Opinions

Anchorage voters should vote yes on AO 37

As an Anchorage Assembly member for more than seven and half years, I am voting yes on Ballot Measure 1 -- AO 37. The primary reason is simple; our city must be empowered to manage its labor and operating costs. This becomes even more important as the state is facing budget deficits that will inevitably impact Anchorage finances and property taxes.

The unions have claimed that the "process" to implement AO 37 was flawed. However, many issues during my tenure on the Assembly have been accused of "bad process," particularly when the complainant was on the losing side. The question is, was it bad process or politics?

Mayor Begich introduced multiple labor contracts in the Fall 2008. The International Brotherhood Electrical Workers union contract was an unreadable, poor copy marked draft. The International Association of Fire Fighters and Anchorage Police Department Employees Association contracts were not even up for renewal until Summer 2009, yet the contracts were re-negotiated early to ensure approval while Begich was mayor.

When the contracts were presented to the Assembly for approval in December 2008, there was standing room only in the Assembly chambers. Both the police and fire union contracts provided very generous compensation provisions, thus five of us on the Assembly raised issues of affordability. This was 2008, when the nation was spiraling down into one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. The police and fire union political strength was visibly loud and clear. The Assembly votes were aligned with Begich, and we didn't even have an opportunity to review final contracts.

To me, this process was flawed and I was definitely on the losing side. These overly generous contracts are the reason I felt strongly the Municipal Code needed to be changed to provide the municipality protection from labor contract increases that exceeded our revenue. This is why I became involved in the drafting of AO 37.

In 2008, I had one hour to review draft, not yet final, union contracts. In 2013, the assembly had 7.5 hours of work sessions to discuss drafts of AO 37. Suggested changes to the legislation from information gleaned from the work sessions and meetings with labor groups were made. Twenty-two hours and 40 minutes of public hearings were conducted on the law's versions. The public hearings were packed with municipal employees testifying about their compensation or the "flawed process." There was nothing in the Municipal Code to guide in cases of the public hearings going on indefinitely or basically becoming a public filibuster.

AO 37 passed and the losing side, of course, screamed flawed process. Do you see a pattern? Losing side -- flawed process.

ADVERTISEMENT

This summer, I felt the responsibility to work on a legislative compromise, instead of placing the issue on the ballot. I introduced an ordinance that contractually allowed the labor unions the right to strike, enabled binding arbitration and removed managed competition provisions.

My suggested framework for discussions with other Assembly members and the labor unions were:

• Every suggestion or concern had to be in writing and shared with all members of the ad hoc committee, chaired by Assemblyman Bill Evans.
• All rewrites would be shared openly and discussed at committee meetings.
• The ordinance would be postponed indefinitely if there was any sign of packing the Assembly chambers with a public filibuster.
• There needed to be eight Aassembly votes supporting the ordinance.

After eight weeks of collaboration between various groups, we were getting close to a compromise. But all was derailed upon reply from the police union's attorney. The major sticking point was the unions wanted full "management rights" to determine staffing levels, equipment purchases, management of schedules and overtime. I could not support this position as these management right provisions represent taxpayer costs that could quickly become uncontrollable.

The Municipality of Anchorage bears the full financial risk and liability of staffing, scheduling and equipment. Through the years the municipality has paid millions to compensate for poor management decisions, rogue employees and/or employee mistakes. It is important that every administration and every Assembly body understands this responsibility, and negotiates with the health of the whole community in mind.

In the end, the efforts for a compromise were unsuccessful. This summer was no different than the Fall 2008 and Spring 2013. It wasn't the process; it was the politics.

I will be voting yes on AO 37. A yes vote ties future compensation increases to the economy, standardizes benefit programs, establishes three-year limits on contracts, and insures management has the right for scheduling, staffing and equipment. It is not a perfect piece of legislation and will need tweaking, but it provides future administrations and assemblies tools to work with the unions -- not for the unions. ?

Jennifer Johnston is a member of the Anchorage Assembly.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

ADVERTISEMENT