ARTICLE
Have you ever watched your favorite movie that has been reproduced for a new modern version? You know the ending, but you are mesmerized by what different twists the new actors provide to the storyline. Then you get to the end of the movie — and like magic — the producers completely revise the ending. You watch in bewilderment, why would anyone change the outcome of my favorite movie? Sometimes the answer is easy to understand, and at other times — you just don’t know the answer. It is a puzzle. The old saying that policy and politics is a contact sport is 100% accurate. This is true at all levels of government, and it was played out by the Santa Cruz City Council’s action on Tuesday afternoon. In the policy making process it is stated that if you don’t have a seat at the table, you probably will on the menu for the dinner table. The issue at hand was Item 30 on the Santa Cruz City Council agenda. In our Monday email I gave a forewarning: There is a troublesome policy item making its way through the City Council process. The City Council will be discussing a staff report at their August 11 City Council Session. On face value, it would seem to be logical to think that the last words in the Policy Description “Community Benefit Strategies for Capital Improvement Projects” would be worthy of pursuing. However, the trouble is the first words in the item: "Project Labor Agreement (PLA)" — a process utilized by local labor union shops in an effort to have public works projects hire local union workers. But the reality is that the skilled labor pool in Santa Cruz County is not union labor. A majority of the contractors in the region (the Tri-County area of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey County) are non-union employers. When we are asked to engage on an issue before the City Council, council members remind me, “It is not just good enough to write a letter expressing your views, you need to show up at the meeting.” That is exactly what the local contractors did on Tuesday afternoon. They showed up on the City Council’s Zoom meeting to engage and participate in the policymaking process. If you are interested and have two to three hours: you can listen to the city council discussion here: https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1439&doctype=1. Here is one person’s observation of the meeting: On January 28th, the City Council initiated a discussion on the plan to roll out a new process for bidding on a city project — called Project Labor Agreement. That PLA request came directly from the Monterey Bay and Santa Cruz Labor Council. That discussion led to confusion by some council members questioning what was wrong with the current project bidding process. There was no clarity at that meeting, and the city council asked the city staff to come back with an updated report on the issue. The Council directed staff to engage with the Monterey-Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (Building Trades Council) to develop a project labor agreement (PLA) for the Council’s consideration, and to bring an agreement to Council by April 2020. The Council also directed staff to engage with other community stakeholders, in particular local contractors and business interests such as the Chamber of Commerce and the County Business Council on topics related to the Council’s potential decision to use PLAs for potential future work. The issue was to be heard at an April 2020 meeting. Fast forward to the June 9th city council meeting: During that meeting it was again requested by the City Council, specifically the Mayor and Councilmember Brown, to bring back a city staff report at the next council meeting after the July break. That is exactly what the city staff did: “At its June 9, 2020 meeting, the Council further revised and updated its special projects list for staff due to the direct financial impacts of COVID-19 on the City’s resources, including eliminating a few items and specifically directing staff to re-engage with the Building Trades Council on PLAs,” as stated in the report. In the response to the council’s request, the staff produced a very thorough report with economic and legal analysis and included a survey of local contractors on the merits of a PLA. You can see Item 30 here: https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1439&doctype=1 How and why the city staff engaged with the different stakeholders was not clear during the discussion on Tuesday. What is clear, the city staff and the city council had every opportunity to work with the community to finalize the report with several recommendations. I am told that the city council and the Mayor received numerous requests to meet with the various stakeholders involved in this issue. To hear a council member and the Mayor comment, “we were unaware that this issue was going to be on the August 11 agenda”, and we were ‘shocked’ as the Mayor stated. How can you make that comment in a public meeting when there were substantial public comments in previous meetings requesting that this item come back sooner than later? The local contractors were ready to engage on Tuesday afternoon. Dozens of concerned local contractors and others were on the conference line listening to the proceedings, more than a dozen local contractors and organizations spoke out against the PLA. And only a few union representatives weighed in. It is not disputable that neither the city council members, the city staff, the labor community, and the local contractors were not aware of the issue moving through the city’s policy process since January. What happened at the end of the public comment period was a shift in personalities from the council. A motion to table the item was put forth by Councilmember Beiers and immediately seconded by the Mayor, who again expressed dismay that this item was rushed onto the agenda. A friendly substitute motion was offered by Councilmember Mathews, which suggested alternative language than what appeared in the staff report. There was second to that motion. Then the drama of back and forth conversations between councilmembers and the staff ensued for more than an hour plus — leading the Mayor to stop the proceedings and call for a five-minute break? Maybe a baseball analogy for his break request is appropriate. The Mayor must have known that his pitcher (his argument to postpone the item) was losing. Like the manager of the team coming to the mound to pull the pitcher who has no arm energy left, his fastball has slowed and his curveball has no action. So, the Mayor stopped the game (meeting) and looked for another pitcher to take over. What happened during those five to ten minutes of dead time is a mystery. What did happen upon their return to the meeting, again is baffling. Councilmember Mathews rescinded her friendly motion even though, it appeared from the other council members' comments, the motion would pass. Then the meeting went sideways for all parties. After three-plus hours — a voted to postpone this item and bring it back to the City Council in September. What will not change from Tuesday afternoon to September will be another onslaught of politics over policy. Closed-door meetings, internal discussions, and a behind the scenes effort. You can be certain that the business community and the local contractors will not shy away from the debate. When a councilmember tells you that they think global and act local and support local businesses, ask them one question: Do you support the local contractor who creates local jobs, builds communities, and has been here for generations? The answer should not be ‘let’s take a break and delay further action on what can be the future for our local contractors.’
