By J.M. Brown
Vallejo Times Herald (California)
Copyright 2007 The Times-Herald
All Rights Reserved
VALLEJO, Calif. — The city has poured even more fuel on the already burning legal battle with the fire union over nearly $4 million in budget cuts.
Today, a judge will hear the city’s request for a restraining order against the fire union. The move is designed to push the labor group into immediate arbitration.
The action follows a lawsuit filed by the city April 20 accusing the union of stalling talks by asking for budget documents and agreeing to only a couple of meeting dates in the last six months.
On Monday, city officials also filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the state against International Fire Fighters 1186. The gripe cites what city officials call union president Kurt Henke’s “demand” that Vallejo pay legal fees associated with his failed 2005 defamation lawsuit against four city figures.
Union lawyer Alan Davis shot back Monday, saying city officials are telling “a big lie” about Vallejo’s financial condition. Davis says the union has the right to get the budget records and continue negotiating until it concedes there is an impasse with the city.
Davis was also quick to point out Monday that city officials initially OK’d Henke’s request over the legal bills last year, but later withdrew the offer when some council members nixed the deal behind closed doors.
The legal developments are critical today as the City Council begins weighing what the proposed cuts to the fire service will mean to everyday citizens.
City Manager Joe Tanner will reveal his proposed budget - which also includes $5.5 million in police and transportation cuts - during tonight’s City Council meeting. The budget is scheduled for adoption June 26.
Firefighters and Tanner agree the cuts will drastically reduce emergency response. Most of the 15 firefighters targeted for layoffs are paramedics, which means citizens will wait longer for advanced medical care because most firefighters are not trained to give it.
But Tanner and other city officials say the union’s unwillingness to drop contractual minimum-staffing requirements - which have cost $3 million in mandated overtime since last July - leaves the city with no choice but to cut jobs.
Davis and an accountant he hired to review the city’s books allege the city’s deficit was not caused by the fire contract. Rather, the two say, the city bailed out the transportation, water and marina funds to the tune of more than $3.6 million. Those funds are supposed to be self-sustaining.
Davis said the union should not have to be “the scapegoat for the mishandling of affairs of the city.” If city officials lay off firefighters as a result, then “shame on them,” he said.
Although Davis acknowledged Monday that arbitration is likely unavoidable, and he said the city has made a “charade” of negotiations by heading to court. He said the union has the right, until it declares an impasse, to discuss the cuts outside of arbitration.
Davis said the city has millions in unrestricted savings that could be used to shore up the deficit instead of cutting the fire budget. He said the city also could sell surplus property.
But city officials say using such “one-time” money does not cure the main problem: That Vallejo cannot afford the minimum-staffing rule or $4.25 million in deferred raises due firefighters and police July 1.
Saying the fire contract has created a “structural imbalance” in the budget, Vallejo’s hired negotiator, Scott Kenley said, “If we spend all our savings this year, what are we going to do next year?”
Kenley said the restraining order request and unfair labor practice complaint are valid efforts to muscle the union into arbitration.
“The city needs to demonstrate they are trying to do everything they can do to bring about a resolution,” Kenley said.
Kenley acknowledged that Vallejo officials - former City Manager John Thompson, Mayor Tony Intintoli and Councilman Gerald Davis - initially agreed to forgive $145,000 that Henke was court-ordered to pay the city as reimbursement for defending the four officials he accused of defamation.
Intintoli and Councilman Davis did not immediately return calls for comment Monday.
Kenley argued it was improper for Henke to request the settlement in the first place. He said any agreement city officials made with Henke was predicated on majority support from the council, which did not happen.
Davis, the union lawyer, countered that Henke’s request was permitted under bargaining law. Henke lost the suit in September 2006, but has appealed.