It would have been the first government-mandated project labor agreement within the Central Coast counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.

Before the vote, county supervisors heard a lengthy presentation from county public works staff and county counsel about hundreds of hours of work on negotiations with various stakeholder groups – in particular the Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters – to come to an agreement on provisions concerning core workforce limitations, jurisdictional dispute resolution, and mandatory union initiation fees and dues paid by all workers under the PLA. The county was not able to resolve differences between the Building Trades and the Carpenters concerning jurisdictional dispute resolution.

Supervisor Peter Foy pointed out that the county had spent more than $1 million trying to develop a PLA and made a motion to move forward in bidding the hospital without a PLA, which he regarded as unnecessary and wasteful. He even dared to refer to “the free market” and “the taxpayers” in his statement. That motion failed to get a second.

Supervisor Linda Parks complained that she was being forced to vote on a 33-page contract she hadn’t been able to read because it was provided by staff after 6:00 p.m. on Monday, March 12. Parks asked if anyone on the board had read it, and Supervisors Kathy Long, John Zaragoza, and Steve Bennett said they had read it. Supervisor Steve Bennett said there were no compelling new things in the PLA and it was time to move forward.

Supervisor Kathy Long then made a motion for the board to vote on the staff recommendation to adopt a PLA with a “safe harbor” provision on core workforce and jurisdictional dispute resolution for the Carpenters union, provided all parties sign the PLA by Friday, March 16. Board chairman John Zaragoza instead moved for adoption of the version of the PLA supported by the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. That motion failed 2-2-1.

There are three prequalified design-build entities for bidding on the project: Hensel-Phelps Construction, McCarthy Construction, and Clark Construction.

Staff reported that Clark did not object to a PLA because union contractors would perform all of its major trade work and at least 90% of the total work. Staff also reported that Hensel-Phelps noted that it employs its own workers under the jurisdiction of the Carpenters trade (which a Carpenters union official claimed to comprise 30% of the work).

McCarthy was planning to use a large Merit Shop electrical contractor that has Ventura County employees. A McCarthy representative declared that if the county approved a PLA as proposed, it would drop its plan to bid unless the county provided time to prequalify unionized electrical subcontractors. According to Public Works staff, prequalifying more electrical contractors would delay the project for up to 4-6 months at a cost of $400,000 per month. Showing a low priority for open competition and fiscal responsibility, the board chairman John Zaragoza declared that the county would still have two bidders if McCarthy dropped out.

See material provided by staff to the board here.

News Reports:

Board can’t pass labor agreement for county hospital – Ventura County Star – March 14, 2012

Now unions are gunning for their first government-mandated project labor agreement in the Central Coast region (Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties), and the target is again a county hospital.

Ventura County (on the coast between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles) will build a $250 million Ventura County Medical Center Hospital Replacement Wing. Associated Builders and Contractors of California was tipped off in the summer of 2011 that unions were plotting through two members of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to force contractors on this project to sign a project labor agreement under the guise of “local hire.” Confirmation came from this seemingly innocuous item on the August 2, 2011 board agenda:

27. Recommendation of Supervisors Bennett and Long to Direct the County Executive Office and County Counsel to Report Back to the Board Regarding Incorporating Local Hire Components in the Construction of the Ventura County Medical Center Replacement Hospital Project. (Supervisors Bennett and Long)

We’ve seen this exact same strategy used at other California local governments (such as the City of San Diego) to “innocently” sneak project labor agreements into the discussion. When Supervisor Steve Bennett subsequently announced he was running for the Democrat nomination for the 26th Congressional District seat being vacated by Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), we knew that once again this axiom was fulfilled: behind every push for a project labor agreement is an elected official with ambition for higher office! Shortly afterward, the cat was out of the bag as union officials acknowledged publicly that they were scheming for a project labor agreement.

The controversy reached a feverish pitch on January 24, when the Board of Supervisors held a five-hour meeting with 29 public speakers and more than 200 attendees to discuss the proposed project labor agreement. The meeting concluded with a 4-1 vote to try to negotiate some sort of fair PLA. (Supervisor Peter Foy of Simi Valley was opposed to the whole charade and voted against the directive – thank him at supervisor.foy@ventura.org.)

On February 17, more than 40,000 Ventura County households received a mailer from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) warning them that Big Labor Bosses from Los Angeles were expanding their quest for government-mandated union monopolies to Ventura County.

(See: CFEC’s mailer)

On February 28, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors spent three more hours listening to 34 public speakers and discussing the proposed project labor agreement. They also learned from staff that each month’s delay of the hospital project to negotiate the PLA costs the county $400,000. But if you’re gunning for a policy that will increase the cost of the hospital by as much as $50 million, who cares about a silly $400,000 per month from the taxpayers?

