From: Kevin Dayton, Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
Subject: Costa Mesa City Council: Suggestion for Formal Pro and Con Presentations on Provisions of Proposed Charter
Date: June 12, 2012 7:21:34 PM PDT
To: Righeimer@costamesaca.gov, Eric.Bever@costamesaca.gov, Stephen.Mensinger@costamesaca.gov, Gary.Monahan@costamesaca.gov, Wendy.Leece@costamesaca.gov
Costa Mesa City Council members:
As someone identified by “Costa Mesans for Responsible Government” (see here) as the Center of the Great Quest to Free California’s Fiscally Responsible Local Governments from Centralized State Government Excesses and Mandates, I am writing to you about your proposed charter.
[Councilwoman Leece, I’m sending this to the (Orange County) Register and (Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily) Pilot, so “WOW, you won’t all need to continue to write letters to the Register and Pilot to expose this statewide scheme.”]
I saw that your first informational hearing on June 5 on a proposed charter for the City of Costa Mesa was – according to the Orange County Register – marred by “much of the same conflicts and arguments that plagued the first hearing process.”
Obviously your proposed charter is meaningful public policy – otherwise everyone would be praising it unanimously as if it were a resolution for Take Your Dog to Work Day. (That’s June 22 if you want to put that on your June 19 meeting agenda to bring peace, harmony, and unity to the community.)
I watched the video, and I saw some members of the public asking for thoughtful changes in a civil manner. Others are absolutely intent on maintaining the power of centralized government in Sacramento.
But I noticed that yet again there was a lack of informed public discussion regarding the actual statutory and regulatory aspects of state-mandated construction wage rates and the state’s expansive definition of public works. How does the state calculate construction wage rates? Why does the definition of “public works” apply to so many private projects?
It needs to be emphasized that under Section 401 of your proposed charter, the city council will have the power to evaluate the benefits and liabilities of each provision of the following California Labor Code sections and determine their relevance to Costa Mesa municipal construction:
PART 7. PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
CHAPTER 1. PUBLIC WORKS
Article 1. Scope and Operation …………………………. 1720-1743
Article 1.5. Right of Action ……………………………… 1750
Article 2. Wages ……………………………………… 1770-1781
I propose a formal set of presentations at your next informational hearing to discuss various aspects of the charter. I would be interested in speaking about why it is reasonable to question the city’s current absolute subservience as a general law city to California Labor Code Sections 1720-1781 and related regulations.
Just one example: what is so wrong with the city being able to set a project cost threshold of $1 million for government-mandated construction wage rates on purely municipal projects, instead of the $1000 set by the state in 1931 that persists today? As a charter city, you could set your own project cost threshold for city projects.
I suggest inviting top representatives of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California to speak about why the city needs to remain firmly under the authority of the benevolent and enlightened California State Legislature. Perhaps they can explain the section of their brief submitted to the California Supreme Court on State Building and Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista that claims charter cities must abide by state-mandated construction wage rates (“prevailing wages”) because “construction workers today routinely commute to projects outside the cities in which they happen to live” and “it is not uncommon for today’s construction workers to commute more than 100 miles to work at a job site.”
By the way, here’s my report on the defeat of the proposed charter in the City of Auburn in the June 5 election:
Who Defeated the City of Auburn’s Proposed Charter, and How Was It Done? (Answer: Three Union Entities, by Spending $56.40 Per NO Vote
Also, please let me know if there are any upcoming community forums where the charter will be debated (chamber of commerce, etc.).
In the meantime, congratulations on the initiative of four of you to seek meaningful local control over municipal affairs that could bring relief for middle class taxpayers and small businesses that are interested in fiscal responsibility and freedom from costly state mandates.
President and CEO
Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
California taxpayers and small business owners: it’s bad out there! See my blog postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com
P.S. Have you seen where various organizations and publications rank California nowadays among the 50 states for business climates and regulatory and tax burdens? Yes, there is a problem!