Editorial
DĂŠjĂ vu on arbitration City Council once again puts itself under time pressure in deciding whether to place repeal of binding arbitration on November ballot here was at least some logic a year ago when the City Council voted 4-5 to punt on placing a measure on the November 2010 ballot to repeal the city’s unusual 33-year-old binding-arbitration requirement whenever an impasse is declared in police or fire labor negotiations. Last July, the proposed repeal was brought up just days before the deadline for putting the question on the November ballot, a ballot that already had the distasteful firefighters’ initiative (later resoundingly defeated) requiring a city vote for any future reduction in fire staffing. At the time, council members Sid Espinosa, Larry Klein, Nancy Shepherd, Gail Price and Yiaway Yeh voted against placing the repeal of the arbitration provision on the ballot, narrowly out-voting council members Pat Burt, Karen Holman, Greg Scharff and Greg Schmid. Their stated reason: The Council shouldn’t feel rushed; more time was needed to study the issue and allow for more public input. Fast-forward one full year and Monday night’s City Council meeting could have been a replay of the one last July. Price said the council was moving too fast and urged a two- to three-month period for more study and discussion. Klein repeated his 2010 criticisms of the “undemocraticâ€? nature of binding arbitration, then added that not allowing public-safety employees to strike was also undemocratic. And Mayor Espinosa, who a year ago joined the “let’s not rushâ€? majority, this year called the referral of the issue to a council committee a “good compromiseâ€? given the split on the council. So a year after using the argument that the council was being rushed into a decision and needed more time for analysis and discussion, four of the same five members (Espinosa, Klein, Price and Yeh; Shepherd missed Monday’s meeting) could once again block voters from deciding whether to repeal binding arbitration. Why all the angst and hand-wringing over repealing a provision in our City Charter that is so rare that only a handful of cities in California have it — and that was adopted in Palo Alto as a strategy to reduce the possibility of public-safety employee strikes before such strikes were deemed by the courts to be illegal? None of the reluctant council members offered any substantive reasons on Monday, only general desires to not take steps that might harm city-union relations and to respect the collective-bargaining process. They also declined to provide any guidance to the council’s policy committee other than to return with alternatives in late July so the council could act prior to the Aug. 1 deadline for placing measures on this November’s ballot. There are many alternatives to a complete repeal of binding arbitration, including amending the charter to limit arbitration to only certain issues of disagreement; requiring that arbitrators consider certain data, such as the financial condition of the city, in making decisions; and opening up the negotiations to the public. Insisting on an analysis of all the possible alternatives to repeal of binding arbitration is a great avoidance and delay strategy, as well as an immense burden on staff. As we have previously argued, we believe Palo Alto voters should be given the opportunity to repeal binding arbitration. With publicemployee compensation and benefits having soared in the last 30 years, rising at a faster clip than city revenues, we are living in a different era. Palo Alto should get in line with 95 percent of other cities in California. Binding arbitration is not in itself a game-changing issue, since its use is relatively rare (approximately six times in the last 30 years). But it is fundamentally irresponsible to permit a single, unelected arbitrator to negotiate in secret and then make unilateral decisions with great financial ramifications for the city. With four votes (Burt, Holman, Scharff and Schmid) solidly in favor of placing a repeal measure before the voters in November, only one of the other five council members must be persuaded. Mayor Espinosa’s goal for next month should not be to find a compromise that all nine council members can embrace. It should be to adopt, on a 5-4 vote if necessary, the policy that is in the best interests of the community. With the council having referred the issue back to its policy committee, it is too late to head off a process that will entail a huge amount of unnecessary staff and council work during the next several weeks. But let us hope that when it considers the issue again in late July, none of the five council members cites lack of information, time for analysis or need for public input as his or her excuse for preventing Palo Altans from voting in November.