The Board of Supervisors is expected to make a final decision at its March 13 meeting.

A question needs to be asked here: why does consideration of what unions claim is a mere “construction management tool” attract so many speakers and take so many hours of public deliberation? Could it be that project labor agreements are actually about UNION MONOPOLIES paid for by the TAXPAYERS?

The Ventura County Star newspaper has thoroughly reported on the PLA controversy for its readers over the past several months:

County board looks for ways to boost employment with hospital project – Ventura County Star – August 2, 2011

Local hiring for VCMC project looks promising despite dispute – Ventura County Star – November 28, 2011

Christen: Unions going for monopoly on new medical center – Ventura County Star – December 3, 2011 – op-ed

County to explore labor agreement to push local hiring for hospital work – Ventura County Star – January 24, 2012

Editorial: County’s push for local hiring requires caution – Ventura County Star – January 28, 2012 – editorial

Leonard: Weighing the options in trying to ensure local hiring – Ventura County Star – February 11, 2012 – columnist

VCMC Expansion – Ventura County Star – February 20, 2012 – letter to the editor against the proposed PLA

Morales: Diverse support for local hiring – Ventura County Star – February 25, 2011 – op-ed by Maricela P. Morales, acting executive director of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, also writing on behalf of the Black American Political Association of California (BAPAC) of Ventura County, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the Multicultural Consortium.

Union Monopoly – Ventura County Star – February 27, 2012 – letter to the editor against the PLA from Kevin Korenthal, former official with ABC

Board sets deadline for deal in hospital project – Ventura County Star – February 28, 2012

Construction Jobs – Ventura County Star – February 29, 2012 – letter to the editor in support of the PLA from Bob Balgenorth, head of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

Editorial: Ventura County labor agreement an elusive goal – Ventura County Star – March 3, 2011 – editorial

PLA is Good for Us – Ventura County Star – March 5, 2012 – letter to the editor in support of the PLA

But this case is noteworthy from the perspective of TheTruthaboutPLAs.com because the elected official voted for Project Labor Agreements ten years apart on two different local government boards in two completely different geographic regions.

In 1998, Nadia Lockyer (then named Nadia Davis) was elected to the board of trustees of the Santa Ana Unified School District in Orange County. In March 2000, she was part of the 4-1 board majority that voted to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement for $145 million in school construction funded by the district’s Measure C. As reported in the March 15, 2000 Los Angeles Times:

The bricks and mortar for the largest school building project in Orange County history will be laid exclusively by union hands, Santa Ana Unified board members decided Tuesday night. In a controversial decision that continues a spate of victories for labor interests, all but one of the five board members voted to support a Project Labor Agreement, which would open bids to the $145 million in school-building plans only to union companies or nonunion contractors who hire through union hiring halls.

Despite this accomplishment for union special interests, Ms. Davis lost her re-election campaign in 2002 as the district was caught up in numerous controversies, including mismanagement of the district’s construction program. Eventually she ended up in the San Francisco Bay Area, and in 2010 she was elected as Nadia Lockyer to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Different place, different year, but same contempt for the taxpayer and the merit shop contracting community. Her accomplishments to date on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors were described on February 17 by a San Francisco Chronicle columnist:

… largely an unknown, even after her election. Since her arrival on the Board of Supervisors, Lockyer has worked on general assistance policy issues and helped craft a project labor agreement for the construction of a new Superior Court building.

Remember the axiom: behind every push for a Project Labor Agreement is an elected official dreaming of higher office.

With her second victory in using a local government to force contractors to sign union Project Labor Agreements for taxpayer-funded construction, Supervisor Nadia Davis Lockyer is again locking in future labor union endorsements and preparing for a fine career in the California State Legislature, or maybe even U.S. Congress or statewide office.

Her climb to the top will simply happen in Alameda County rather than in Orange County.

Sacramento City Hall on Dec. 27, 2011

Article 2 of the California Constitution gives voters of cities and counties the right to exercise initiative powers. Article 2 begins with the statement that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

Unions and their political friends hold this right of the people in contempt.

