LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEYS' ASSOCIATION
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011
Time: 12:00 p.m.
Location: Ron Deaton Auditorium, 100 W. First St., L.A.
Present: Oscar Winslow (President), Howard M. Fuchs (1st Vice President), Mark Lambert (2nd Vice President), Jule Bishop (Treasurer), Juliann Anderson (Secretary), Chris Bobo (Proprietary Director), Marie McTeague (Civil Director), Garcelle Embry, (Civil Director), Ann Rosenthal, (Criminal Director) Patrick Hiscocks (Criminal Director), Nick Karno (Criminal Director), Bob Hunt (Attorney), Julie Butcher (Guest)
1. Discussion of proposed LOA negotiated by the Coalition of L.A. City Unions
Members questioned why a majority of the board had recommended a “No” vote on the ratification of the LOA. Some members made it clear that they did not want to be "sold" on anything, but were, instead, interested in hearing answers to specific questions they had about the proposed contract concessions. A number of questions were asked and answered regarding the LOA and the options that LACAA had if the LOA was not ratified.
One member asked what was likely to happen if the LOA was not ratified. McTeague responded that we should take management at its word – i.e., that management would impose 36 furlough days on the bargaining unit and that it would take action to implement a permanent freeze on our health subsidy. She also stated that the Association had legal remedies it could pursue in response thereto --- including claims for unfair labor practices and infringement of vested rights. McTeague and Embry answered questions regarding the LOA’s language regarding the “vesting” of future health subsidy increases.
When asked about SEIU's plans if the contract was voted down, Julie Butcher stated that it was likely that several bargaining units would vote the contract down, which would probably result in more negotiations. When Ms. Butcher was asked why LACAA board members were not included in the negotiations, she stated that the sheer number of bargaining units made it impracticable to include everyone at the table and that LACAA’s interests were so different from most bargaining units. One member then pointed out that this was the reason LACAA should have been at the table.
