When the People Rise Up: Fourteen Cases of the Fair and Open Competition Movement in California to Stop Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

How unusual it is to find people in California willing to commit the time, money, and work to proactively try to ensure fiscal responsibility for taxpayers.

Here is the status of eleven charter provisions, ordinances, and resolutions enacted at local governments in California to prohibit government requirements that construction companies must sign Project Labor Agreements with unions to work on taxpayer-funded construction contracts.

1. City of Oceanside – Charter Provision – Fair and Open Competition

Approved by 54% of Voters, June 8, 2010

Oceanside Charter §303

2. City of Chula Vista – Ordinance – Fair and Open Competition in Contracting

Approved by 56% of Voters, June 8, 2010

Chula Vista Municipal Code §02-59

3. San Diego County – Ordinance – Prohibition on Use of Project Labor Agreements

Approved by Board of Supervisors 5-0 – March 2, 2010 (nullified by Senate Bill 922)

(Note: superseded by charter amendment approved by voters on November 2, 2010)

San Diego County Administrative Code Article XXIII, §428

4. Orange County – Ordinance – Prohibition of Anti-Competitive or Discriminatory Requirements in Public Contracts

Approved by Board of Supervisors 5-0 – November 3, 2009 (nullified by Senate Bill 922)

Orange County, California PLA Ban – Code of Ordinances §1-8-3

5. City of Fresno – Ordinance – Prohibition of Project Labor Agreements

Approved by City Council 4-3 – February 2, 2000

Fresno Municipal Code – §4-111

6. Placer County – Resolution – Amending the Placer County Purchasing Manual to Add a Provision Prohibiting Any Requirement for Project Labor Agreements on County Public Projects

Approved by Board of Supervisors 3-2 – August 24, 2010

Placer County – Resolution 2010-234

7. Palmdale Water District – Resolution – A Resolution Amending Appendix M, the Bid Procurement and Change Order Policy, of the Rules and Regulations of the Palmdale Water District to Include Provisions Prohibiting the Requirement of Project Labor Agreements and Other Anti Competitive Measures Except Where Otherwise Required By State or Federal Law

Approved by Board of Directors 3-2 – October 27, 2010 (repealed on April 25, 2012 because of “election activism and Senate Bill 922” according to a May 4, 2012 notice issued by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.)

Palmdale Water District – Resolution 2010-20

8. San Diego County – Charter Provision – Prohibition on Requiring Project Labor Agreements

Approved by 76% of Voters, November 2, 2010 (nullified by Senate Bill 922)

San Diego County Charter – §705.4

9. Stanislaus County – Ordinance – To Prohibit the County from Requiring Project Labor Agreements on County Construction Projects

Approved by Board of Supervisors 5-0 – July 12, 2011 (nullified by Senate Bill 922)

Stanislaus County Code – Chapter 2.98

10. City of San Diego – Ordinance – Fair and Open Competition in Construction

Approved by 58% of Voters, June 5, 2012

San Diego Municipal Code §22.44

11. City of El Cajon – Charter Provision – Purchasing and Contracts

Approved by 58% of Voters, June 5, 2012

El Cajon Charter §400

Fair and Open Competition Policies Actively Proposed in Public Forums but Not Brought Up for Voting

1. City of Sacramento – Petition for Charter Provision – Fair and Open Competition

Signatures submitted December 26, 2011; not enough valid signatures to qualify for ballot.

Proposed City of Sacramento Charter Amendment

2. Sacramento County – Petition for Charter Provision – Fair and Open Competition

Campaign executive committee abandoned signature gathering on October 3, 2011 after enactment of Senate Bill 922.

Proposed Sacramento County Charter Amendment

3. City of Roseville – Charter Review Commission Recommends Ordinance – Fair and Open Competition

City of Roseville Charter Review Commission presented recommendations to Roseville City Council on April 21, 2010, including the enactment of an ordinance guaranteeing fair and open competition.

Charter Review Committee Recommendations – page 41.

One comment

  1. KOREN Communications says:

    Another invaluable addition to the public record Kevin. I imagine this is probably the only complete record of this activity available anywhere but in your computer.