During the six-month campaign to put the Fair and Open Competition charter amendment on the ballot, signature gatherers were repeatedly harassed and physically assaulted by individuals with apparent ties to local construction unions. Eleven reports were filed with the Sacramento police in response to these incidents. An article in the December 22 Sacramento News & Review reports on union operatives gloating about getting a signature gatherer removed from a public area. In addition, advertisements sponsored by a construction union front group during the summer claimed to listeners of news and talk radio that their identify could be stolen if they signed petitions to place measures on the ballot. Governor Brown signed a bill (Senate Bill 202) that requires initiatives to be on the November ballot, apparently based on the idea that the union political machine will be more effective in the November 2012 election than in the June 2012 election. Finally, Governor Brown signed a last-minute gut-and-amend bill in September (Senate Bill 922) that nullified Fair and Open Competition policies for counties and general law cities (where the state legislature has full authority over contracting policies). This bill derailed the simultaneous signature-gathering campaign for a Fair and Open Competition charter amendment for the County of Sacramento.

Note that these incidents occurred in California, not in Venezuela.

As a charter city, Sacramento is able to establish its own contracting policies for city construction, so the governor and the legislature were unable to use their new anti-democratic law to suppress the will of the people there. If the enthusiasm of the public for signing these petitions is a reliable indicator, politicians in the City of Sacramento will soon lose their coercive power to force construction contractors to sign costly Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) with union leaders for proposed projects such as the $387 million arena for the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team. Taxpayers will get the best quality work at the best price.

MEDIA
The campaign’s submission of the petitions to the Sacramento City Clerk was reported in www.CalWatchdog.com on December 27: Effort to Nix Sacto’s Union-Only Contracts

Is it right for a government to require contractors to make employee fringe benefit payments to union-managed trust funds and obtain their workers from a union hiring hall? What kind of thinking leads a representative of the People to require workers to pay initiation fees and dues to a union as a condition of working on a public project? What kind of community leader wants to build four taxpayer-funded schools for the cost of five, in order to curry favor with a special interest group?

Project Labor Agreements are associated with fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, internal corruption, and lack of accountability to the people who pay taxes for the government to provide services. Citizens abdicate their responsibilities to oversee their local governments. As a result, unions fill the resulting political vacuum and attract ambitious people who see unions as a vehicle to attain personal power and position.

Arguments based on reason and common sense have no power in this kind of environment, where only scandals earn public attention.

Today’s Exhibit A is the City of San Fernando, near Los Angeles.

The City of San Fernando was the first municipality in California to require a PLA for all public works projects. On September 19, 2005, the San Fernando City Council voted 5-0 to require all construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for prime contracts worth $150,000 or more and specialty contracts worth $25,000 or more. These project cost thresholds are unusually low, indicating that representatives of the city made little effort to engage in credible negotiations with union leaders to develop the PLA.

Voting for the PLA in 2005 were council members Julie Ruelas, Nury Martinez, Steven Veres, José Hernández, and Maribel De La Torre. So what happened to them?

San Fernando voters recalled José Hernández and Julie Ruelas on January 13, 2009.

Nury Martinez was elected in 2009 to the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Steven Veres was elected in 2011 to the board of the Los Angeles Community College District, with endorsements from the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Only Maribel De La Torre remains on the San Fernando City Council. At the November 21, 2011 city council meeting, she was entangled in a spectacle that is bizarre, even by California standards.

Meanwhile, the city continues to require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on taxpayer-funded city construction. Business as usual.

Postscript: Today’s Exhibit B on Project Labor Agreements and Moral Breakdown…

Inquiry Targets Two Contractors on L.A. Community Colleges Project – Los Angeles Times – December 1, 2011

“The D.A.’s probe centers on Los Angeles Community College District allegations that the firms submitted fraudulent billings for Mission College work, part of a $5.7-billion construction program.”

Not surprisingly, the article mentions how construction unions use CEQA to block permits for projects until the developers agree to force their contractors to sign project labor agreements (PLAs): “It also has become a weapon in battles between rival developers or builders and labor unions… One coalition of labor groups that advocates for environmental improvements in projects has drawn criticism because it also seeks agreements that developers employ union members.”

That “coalition of labor groups” is California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), which is notorious for blocking permits at the California Energy Commission for power plants and other energy infrastructure projects until the developer agrees to require its construction contractors to sign a project labor agreement.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) has introduced a bill (Assembly Bill 598) that would limit standing to file and maintain an action or proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exclusively to the state’s elected Attorney General, thus giving accountability and authority to the executive branch to implement the law for its original intent of legitimate environmental protection.

This is the most dramatic attempt to date by unions and their political cronies to suppress the Fair and Open Competition movement that started in California and is sweeping the country. The bill was signed one day before the San Diego City Council was expected to place a measure on the June 2012 ballot for voters to enact a Fair and Open Competition measure in the City of San Diego. The Escondido City Council is also considering a model charter that includes a Fair and Open Competition provision. Well ahead of schedule, the Fair and Open Competition Sacramento campaign is 75% of the way toward its signature collection goal to qualify Fair and Open Competition ballot measures in the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento.

