The political action committee formed to defeat the firefighters union’s three “San Antonio First” charter amendments on the November ballot will officially launch its “Go Vote No” campaign Saturday morning at La Villita. But campaign efforts on both sides began long ago at press conferences, on social media, and in and around courtrooms.
On Nov. 6, voters will decide if the City’s charter should include language that:
- (Prop A) makes it easier for citizens to put proposed ordinances and financial decisions to a public vote;
- (Prop B) limit future city managers’ salaries and tenure, and;
- (Prop C) force binding arbitration between the union and the City for a new labor contract.
Control is at the heart of the controversy. San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association officials argue their ballot initiatives would give the citizens of San Antonio a stronger voice in local government. The PAC, called Secure San Antonio’s Future (SSAF), and other opponents, including the mayor, say special interest groups would win if the amendments were approved – while threatening the City’s rare AAA bond rating, costing the city millions in increased interest payments.
A long list of City, state, and local elected officials and business leaders are expected to attend Secure San Antonio’s Future kickoff rally Saturday, according to organizers. That list includes State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio), State Rep. Justin Rodriguez (D-San Antonio), State Rep. Philip Cortez (D-San Antonio), Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, Bexar County Commissioner Kevin Wolff (Pct. 3), all City Council members except Greg Brockhouse (D6) and Clayton Perry (D10), and former mayors Phil Hardberger, Ed Garza, and Lila Cockrell.
Secure San Antonio’s Future lost its appeal at the Texas Supreme Court earlier this week regarding a temporary restraining order that could have kept the initiatives off the ballot. The underlying case regarding whether the union illegally paid for a consultant to collect petition signatures for the three initiatives remains active. The union has filed a motion to dismiss that lawsuit and filed a separate lawsuit in federal court alleging the City violated its First Amendment rights as it collected signatures. On Wednesday, the union called for SSAF to disclose its donors ahead of the deadline in October. SSAF officials said they have no obligation to do so before then.
The City’s saga with the firefighters union begins, arguably, in 2013 when then-Mayor Julián Castro and City Manager Sheryl Sculley formed a task force to look at the health care costs associated with the police and fire union contracts with the City. The task force determined unsustainable health care costs for uniformed employees in San Antonio would eventually impede the City’s ability to fund other city services such as parks, libraries, street maintenance and other things funded via the General Fund. The city’s attempt to reign in those and other costs sparked a two-year, on-again-off-again contract negotiation process with the police union.
Meanwhile, the fire union remained relatively silent, refusing to come to the negotiating table.
Both union contracts’ 10-year evergreen clause – which keeps most terms in place until a new agreement is reached – was challenged by the City in court and both said they would not negotiate while that lawsuit, which the City lost in the 4th Court of Appeals and a district court, was being appealed by the City to the Texas Supreme Court.
Former Mayor Ivy Taylor spoke behind closed doors with police union leaders to arrive at a deal, so the City dropped its appeal to the high court. The police union’s contract included a health care package option that would, for the first time, have members pay a reasonable premium for their dependents. It also included an eight-year evergreen clause.
It’s unlikely the City could keep spending on public safety contracts at or below the Council-mandated 66 percent of the General Fund, Sculley said at the time, so it’s likely that the fire union would get a different – less ideal – agreement from police officers.
The City’s stance has been “first in, best contract,” Sculley said in September 2016 when the police union contract was approved by Council.
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court denied the City’s request for an appeal, keeping the 10-year evergreen clause in the fire union’s contract in place. Its current contract expired on Sept. 30, 2014. No negotiations have taken place.
San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association President Chris Steele says the propositions are not a negotiating tactic, rather a result of the “people” of San Antonio asking the fire union for help to reign in a “corrupt” government.
Nirenberg has said the petitions are directly related to the negotiating process – or lack thereof.
