Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) and San Antonio First spokesman David Van Os went toe to toe Monday night debating the three propositions San Antonio voters will see on the November ballot.
The debate was tense from the beginning: Pelaez said the measures – placed on the ballot by the local firefighters union, which has been embroiled in a years-long battle with the City over its labor contract – are political ploys to “start fires” at City Hall. By the end of the night, Van Os said he had “never been so rudely insulted publicly.”
Pelaez maintained he didn’t intend to insult; rather he wanted to call out the propositions for what they are and Van Os for doing the union’s political work.
“I’m not a member of the firefighters union,” Van Os told the crowd of more than 40 people at the Urban Ecology Center at Phil Hardberger Park. Throughout the debate, organized by the Northside Neighborhoods for Organized Development, Pelaez and Van Os were not supposed to directly address each other, but they often did. “I’m not here just on behalf of the firefighters union,” Van Os added.
Van Os and fellow campaign volunteer Reinette King were installed as spokespeople for the campaign after San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association President Chris Steele took a step back from that role last week. Steele retreated after a recording of him talking about the union’s political goals was leaked and the opposing Go Vote No campaign continued to call into question Steele’s credibility.
Rather, Van Os said, he joined the San Antonio First campaign – launched by the firefighters union earlier this year and recently promoted as Approved By Citizens – because of his staunch belief that voters should have a stronger say in their democracy.
“I’m here on behalf of over 100,000 citizens” who signed petitions to get the measures on the ballot, said Van Os, an attorney who represented the union in a 2005 lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Go Vote No campaign is “demonizing” Steele, he added.
If approved, Proposition A would relax requirements for and expand the scope of future ballot initiatives aimed at challenging City Council decisions; Proposition B would limit future city managers’ tenure to eight years and compensation to no more than 10 times the lowest-paid full-time City employee’s pay; and Proposition C would allow the fire union to force binding arbitration with the City for a new labor contract that dictates wages, raises, healthcare premiums, and more.
But it’s the fire union that paid more than $500,000 to an out-of-town firm to collect enough signatures to get these City Charter changes on the ballot, Pelaez said, listing several instances in which Steele’s motives for a power grab became apparent.
“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,” Pelaez said, “seriously, I’m a duck and it’s all about the fire union.”
Pelaez and Van Os were each given 15 minutes to present their case to the audience. A Q&A session followed. Here’s a summary of the discussion:
Prop A
Van Os: It only requires 20,000 signatures to get a City Charter change on the ballot, but more than 70,000 to get challenges to City Council decisions on the ballot. “Prop A proposes the same number of signatures [be] required.”
Voters should be able to overturn City Council decisions and be trusted to make those decisions, he said, as that is the fundamental principle of democracy.
“I give more credit to the intelligence of voters,” he said.
He clarified that 20,000 signatures does not pass anything – it mandates a proposition go to a public vote.
Pelaez: This is not about elevating democracy, he said, but if “it fits on a bumper sticker, it sounds great.” But the math doesn’t add up, Pelaez said, noting that bond rating agencies have said they will downgrade San Antonio – which would mean higher interest rates – if Prop A is approved.
That means more money will go toward paying interest than toward funding infrastructure projects like sidewalks, streets, and drainage.
Prop A would make it easier and cheaper for special interest groups – such as those against civil rights for the LGBTQIA community or a developer who wants a zoning rule changed – to “pressure the City” with the threat of ballot propositions, Pelaez said.
Prop B
Van Os: “San Antonio has one of the highest poverty rates in the U.S.,” he said. “If [City Manager Sheryl Sculley is] so good, why is [that]?”
Sculley’s more than $500,000 salary, he said, is “an obscenity.”
After the debate, Van Os told the Rivard Report and an attendee that he was “not 100 percent” on board with the term limit.
Pelaez: “This is not going to impact the current City manager,” he said, and passing Prop B would mean the City would have about $300,000 to recruit the next one.
He imagined how a recruiting conversation might go: “If you do a really good job, we’re going to fire you in eight years. Sign on the dotted line and move your family to San Antonio.”
Essentially, he added, “you get what you pay for.”
Prop C
Van Os: The union’s goal is to end the years-long, unofficial impasse with the City, he said, and binding arbitration would help put in place a contract so everyone could move on.
“This puts an end to the acrimony and the public debate and accusations,” he said. “It’s not just a blank check,” as arbiters may not give the union all it wants.
Pelaez: As a labor attorney, he has seen how arbitration works – and doesn’t.
“Arbitration doesn’t work in instances like this,” Pelaez said. “[The public] won’t be able to hear or see it” because it will take place behind closed doors with arbiters who don’t answer to the people of San Antonio.
There would be no room for appeals and no requirements to balance the contract with the City’s budget. The fire union should at least attempt to negotiate, which the City has offered to do almost a dozen times.
After the debate, local attorney Steve Sanders, who came to learn more about the propositions, said he “learned a ton.”
While he has not made up his mind, he’s leaning toward voting yes on Prop A, but no on Prop B and C.
