BART union employees went back to work Friday, July 5 without a new contract under a temporary agreement reached Thursday evening. Following three days without bargaining, management, state mediators, and the unions are scheduled to resume bargaining Monday, July 8. Negotiations will continue while operations resume for 30 days under the former contract terms.  New contracts with the unions will be retroactive to July 1, 2013. 

BART management and SEIU leaders expressed opposition to a cooling-off period. On June 25 BART Board President Tom Radulovich wrote to Governor Jerry Brown, asking that the 60-day cooling-off period not be invoked. The parties agreed to the 30-day deadline delay to allow negotiations to continue without a strike. On Saturday, the New York Times reported, “The two sides said that they hoped to reach an agreement before the new deadline, but remained far apart on key issues, including wages, state pensions and health insurance.” Theoretically, the strike could be renewed in early August, a low volume BART ridership period. In contrast, a Governor’s “60-day cooling off period” would have pushed the strike point into the high ridership period of early September.

As BART stations were unlocked and the trains began rolling Friday afternoon, BART General Manager Grace Crunican greeted riders in several stations with an apology for the four days without service and a prepaid clipper card.

At a 10:30 p.m. press conference on July 4, California Secretary of Labor Marty Morgenstern announced an agreement by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) management and Union representatives to end the strike temporarily.  The parties accepted Morgenstern’s recommendation that the current contracts be extended for one month, while negotiations continue.  

All riders should check the BART website at http://www.bart.gov/  for updates on schedules.

On July 4  campers were injured at Camp Augusta while racing in canoe go carts.  According to a report, two or more of the campers were flown by helicopter to a hospital.

 1:08 p.m.: Five people have been injured in a Soap Box derby accident at Camp Augusta outside of Nevada City, according to Cal Fire. Two of the injuries are critical, and victims are being transported via helicopter to local hospitals. Two other individuals suffered moderate injuries, while another person has minor injuries.

The accident occurred just before noon.

For additional information check the following links:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/07/04/several-people-injured-at-nevada-county-camp/

http://www.sacramentosun.com/index.php/sid/215631603/scat/d10bacfff3f93dae

http://www.sacandco.net/news/article/249629/2/8-injured-in-Nevada-City-soap-box-derby

http://www.campaugusta.org

https://www.facebook.com/camp.augusta

Camp Augusta located in Nevada City, California, is a non-profit co-ed camp “donated to the girls of Piedmont in 1931 by Freda Ehmann in memory of her daughter’s mother-in-law, Augusta Collins.”  The camp has served generations of Piedmonters. For many years it was a Camp Fire girls camp.  In recent years boys and girls ages 8 to 16 have attended the camp.  It operates under the auspices of a Board of Directors.

History of Camp Augusta

In a Piedmonter article dated June 19, 2013, City Administrator Geoff Grote is quoted as follows:

“If we demand more than they are willing to pay, we have two choices — let it drop or proceed in arbitration that was included in the indemnity and reimbursement agreement (with PRFO).

“The City Council will make the final determination of the issue. We should have an announcement in the next several weeks.”

The Agreement calls in Section 8 for binding arbitration to finally settle any dispute and in Section 9 for any amendments, modifications or changes to the agreement to be in writing and to be signed by both parties. Mr. Grote’s comments indicate that a proposal modifying the Agreement to remove the arbitration requirement will come before the City Council in the next few weeks, if it has not already done so. In his June 20, 2013 email to me, Mr. Grote stated the following: “The Council is in the process of deciding what course of action they wish to pursue.” This indicates that the Council has already begun deliberating, as may be indicated by the June 17, 2013 closed session agenda, “Pursuant to G.C. Sec. 54956.9 the City Council will meet relating to possible initiation of litigation (one case)” which could be construed as referring to deliberations regarding entering into arbitration with PRFO.

I believe the participation of a majority of the members of the City Council in one or more of the negotiation sessions with PRFO constituted a serial meeting of the City Council that was not properly noticed under the Brown Act. If the Council takes action to forgive these debts to the City or to otherwise modify the terms of the Agreement, such action would not be in compliance with the Brown Act because there was no adequate notice to the public of the serial discussion of this issue by a majority of the Council members.