Have you ever watched your favorite movie that has been reproduced for a new modern version? You know the ending, but you are mesmerized by what different twists the new actors provide to the storyline. Then you get to the end of the movie — and like magic — the producers completely revise the ending. You watch in bewilderment, why would anyone change the outcome of my favorite movie? Sometimes the answer is easy to understand, and at other times — you just don’t know the answer. It is a puzzle.
The old saying that policy and politics is a contact sport is 100% accurate. This is true at all levels of government, and it was played out by the Santa Cruz City Council’s action on Tuesday afternoon.
In the policy making process it is stated that if you don’t have a seat at the table, you probably will on the menu for the dinner table. The issue at hand was Item 30 on the Santa Cruz City Council agenda. In our Monday email I gave a forewarning:
There is a troublesome policy item making its way through the City Council process. The City Council will be discussing a staff report at their August 11 City Council Session. On face value, it would seem to be logical to think that the last words in the Policy Description “Community Benefit Strategies for Capital Improvement Projects” would be worthy of pursuing. However, the trouble is the first words in the item: "Project Labor Agreement (PLA)" — a process utilized by local labor union shops in an effort to have public works projects hire local union workers. But the reality is that the skilled labor pool in Santa Cruz County is not union labor. A majority of the contractors in the region (the Tri-County area of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey County) are non-union employers.
When we are asked to engage on an issue before the City Council, council members remind me, “It is not just good enough to write a letter expressing your views, you need to show up at the meeting.” That is exactly what the local contractors did on Tuesday afternoon. They showed up on the City Council’s Zoom meeting to engage and participate in the policymaking process. If you are interested and have two to three hours: you can listen to the city council discussion here: https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1439&doctype=1.
Here is one person’s observation of the meeting: On January 28th, the City Council initiated a discussion on the plan to roll out a new process for bidding on a city project — called Project Labor Agreement. That PLA request came directly from the Monterey Bay and Santa Cruz Labor Council. That discussion led to confusion by some council members questioning what was wrong with the current project bidding process. There was no clarity at that meeting, and the city council asked the city staff to come back with an updated report on the issue.
The Council directed staff to engage with the Monterey-Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council (Building Trades Council) to develop a project labor agreement (PLA) for the Council’s consideration, and to bring an agreement to Council by April 2020. The Council also directed staff to engage with other community stakeholders, in particular local contractors and business interests such as the Chamber of Commerce and the County Business Council on topics related to the Council’s potential decision to use PLAs for potential future work. The issue was to be heard at an April 2020 meeting.
Fast forward to the June 9th city council meeting: During that meeting it was again requested by the City Council, specifically the Mayor and Councilmember Brown, to bring back a city staff report at the next council meeting after the July break. That is exactly what the city staff did:
“At its June 9, 2020 meeting, the Council further revised and updated its special projects list for staff due to the direct financial impacts of COVID-19 on the City’s resources, including eliminating a few items and specifically directing staff to re-engage with the Building Trades Council on PLAs,” as stated in the report.
In the response to the council’s request, the staff produced a very thorough report with economic and legal analysis and included a survey of local contractors on the merits of a PLA. You can see Item 30 here: https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1439&doctype=1
How and why the city staff engaged with the different stakeholders was not clear during the discussion on Tuesday.
What is clear, the city staff and the city council had every opportunity to work with the community to finalize the report with several recommendations. I am told that the city council and the Mayor received numerous requests to meet with the various stakeholders involved in this issue. To hear a council member and the Mayor comment, “we were unaware that this issue was going to be on the August 11 agenda”, and we were ‘shocked’ as the Mayor stated. How can you make that comment in a public meeting when there were substantial public comments in previous meetings requesting that this item come back sooner than later?
The local contractors were ready to engage on Tuesday afternoon. Dozens of concerned local contractors and others were on the conference line listening to the proceedings, more than a dozen local contractors and organizations spoke out against the PLA. And only a few union representatives weighed in. It is not disputable that neither the city council members, the city staff, the labor community, and the local contractors were not aware of the issue moving through the city’s policy process since January.
What happened at the end of the public comment period was a shift in personalities from the council. A motion to table the item was put forth by Councilmember Beiers and immediately seconded by the Mayor, who again expressed dismay that this item was rushed onto the agenda. A friendly substitute motion was offered by Councilmember Mathews, which suggested alternative language than what appeared in the staff report. There was second to that motion. Then the drama of back and forth conversations between councilmembers and the staff ensued for more than an hour plus — leading the Mayor to stop the proceedings and call for a five-minute break?
Maybe a baseball analogy for his break request is appropriate. The Mayor must have known that his pitcher (his argument to postpone the item) was losing. Like the manager of the team coming to the mound to pull the pitcher who has no arm energy left, his fastball has slowed and his curveball has no action. So, the Mayor stopped the game (meeting) and looked for another pitcher to take over. What happened during those five to ten minutes of dead time is a mystery.
What did happen upon their return to the meeting, again is baffling. Councilmember Mathews rescinded her friendly motion even though, it appeared from the other council members' comments, the motion would pass. Then the meeting went sideways for all parties. After three-plus hours — a voted to postpone this item and bring it back to the City Council in September.
What will not change from Tuesday afternoon to September will be another onslaught of politics over policy. Closed-door meetings, internal discussions, and a behind the scenes effort. You can be certain that the business community and the local contractors will not shy away from the debate. When a councilmember tells you that they think global and act local and support local businesses, ask them one question: Do you support the local contractor who creates local jobs, builds communities, and has been here for generations? The answer should not be ‘let’s take a break and delay further action on what can be the future for our local contractors.’