A recent Oklahoma Supreme Court case, City of Stillwater v. International Association of Firefighters just held that collective bargaining agreements which the city makes which guarantee pay increases beyond the current fiscal year are unenforceable in that regard [in overturning a decision made by a binding arbitration panel]. I'm guessing that Oklahoma City's municipal attorneys are already drafting the paperwork to set aside the recent binding arbitration losses with the FOP and the firefighters' union with regard to salary increases.

The decision rests on Article 10, § 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which says:


"Except as herein otherwise provided, no county, city, town, township, school district, or other political corporation, or subdivision of the state, shall be allowed to become indebted, in any manner, or for any purpose, to an amount exceeding, in any year, the income and revenue provided for such year without the assent of three-fifths of the voters thereof . . . ."

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=459772

Could it be that the negotiations which will likely ensue will result in police/fire taking a cut in pay and the Mayor being able to deliver on his promise that we will increase the numbers of emergency personnel? Stay tuned.

How does this apply to OKC? Aren't the Fire/Police agreements only for the fiscal year?

It has been that way for business contracts and lenders for a long while.

It is just that there used to be very high confidence that multi-year deals would be honored by successive municipal governments. But now that we are seeing cities and other governmental units unable to meet their fiscal responsibilities and actually defaulting it is becoming apparent how bad this can be.

How does this apply to OKC? Aren't the Fire/Police agreements only for the fiscal year?

Not sure. Do the agreements contain clauses guaranteeing x% pay increases for successive years? Even a % pay increase based upon a formula? Stillwater's CBA contained a 2-year agreement with a clause basing pay increases for fire upon a formula using several other cities as baselines. The formula dictated a 6.1% increase in '09 (wouldn't that be nice?) and the city only gave a 3% raise. The union took them to arbitration, won and the arbitrator was reversed.

Mid

it is my understanding from what I have read in these threads (someone please correct if in error):
1) that the contracts are negotiated yearly and only apply to that fiscal year
2) there is a formula that is used of a peer city group and pay is supposed to be the average of that group (City picks the peer cities)
3) If the City doesn't agree with their own formula, then it goes to arbitration (historically sides with the union, and the raise is awarded).

All of that aside, this 1 year requirement goes back to another discussion where someone suggested (may have been you) that they set up a trust to oversee MAPS 3 funds and the response they got back from the City Manager was that it would be illegal to do so (even though we have a multi-year trust situation with MAPS 4 Kids..so the unanswered question there was, is the MAPS 4 Kids trust illegal?) Is this another case of the City doing illegal things until they are challenged on it or it no longer suites their purpose?

Mid:

The 3/5ths mentioned in your quote, is that the 60% "super majority" that is required for school bond elections? If so, it is apparent that it applies not only to school bond elections but any multi-year tax (bond, sales etc)? Does this mean that General Obligation Bond elections actually require a 60% approval? That MAPS style elections, also require a 60% approval? If they do, MAPS 3 only got 54%....

Midtowner, you b*stard. You do realize what you've done, right? At some point the fire union folks are going to come back and attempt to seize control of this site!
(I kid, I kid!)

Midtowner, you b*stard. You do realize what you've done, right? At some point the fire union folks are going to come back and attempt to seize control of this site!
(I kid, I kid!)

LOL, that's funny!!

actually that is a reaffirmation of an old supreme court decision that overturned the "evergreen clause" of public employee contracts. The original decision goes back to the 80's.
I was frankly amazed to see that an arbitrator had disallowed that court order of such precedence, but than again most arbitrator decisions are wacky............

Steve,
Too late, we're here to stay and are recruiting more everyday to come join in the fun........Mainly to keep RC straight.

Mid- as has already been mentioned, contracts in okc are negotiated on a yearly basis. We are supposed to have binding arbitration but it seems that only applies when the city is happy. As to the Mayor's lie of hiring more police and firefighters; I can't remember a single statement during the Maps3 campaign that said it was contingent on salary and benefits reduction. That came from the CM during this years budget process and rather than working on it during negotiations they chose to cut 29 firefighter positions. One engine downtown and 3 BP are no longer at the stations and those positions are vacant.

Steve,
Too late, we're here to stay and are recruiting more everyday to come join in the fun........Mainly to keep RC straight.

Mid- as has already been mentioned, contracts in okc are negotiated on a yearly basis. We are supposed to have binding arbitration but it seems that only applies when the city is happy. As to the Mayor's lie of hiring more police and firefighters; I can't remember a single statement during the Maps3 campaign that said it was contingent on salary and benefits reduction. That came from the CM during this years budget process and rather than working on it during negotiations they chose to cut 29 firefighter positions. One engine downtown and 3 BP are no longer at the stations and those positions are vacant.

Hopefully you'll recruit someone with knowledge of OKC's budget process

RC,
Shouldn't you be out cleaning your carp for dinner? My knowledge of the budget process is just a little bit more involved than dealing with weedeaters and lawnmowers and if you really want to get into a pissing contest of who has had to balance budgets with the most money and manpower involved I'd be happy to go head to head with you. But be careful what you ask for.
Stay dry today.

RC,
Shouldn't you be out cleaning your carp for dinner? My knowledge of the budget process is just a little bit more involved than dealing with weedeaters and lawnmowers and if you really want to get into a pissing contest of who has had to balance budgets with the most money and manpower involved I'd be happy to go head to head with you. But be careful what you ask for.
Stay dry today.

Carp, no, Bass and Catfish, hell yes, come to Tenkiller someday, I'll fry up a mess and teach you a few things about Government/Budget, but you must promise to come with an open mind. Have a Great Day, Stay Dry and Don't drive into deep water.