Council Public Safety and Public Works Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Public Safety & Public Works Committee met on April 19, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, with Lawless presiding. The committee heard six public comments during the meeting. One motion was brought to a vote. The committee addressed one agenda item concerning Public Safety Collective Bargaining Agreements, which was deferred.

Attendance

Present: Lawless, Martin, Ellinger, Farmer, Crosbie, McChord, Henson

Absent: Stennett

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Refer Resolution on Collective Bargaining Agreements 1:13:02

A motion was made by Martin and seconded by Farmer to refer a resolution to the full council requiring council approval of collective bargaining agreements prior to the mayor's signature.

The motion failed by electronic vote with a 4-4 tie.

Votes in favor (4): - Lawless - Martin - Ellinger - McChord

Votes against (3): - Farmer - Crosbie - Henson

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included consideration of public safety budget expenditures totaling $191,200,000. This appropriation encompasses collective bargaining agreements, pensions, and personnel costs associated with public safety operations.

Public Comment

Several councilmembers addressed the council's authority and role regarding collective bargaining agreements during this meeting.

Council Authority and Oversight

Councilmember Lane [0:07:33] argued that the council has a duty to approve collective bargaining agreements as major expenditures. Lane emphasized the importance of checks and balances, taxpayer representation, and noted that three-year contracts span multiple mayoral and council terms, making council approval essential.

Councilmember Martin [0:15:33] presented legal analysis supporting the council's ability to review and approve collective bargaining agreements, citing the Louisville model and the absence of legal prohibition against such review.

Legal Interpretation

Ed Gardner from the Department of Law [0:20:05] stated that while the statute allows the mayor to sign agreements unilaterally, there is no legal barrier preventing the mayor from seeking council approval. Gardner noted that the council can still participate in the process.

Councilmember Crosbie [0:37:02] expressed concern about conflicting legal opinions and emphasized that the Attorney General's letter, while not formal, suggests the council cannot override the mayor's authority under current statutes.

Budget Process and Financial Control

Councilmember Stennett [0:27:47] argued that the council already has authority through budgeting and can influence negotiations by setting financial parameters. Stennett questioned the need for formal approval if the council can control spending.

Councilmember Henson [0:55:58] questioned how collective bargaining fits into the annual budget process and whether the council can set limits before negotiations begin.

The discussion reflected disagreement about the extent of council authority over collective bargaining agreements, with some councilmembers asserting a duty to approve major expenditures and others questioning whether existing budgetary authority was sufficient without formal approval requirements.

Contested Items

Council's Authority to Approve Collective Bargaining Agreements

A significant disagreement emerged regarding the council's legal and procedural authority over collective bargaining agreements. The core dispute centered on whether the council possessed the power to approve such agreements, with committee members divided on both the substantive question and the proper process for addressing it.

The disagreement manifested in a motion to refer a resolution to the full council for approval of collective bargaining agreements. This motion resulted in a deadlocked 4-4 vote, with four committee members voting in favor of the referral and four voting against. The split vote demonstrated deep division among committee members on the fundamental question of council authority in labor relations matters.

The failed motion indicated that half the committee supported escalating the matter to the full council for a decision on approval authority, while the other half opposed this referral. This even split suggests the committee could not reach consensus on whether the council should have formal approval power over collective bargaining agreements or how such authority should be exercised.

The outcome left the question unresolved at the committee level, with the motion failing to advance to the full council as intended by its supporters.

Public Safety Collective Bargaining Agreements

7:00

The committee discussed the authority of the Urban County Council to approve collective bargaining agreements for public safety employees.

Presentation and Arguments

Councilmember Lane led the discussion, presenting arguments for council approval of these agreements as a legislative duty. Lane emphasized several concerns:

• Budgetary impact of the agreements
• Long-term commitments created by the agreements
• Lack of current oversight mechanisms

Legal Analysis

Legal counsel Ed Gardner provided analysis supporting the council's ability to review and approve collective bargaining agreements. Gardner's analysis referenced the Louisville model as a precedent and provided statutory interpretation supporting the council's authority in this matter.

Key Speakers

The discussion involved Councilmember Lane, Councilmember Martin, and legal counsel Ed Gardner.

Outcome

The committee deferred action on this agenda item, meaning the matter was postponed for consideration at a future meeting.