Already people are responding with disbelief. An editorial in the Monday, October 3 San Diego Union-Tribune (Brown Signs a Dubious ‘Gut and Amend’ Bill) has this to say:

So Brown had three good reasons to veto SB 922: It is an assault on local governments’ authority; it was never truly debated or reviewed by the Legislature; and it was badly crafted. Nevertheless, he signed the bill Sunday, noting it isn’t as sweeping as critics have said and saying it will allow for further debate on PLAs. “Seems fair to me – even democratic,” the governor wrote.

Really? We doubt “democratic” is the adjective most observers would use to describe SB 922.

Created through a gut-and-amend action on September 2, Senate Bill 922 attempts to nullify local government “Fair and Open Competition” measures that establish a policy principle that the government shall not require its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of winning contracts to work on taxpayer-funded construction projects. It also attempts to interfere with charter cities’ local home rule authority for municipal affairs by trying to cut off state funding for projects in charter cities with such a policy.

Governor Brown Signs a Second Bill to Encourage Project Labor Agreements: On Friday, September 30, Governor Jerry Brown also signed Assembly Bill 436, which exempts certain local governments from paying labor compliance fees to the state if they require contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions for construction. The California Department of Industrial Relations has already issued draft proposed regulations reflecting this policy.

Media coverage:

Governor signs law barring blanket bans on labor friendly deals – San Diego Union-Tribune – October 3, 2011

Triumphant, threatening statement from the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council warning citizens about the power of SB 922 to cut off state funding and jeopardize local construction projects  – October 3, 2011

Coverage in the Los Angeles Times (link to story) and Bay Area News Group (San Jose Mercury-News/Oakland Tribune/Contra Costa Times) (link to story) – October 3, 2011.

But taxpayers had a second chance on September 12 when the Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) District Board of Directors debated the repeal or amendment of a 2009 resolution requiring construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with unions to build a $270 million planned extension of the South Sacramento Corridor light rail line.

The RT board consists of three Sacramento County supervisors, four Sacramento City Council members, and one city council member from Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Citrus Heights, and Elk Grove. RT board members are appointed by their respective local elected boards.

To vote on RT business, the board uses an unusual weighted voting system established by a state law enacted in 2006. The power of each board vote is based on a formula that includes the percentage of funding that the local government contributes to RT. All votes total to 100, even with absences, as long as there is a quorum.

On December 14, 2009, with the support of union lobbyists, the RT board narrowly voted 54 to 46 to negotiate and implement a PLA with the Sacramento-Sierra Building and Construction Trades Council for the South Line extension.

RT staff subsequently developed a draft PLA that is a bonanza for the unions. It requires contractors to obtain workers from the union hiring halls and pay workers’ fringe benefits exclusively into union programs. Workers must pay union dues and fees if they want a job.

But in the meantime, the RT board changed because of new appointments from the local governments. In addition, some RT board members read the draft PLA (exposed through a public records request) and realized taxpayers would not be getting the best quality construction at the best price. RT staff were even advertising for a consultant (cost not to exceed $50,000) to help them negotiate with stubborn union officials.

So on September 12, the RT board considered rescinding or amending the original PLA resolution. After some exciting and passionate public comments and debate among the RT board members, Elk Grove Councilman Pat Hume proposed amending the original resolution to require fair terms in the PLA and to direct staff to bring the negotiated PLA back to the board for a final vote.

The vote was going to be razor-close between the fair and open competition faction and the union-at-all-costs faction. The board and audience stared at the screen as the computer began calculating the weighted votes.

The motion lost, 52-48. Despite the fact that the board majority voted in support of the motion, Big Labor will keep control of $270 million in taxpayer-funded construction.

In the meantime, local business owners are 75% toward their goal of collecting enough signatures to comfortably qualify Fair and Open Competition measures for the City of Sacramento and County of Sacramento on a future ballot. These would prohibit the city, the county, and its affiliates from forcing contractors to sign PLAs with unions.

If there was any doubt these measures are needed, consider the 52-48 vote of the RT board on September 12.

No local news media in the Sacramento area reported on this vote. To ensure that elected officials are accountable to voters, www.TheTruthaboutPLAs.com presents the vote record for the PLA. (A YES vote means make the PLA fair; a NO vote means keep the PLA as the unions want it.)