The Brown Act specifically prohibits any use of direct communication, intermediaries or technological devices by a majority of the members of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken. (Gov. Code § 54952.2). Such a series of separate discussions by individual members of a legislative body regarding matters within their jurisdiction without actually coming together and meeting is referred to as a serial meeting. This type of prohibited meeting can result from a series of communications of individual members or groups of members that are less than a quorum which then result in involving a majority of the members of the legislative body. A serial meeting is prohibited by the Act because the acquisition of information, as well as all debate, discussion, or any other aspect of the deliberative process is required to occur in public. The term “deliberation” has been broadly construed to include “not only collective discussion, but the collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.” Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist. (1981) 121 Cal. App. 3d 231; 84 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 30 (Feb. 20, 2001) Thus, the use of direct communications, personal intermediaries, or technological devices by a majority of members to develop a collective concurrence as to action taken by the legislative body is illegal.

Providing substantive information from staff to members of a legislative body may be a violation when such information is a part of systematic communications for preparation for a meeting or engaging in discussion, lobbying or any other aspect of the deliberative process. For example,

Strike continues as BART attempts to hold costs down, and unions press for increased compensation and work condition changes in their contracts. –

Ever increasing costs of health care  and pensions have placed a heavy burden on the public sector paid for by taxpayers.  BART  and other public employee benefit costs have been significant in budgets. The disparity between the benefits of an average private sector worker and public employee has been growing, as taxpayers become increasingly aware of issues such as some free pensions and lifetime health benefits.

During the bargaining process (including the strike period), employee proposals and management proposals are not open to the public due to labor laws. However, some information has become available on what is being discussed in the bargaining process.

According to an AP article on Saturday, June 29:

The unions want a 5 percent annual raise over the next three years.  Currently, train operators and station agents are paid in the low $60,000 range. Employees average $16,590 in overtime annually and pay a flat $92 monthly fee for health insurance.

Meanwhile, BART has offered a 1 percent raise annually over the next four years and for employees to contribute to their pensions. Yahoo.com

Unlike most private employees, public employees have enjoyed guaranteed pensions, to which many have made very low or no contributions.  Most retirees in the private sector, vigilantly watch their expenses, IRA’s or 401 Ks.  Public employees need not worry about the stock market or investments made by their pension provider, as their pension amounts are guaranteed during all economic periods.  This pension guarantee received little notice by the public until recently when CalPERS funds, where BART’s retirees are vested, took a nose dive.  The drop in value of the CalPERS funds, caused participating agencies such as Piedmont and BART to increase contributions to meet beneficiary costs.

According to an article in the Mercury News:

The average BART worker — including management and non-union employees — made $83,157 in gross pay in 2012, up from $80,588 in 2010, according to an analysis of payroll records by this newspaper. An 8 percent wage bump, on top of a 1 percent pay increase already set to kick in Monday, would push the average BART employee’s gross pay to about $90,600 in 2016.

BART spokesman Rick Rice said they also offered “meaningful reductions” to employee pension and health care contributions compared to what agency officials had proposed earlier. Pay, pension contributions and medical costs are the three big issues left, and unions were set to review the latest proposal Saturday night.

Rice said that their latest offer would give workers enough money to see a “net increase” in total compensation even with workers contributing more to their health care and pension plans.

Union leaders have said they were willing to budge on the issues of pensions and health care benefits but it’s unclear how far they’re willing to go. Currently, BART workers don’t pay toward their pensions and give $92 a month toward their medical benefits, regardless of the number of dependents. Including pay and benefits, the average cost for BART for each employee was $116,309 last year, up from $110,017 in 2010.  Mercury News

AC Transit continued service on Monday, July 1, requiring many bus drivers and employees to work extra hours to provide needed transportation support.   In some cases, these employees receive time-and-a-half or double-time compensation.  It is unknown at this point if AC Transit, whose contract has also expired, will go on strike simultaneously with BART.  Negotiations are continuing.