“It’s 20,000 registered voters to put something on the ballot … I agree that it’s about democracy, and I love that,” Sanders said, but the two other propositions seem to be more about the union’s issues with the City.
“B and C are a little bit of the firefighters being a little chapped about … not getting a contract done.”
WOW, A audience of more than 40 people; Democracy in Action and We, as the Voting Citizens still debate whether these Charter Amendments are beneficial.
Let Fire Union contract run in Ever green clause then Start Over.
Nice way to end the article by putting adding the opinion of one person. That appears to be very fair and balanced reporting.
If Prop A & Prop C pass, does that mean if 20,000 or more citizens are not happy with the new firefighter’s contract that they can all sign a petition to put the contract up to a vote? So citizens who would otherwise side with the firefighter’s getting a good contract but just aren’t happy with the financial details and how it affects their taxes can go to the polls to show their dissatisfaction with that contract or any contract for that matter?
I’m all for our emergency personnel getting their healthcare covered 100% to include full pay while out due to work related injury. But I don’t see anything wrong with them paying some money to cover family. I’m not privy to the numbers so I can’t even make an educated estimate of how much that should be but something low and reasonable, say $25/month for a spouse or children. And I definitely don’t support a contract that will pay 100% for the medical coverage of an ex spouse, legally divorced. Our taxes should definitely not pay for an ex spouse as is in the current contract.
I’m totally with you on these points.
To me it’s a big problem that they’re so eager that “let the people decide” on everything BUT their contracts. Binding arbitration would not be subject to a public vote. It happens behind closed doors and is .. binding.
Pelaez’ statements about bond costs were false. I was there and will never forget his juvenile antics and rudeness. His personal tics were on full display. Smirking, ad hominem attacks.
I was there also but that doesn’t matter who was there or not. The bond rating companies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch) have gone on public record at the national level (search on their websites if you’re a member of their services) to say that if Prop A wins that it could and most likely will negatively affect the city’s bond ratings causing us to have worse interest rates on our bonds. They are reporting this on a national level. Call city council liars if you want but are you going to call the bond rating companies liars about the ratings they give? Are you going to call them liars on what they say they will have to do if Prop A passes? They are publicizing what will happen and you call them liars?
If the reason the amendments were created to really settle the contract, why didn’t the Union President show up for the last 10 invitations by the city? The Union President also backed out at the last minute from a debate with Mayor Nirenburg. These amendments seem more of a vendetta against the City Manager than helpful to our brave firefighters. I will Vote No to all three and hope the union gets a more honest and helpful President. I do believe San Antonio residents will pay higher taxes or get lesss services or both if this is passed. Again Vote NO!
It’s very clear that big business interests wish to retain their control over our city government.
Because of this unbalanced control San Antonio sinks deeper into poverty. We have defacto segregation in our public schools, unaffordable housing, gentrification and disregard for low and moderate income people.
Christian Archer head of the Vote No facade isn’t even a resident of San Antonio. How much are the corporate interests paying him?
The Vote No machine offers no evidence of harm to our city, but a lot of personal attacks against Firefighters Union president Chris Steele. Typical anti-union arrogance and propaganda!
Lucy, I can tell you for a fact that every city (differentiating city from a town…based on population size) and most towns in America deal with poverty. They all have different philosophies and approaches to eliminating or reducing and yet no city will ever claim they are satisfied with their levels of poverty. That’s because it still exists and hasn’t been eliminated. The pro Proposition side has yet to explain how their propositions will help prevent poverty. Make the city manager’s salary $1 per year and give the rest to our poverty stricken residents. When the math is done, they are still poverty stricken. Give the fire fighters 100% of what they want in their contract (I’m only against ex spouses receiving free health care on the tax payer’s dime) and the city’s poverty stricken are still poor. Reduce the number of signatures required to put a proposition onto the ballot, it doesn’t eliminate or even make a dent on the % of poverty stricken in our city. I have yet to hear any argument by the pro Proposition movement that explains how the propositions help prevent poverty, eliminate defacto segragation in public schools (local politic’s has no say in that matter cuz it’s controlled by the state), creates affordable housing and slows gentrification (which is caused when capitalism follows the trend of the people). If you can’t reply with examples of how the propositions affect those aspects then a hard look in the mirror is needed before pointing fingers at others about evidence, arrogance, propaganda and harm to the city. I have family who are emergency service workers and I want the best for them yet 2 of those propositions don’t address at all how my vote will help them in the salary/benefits. I support emergency service workers and especially my family but the pro Proposition argument has yet to tell me how the propositions will solve the problems they place on city council so they don’t have my vote!
I am not fully engaged in all the details but tell me why a check on city council can be a bad thing?
ken, We check our representatives on city council by voting them out. And currently, they’re only allowed 4 times around in the circus, with us having the ability to pressure them individually and in groups (e.g. COPS / Metro) while they’re in there. This is enough.
As you might not have meant to imply, we want smart and determined citizens dedicated to be fully engaged in all the details of setting up the agendas for our city manager to execute (and I say the more experience that person has, good on us and let’s pay a good salary to boot to keep ’em around!)