1. Angelique Ashby, Sacramento City Council Member – Absent
2. Steve Cohn, Sacramento City Council – No
3. Darrell Fong, Sacramento City Council – No
4. Pat Hume, Elk Grove City Council – Yes
5. Roberta MacGlashan, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – Yes
6. Steve Miller, Citrus Heights City Council – Yes
7. Andy Morin, Folsom City Council – Yes
8. Don Nottoli – Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – Yes
9. Bonnie Pannell, Sacramento City Council – No
10. David Sander, Rancho Cordova City Council – Yes
11. Phil Serna, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors – No

But at an Escondido City Council meeting on September 28, the bill was already state law, as far as union officials and their allies were concerned.

Escondido City Hall, first location where unions threatened a California local government with Senate Bill 922.

Escondido is a city of 144,000 in San Diego County, about 20 miles southeast of the coastal city of Oceanside. City council members had circulated a draft of Oceanside’s city charter (approved by voters in June 2010) as a possible model for Escondido’s charter. It contains a Fair and Open Competition provision similar to the ordinance enacted in the City of Fresno.

At this September 28 workshop, the Escondido City Council scheduled three formal presentations about the proposed charter. Representatives of the San Diego-Imperial County Building and Construction Trades Council were given ten minutes for a presentation in support of government-mandated Project Labor Agreements.

Union representatives declared that if Escondido voters approve a charter with a Fair and Open Competition provision, voters will “jeopardize millions of dollars in funding under Senate Bill 922” and “jeopardize money coming down from Sacramento.” For a while, the unions were able to manipulate city council members and city staff into discussing the charter under the presumption that Senate Bill 922 was already the law of the land. It is not.

If signed into law, Senate Bill 922 will be the unions’ primary tool to discourage California local governments from adopting their own Fair and Open Competition public contracting policies that prohibit government mandates for contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements. Union lobbyists can resume their demands for monopoly control of taxpayer-funded construction, and lawyers can resume their “greenmail” of blocking projects with environmental objections until getting a Project Labor Agreement. The power of the state to collect and distribute taxpayer money will be used to punish voters who enact policies that discourage those practices.

As shown by various local ballot initiatives throughout the state, voters clearly oppose Project Labor Agreements. Ordinary citizens want the best quality construction at the best price when their money is spent.

In response, union lobbyists turned to the politicians in the state legislature to bail them out by passing a bill stopping local voters (and their elected officials) from adopting Fair and Open Competition policies. Will Governor Brown use the state government to suppress local control? Or will he veto Senate Bill 922?

News Media Coverage

Charter city forum features name-calling, emotional outbursts – North County Times – September 29, 2011

Here is the controversial language, tacked on to the very end of the 22-page bill:

Nothing in this division prohibits payments pursuant to an agreement authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.), or payments permitted by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Secs. 173, 175a, and 186). Nothing in this division restricts any use permitted by federal law of money paid pursuant to these acts.

Several newspapers have published editorials urging Governor Brown to veto SB 790 because of the sneaky provision. But other than TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, few news outlets have attempted to dig deep with an investigation into the implications of the language in Senate Bill 790. One exception is a September 8 exposé entitled Legislation Boosts Union Trust Fund by Katy Grimes of CalWatchdog.com. Excerpts from that article appeared in the September 11 San Francisco Examiner: ‘Gut and amend’ bills help fill union coffers.‘

In response, State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) had an opinion piece in the September 16, 2011 San Francisco Examiner (Claims Against CCA Bill Unfounded) claiming that criticism of Senate Bill 790 is based on “falsehoods and innuendo” and a “fanciful theory, a fantasy.” In another opinion piece in the September 21 Oakland Tribune and associated Bay Area News Group newspapers (Bill Was Not Hijacked and Deserves to be Signed), two local elected officials in the San Francisco Bay Area and a lobbyist for the Sierra Club declare that “The Tribune has wrongly charged that SB790 ‘was hijacked’ and that it ‘authorizes payments in PLAs (project labor agreements) covering utility infrastructure projects to slush funds managed by construction union officials.’”

This morning (September 22, 2011), the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction released the most comprehensive analysis yet of “a genuine union conspiracy” involving Senate Bill 790, Project Labor Agreements, and Labor Management Cooperation Committees. Peppered with links to documentary evidence, the “Investigative Report” examines step-by-step how unions exploit the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to browbeat power plant developers into signing a Project Labor Agreement, which requires the developer or its contractors to make payments to trust funds authorized by the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978, which in turn these union-affiliated trust funds use to finance political activity for unions.

See the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction’s “Investigative Report: A Genuine Union Conspiracy” here.