Binding Arbitration Group Files Challenge

7/1/09

By Marc Garman

Beginning with the words "YOU ARE BEING SUED BY THE PLAINTIFF"   Jim Libien, Byrne Conley and JD Miller, of the group "Committee to Remove Binding Arbitration"  have filed a writ of mandate naming the Vallejo City Clerk and Solano County Registrar of  Voters as defendants.  The action is intended to overturn a previous decision by  the registrar to disqualify the group's binding arbitration ballot initiative on the basis of insufficient valid signatures.  The initiative seeks to allow the the voters to decide whether the provision in the Vallejo City Charter mandating binding arbitration as a means to resolve labor disputes should remain as a charter provision or be removed.

Libien, the chairman of the group stated, "We think we have a very good argument." and continued to cite the three main points of contention his group has with the registrar's decision:

1. An  unpublished report by the registrar raised the tally of registered voters in Vallejo thus increasing the number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot.  The group was not notified of this until after they had submitted their signatures.  Libien contends there would have still been time to collect more signatures to make up the difference had they known. 
2. Some 40 or so signatures were disqualified because one signature gatherer put the wrong date on the page.  The date is prior to the start of the signature drive.  The writ argues that these signatures should be allowed because it is an obvious error that does not cast doubt on the intent of the people who signed.
3. Also cited are various errors that are attributed to the registrar.

"It doesn't belong there." says Libien of Vallejo's binding arbitration charter provision.  The removal of the provision would allow city management more leeway in making decisions regarding employees.

"We think that the courts should rule on our behalf.", contends Libien, who believes that if all goes well, there will be some 19 votes in excess of the 7070 required.  But  will such a decision be reached in time for the November ballot?  Still anybody's guess.

See the full document HERE