T
Page 16ĂŠUĂŠ Ă•Â˜iĂŠĂ“{]ÊÓ䣣ÊUĂŠ*>Â?ÂœĂŠ Â?ĂŒÂœĂŠ7iiÂŽÂ?Ăž
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Don’t sell Cubberley Editor, Monday night the Palo Alto City Council will vote on entering into negotiations with the Foothill-De Anza Community College District to sell them eight acres of the old Cubberley High School site. We urge the council to vote no, no and no! Selling a major part of Cubberley would affect Palo Alto Unified School District, youth and adult sports programs, and local nonprofits. It will impact all future uses of the site. Yet the council made it an Action Item on its June 27 agenda — while schools, PTAs, and the PAUSD Board are on summer vacation and most sports teams are between seasons. Is the council convinced that the citizens of Palo Alto support selling the last potential site for an additional high school or middle school in the city? District demographers anticipate continued enrollment growth; does council believe they are wrong? Where will children who move into the new housing approved by the city go to school? Twenty years ago, district enrollment was 8,000 and Cubberley was recognized as an essential community asset and a buffer for potential enrollment growth. Today enrollment is 12,000 and Cubberley is even more critical to the families of Palo Alto. What will our community need 20 years from now? Palo Alto has been fortunate to have Foothill College here. It is an outstanding community college. We hope they can stay, but not if it cripples the school district. Selling any part of Cubberley is a bad idea. Diane Reklis and Carolyn Tucher Former presidents of the PAUSD Board of Education Janice Way and Manuela Way Palo Alto
Cubberley’s value redux Editor, With little or no public input, the city council is once again looking at selling eight acres of Cubberley Community Center to Foothill College. By their actions, the Council has decided that the community center located in south Palo Alto is less valuable than the community center in north Palo Alto, i.e., Lucie Stern. Lucie Stern center celebrates the arts with the Children’s Theatre, TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera, while Cubberley is home to El Camino Youth Symphony, Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra, Palo Alto Philharmonic, Peninsula Women’s Chorus, numerous artists studios and four dance studios. Lucie Stern houses the Boy and Girl Scout facilities, whereas Cubberley houses two preschools, a
large after-school child care provider, and two alternative high schools. Cubberley has tennis courts and Lucie Stern has courts nearby at Rinconada park. Lucie Stern’s rooms are used for meetings and classes and so are Cubberley’s. The two centers are similar in their value to the community. Why does the City Council choose only to protect the community center in north Palo Alto? As a resident of south Palo Alto, I’d like to know the answer to that. Lisa Steinback Creekside Drive Palo Alto
Blue-bin blues Editor, When I give to charity I expect most of my donation to go to charity. You probably do too. Yet, if you donate books into those big blue Reading Tree bins marked “Books for Charity,� only one in four books go to those in need (Weekly, June 17). The other three books are sold
for pulp or resold online by Reading Tree’s commercial fundraiser, the for-profit Thrift Recycling Management (TRM). TRM claims to be one of the world’s largest online book distributors for resale through Amazon and Barnes and Noble, etc. TRM manages the Reading Tree bins, transports the donated books for sorting at one of its distribution centers, and then reaps big profits from books donated to Reading Tree. The bins neither mention TRM as Reading Tree’s commercial fundraiser, nor its involvement with the nonprofit, so donors cannot know that only 25 percent of their donated books go to charity — a fact TRM readily admits. I don’t know if Reading Tree’s and TRM’s practices reach the level of illegal deception, but it sure reaches my level. I hope you will think twice about feeding books to those big blue bins. Winter Dellenbach La Para Avenue Palo Alto
YOUR TURN The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
What do you think? Should voters have to decide whether Palo Alto should stick with binding arbitration? Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to letters@paweekly. com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. You can also participate in our popular interactive online forum, Town Square, at our community website at www.PaloAltoOnline.com. Read blogs, discuss issues, ask questions or express opinions with you neighbors any time, day or night. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Online Editor Tyler Hanley at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.