“These proposals that they are putting forward are in the self-serving interests of a union leader who has refused in good faith for over four years to come to the table and bargain a solution for his members,” Nirenberg told reporters in April on the day the signed petitions were filed to get the charter amendments on the ballot. He and the Go Vote No campaign have stressed that the amendments have nothing to do with their support of firefighters.
Receive updates on the local impact of coronavirus in your inbox every morning.
Such ballot initiatives require a fiscal impact report, according to Sculley. One was presented to City Council last month before Council officially placed the fire union’s items on the ballot last month.
Steve Nivin, director of the SABÉR Research Institute and an associate professor of Economics at St. Mary’s University, carried out a City-commissioned study and explained the results to Council.
Nivin’s research found that the City would experience slower economic growth if the ballot amendments were approved, which would impact revenues by creating uncertainty in the business sector.
“Recessions [would be] more severe, [and the initiatives would] inhibit our ability to recover from them,” Nivin said, adding that it would impede the City’s ability to attract, retain, and expand businesses and potentially increase the City’s interest expenses on loans.
The amendments could allow voters to micromanage every decision City leaders make, SSAF Campaign Manager Christian Archer said Wednesday, throwing the local government into chaos.
“That pretty much describes how cavalier they are with three propositions that [could] have a devastating effect on our city,” he said.
The propositions also threaten the City’s AAA bond rating, according to statements issued by Fitch and Standard & Poor, two of the three major rating agencies, earlier this summer.
The City’s Chief Financial Officer Ben Gorzell said at the time he was “personally surprised” by their statements as “they don’t typically speculate” about what could impact bond ratings.
A lower bond rating could result in the same ballooning costs the health care task force said would affect the city. Gorzell said the result would be fewer infrastructure projects and a possible increase in property taxes to keep up the current level of service.
CPS Energy officials also have said it could impact the utility’s credit rating, too.
But union officials deny these propositions would impact bond ratings, property taxes, or growth.
“Cities and States all over the country who allow their citizens more voice at the ballot box share our credit ratings. The fact is that City leaders were tone deaf to the voters last year and raised utility rates. Voters didn’t have a voice and were not allowed to weigh in on the issue,” according to a February post on San Antonio First’s website.
However, San Antonio is the only U.S. city with more than 1 million residents to achieve the highest rating from any of the three agencies.
“Your Firefighters are simply saying if it takes 20,000 signatures on a petition to allow voters to voice their opinion at the ballot box and change the City Charter, why not be consistent and make the same rules apply to changing a City Ordinance. Giving voters a voice should never be used as a threat like claiming it will hurt credit ratings,” the website states.
Asked Thursday what Nirenberg would like voters to remember when entering voting booths on Nov. 6, he said, “These special-interest charter proposals will irreparably damage our city’s economic future and will end up costing taxpayers more.”
Below, find the ballot language that will accompany each proposition on the ballot:
Prop A: Changing Referendum Process
“Shall the City Charter be amended to expand the types of ordinances that may be subject to referendum including appropriation of money, levying a tax, granting a franchise, fixing public utility rates, zoning and rezoning of property; and to increase the number of days within which a petition may be filed seeking a referendum on an ordinance passed by Council from forty to one hundred eighty days after passage of the ordinance; and to provide that no more than twenty thousand signatures of registered voters are required for a referendum petition instead of ten percent of those electors qualified to vote at the last regular municipal election?”
Prop B: Term and Salary Cap for City Manager
“Shall the City Charter be amended to limit the term the City Manager may serve to no longer than eight years, and to limit the compensation of the City Manager to no more than ten times the annual salary furnished to the lowest paid full-time city employee, and to require a supermajority vote of City Council to appoint the City Manager?”
Prop C: Forced Arbitration for Collective Bargaining Agreement
“Shall the City Charter be amended to provide the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 624 with unilateral authority to require the City to participate in binding arbitration of all issues in dispute with the Association within forty-five days of the City’s receipt of the Association’s written arbitration request?”