More Complications For City With CMCEA Lawsuit (Updated)*
In a press release today, Jennifer Muir, Assistant General Manager of the Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) announced that "the Fourth District Court of Appeals has granted a request by the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA) to publish its recent decision upholding the trial court's preliminary injunction blocking the City from outsourcing to the private sector." You can read the entire press release below. (Click on the image to enlarge it.)
I suspect this ruling may be red meat for the Jim Righeimer Charter crowd, since is specifically mentions that Costa Mesa is a General Law city. You can expect any number of rabid Charter supporters to leap forward and begin to rail about how terrible this is, and that it wouldn't happen if Costa Mesa was a Charter City.
NO COMMENT FROM THE CITY SO FARI tried to get a comment from the City on this issue. I wanted to know how this ruling may affect their request/demand to the CMCEA to permit the outsourcing of the Jail operations to a private firm. As of press time nobody has yet responded. When they do I will amend this report to reflect their position.
Late this afternoon Bill Lobdell, Communication Director for the City of Costa Mesa released a short statement. He attributes this statement to Richard Garbowski, special counsel for the City of Costa Mesa - he works for Jones Day:
“The City is pleased that the Court of Appeals published its decision re-affirming the City's right to outsource services. The Court of Appeal confirmed explicitly that Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. cannot 'veto' the outsourcing of City services pursuant to its agreement with the City. The City intends to move forward in full compliance with the Court’s decision and its contractual obligations when it outsources the City's jail operations, which will save taxpayers more than $3 million over the next five years.”
I don't know about you, but this statement seems contradictory to the statement from the OCEA and the ruling provided to us. I guess we're going to find out if this will mean EVEN MORE $495 per hour lawyers trying to sort it out.
Labels: CMCEA, Jim Righeimer, OCEA
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 9/17/2012 01:31:00 PM
11 Comments:
I can't resist - 'as of press time'?
What is your press time exactly, sir? You keep that press out in your garage? I thought the days of the ink stained wretch had passed, Mr. Cauldron!
If the CC had some something (anything!) right, we very well could have been a charter city by now, with any appropriate cost effective outsourcing in place...but NOOOOOOO....have to screw it up. So now....
Mike,
Geoff is old school. I picture him with one of those derby hats with a card that says PRESS in it. And no fancy tape recorder machine devices for him, when he interviews somebody, he uses shorthand like he was taught in elementary schoool...where he walked 8 miles each way in the driving snow.
Actually, that "press time" comment was a jab at the grumpy old guy in Mesa North who actually thinks of himself as a reporter because he played one - badly - in a movie more than 3 decades ago. "Press time" hear at the Cauldron is whenever I want it to be. If I think something is urgent - off we go. If it can wait, sometimes I wait. Still no word from the city yet.
Honeyman, I used to ride the street car to school, never in the snow, though. It snowed at our house while I was growing up exactly ONE time - made a snowman and everything! ;-)
GW:
"the grumpy old guy in Mesa North who actually thinks of himself as a reporter because he played one - badly - in a movie more than 3 decades ago."
1974 actually.
And here we thought, just for a second, that he might have played Atticus Finch... Not.
There's probably a role for him in the next remake of "Night of the Living Dead"..
Geoff: Was your one snow day in Los Angeles in 1949? I remember it as well, but it was late at night. My dad slapped me awake to see something I'd never seen before. Being quite groggy, I wasn't impressed.
Mike,
Yep, that was the year. We got about 3 inches of accumulation in LA where I lived. Before and after we had to drive to Mt. Wilson for snow..
what further complications arise by publishing an old ruling? what exactly changed? other than pointing out that if we were a charter city then we could have moved forward. alas, definitely more red meat for the pro charter gang.
I will be darned... "The Second Coming of Suzanne" I thought he played a reporter in "Birth Of A Nation..."
How can the founding Dean of UCI Law School make such false claims?
From the Daily Pilot:
An employer can prohibit political activity by employees, irrespective of whether they are on or off duty, according to UC Irvine School of Law founding Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who specializes in civil rights and constitutional law.
"In fact, the government even may prohibit all political activities by its employees, even off work, as does the federal Hatch Act, for civil service employees," Chemerinsky said. "The Supreme Court has upheld this and rejected 1st Amendment challenges."
Now compare that to this from the US Office of Special Council:
Permitted and Prohibited Activities For State and Local Employees
• May be a candidate for public office in a nonpar-tisan election
• May campaign for and hold elective office in political clubs and organizations
• May actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
• May contribute money to political organizations or attend political fundraising functions
• May participate in any activity not specifically prohibited by law or regulation
An election is partisan if any of the candidates in the election are running as a representative of a political party whose presidential candidate received votes in the preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected.
• May not be a candidate for public office in a partisan election
• May not use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election or a nomination for office
• May not directly or indirectly coerce contribu-tions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate
CAUTION: An employee’s conduct is also subject to the laws of the state and the regulations of the employing agency. Prohibitions of the Hatch Act are not affected by state or local laws.
So if I am a 'rabid' charter supporter, does that make you a 'rabid' charter opponent?
Post a Comment
<< Home