means it does not have to include the specific items listed, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the intent is clear that the motion is the City trying to work with and support the union in spite of the expected negative decision, but Council is not directing what exactly has to be done. Councilmember Oddie suggested changing "to explain. to "depending on the implications of a negative Janus decision." Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the Alameda Labor Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 June 5, 2018 | CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf |