The political action committee formed to defeat the local firefighters union’s controversial ballot measures lost its case in the 4th Court of Appeals Wednesday evening.
Secure San Antonio’s Future (SSAF) will appeal the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court this week, the PAC’s campaign manager Christian Archer said. That effort faces a tight deadline as the ballots for the November election will be printed on Sept. 5.
“The San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association is pleased that yet another court has ruled on the side of the taxpayers,” union officials wrote in an emailed statement. “Unfortunately this is a repeating pattern with the city manager: file frivolous lawsuits and try to tie things up in court instead of doing the right thing.”
SSAF’s lawsuit alleges that the manner in which the fire union paid a consultant to collect signatures for its ballot petitions was illegal – using member dues instead of a unique political action committee.
Judge Cathleen Stryker of the 224th Civil District Court earlier this month denied a request for a temporary restraining order that could have prevented the firefighters union’s charter amendments from getting onto the November ballot. The PAC appealed Stryker’s decision to the 4th Court.
The signatures gathered for the amendments were verified by the City Clerk’s office in May, but a San Antonio Express-News investigation in July revealed the union failed to disclose and properly categorize a $510,000 payment to Buda-based petition consultant Texas Petition Strategies.
The ballot proposals would make it easier to change ordinances, utility rates, and other rules typically left to City Council; limit the tenure and salary of future city managers; and force binding arbitration on a new labor agreement between the City and fire union.
“City Hall is out of control and the taxpayers aren’t being listened to anymore. A YES vote in November will put the taxpayers back in charge where they belong,” the union statement reads.
In mid-July, the union filed a lawsuit alleging the City violated petition gatherers’ First Amendment rights earlier in the year by threatening them with arrest as they sought signatures in designated “free speech areas” at libraries and other locations.
Secure San Antonio’s Future plans to raise more than $1 million will officially kick off on Saturday, Sept. 8 at 9:15 a.m. at La Villita.
City and business leaders have called the ballot items “dangerous” to the City’s operations and financial health.
“I have been focused on the campaign to defeat these destructive charter amendments at the polls in November and will continue with that effort,” Mayor Ron Nirenberg told the Rivard Report via text. “We will not let San Antonio’s forward progress be blocked by anyone’s selfish agenda.”
Usually when someone is quoted as saying, “the taxpayers,” it refers to people who think paying taxes is bad and have no real concept for how society functions. It’s just as insidious as the political use of the word “subsidy,” which many associate with “handout”-type programs, even though anything paid for with our collective tax dollars is technically subsidized (including streets, sewers, schools, etc.).
I wish your message could be shared across the country.
I like the union’s ballot for allowing more public input on spending City tax-payer money.
Perhaps Secure San Antonio’s Future (SSAF) could spend donator’s money on a better ballot.
The union’s ballot will not pass if it is so bad. If the ballot gets lots of votes, this would be a signal for Secure San Antonio’s Future to spend money on an improved ballot in the future.
The union official is misleading in his/her statement. To my knowledge, the city manager and other city officials are trying to save San Antonio money. If the ballot items pass, San Antonio could lose it’s AAA bond rating which would mean higher interest rates on borrowed money. SA would have to pay more interest, which is money that *could* and in my opinion, *should*, be spent on our city – road and highway maintenance, police protection, and perhaps continuing negotiations for the local fire contracts. This seems like a much more productive use of money and time.
Agreed. If only they would spend it on these items….
Look at this another way—Taxpayers don’t think paying taxes is bad…they think they should have some say in how these hard earned dollars are spent. It is the taxpaying homeowners in this city who have been left out in discussions/decisions. It’s difficult to square paying taxes when every time you turn around there are tax abatements being given, ‘non-profits’ being created w city council members-who make decisions using taxpayer dollars- as the board, developers being given free reign and zoning changes against the best interests of neighborhoods, and a city manager who goes against the Historic Review Committee not once but twice in the Hays Street Bridge project, as a recent example…and let us not forget San Pedro Creek Park and Plethora…(county funds, but same idea–we pay county taxes,too!) And don’t forget the lawsuits the City engages in and keeps losing–taxpayers pay for those, too.
I don’t know if the ballot measures will pass, but if they do or if it’s even close, it should be a wake up call to the city leaders that City Hall is not a kingdom where you tax the little people and then do as you please-with hubris!
It all stems from this: SAFD will not budge in their demands to keep their health insurance premiums at zero for them AND their family. The vast majority of Americans paying for healthcare thru their employer at least have some amount of money taken out of the paychecks to pay for healthcare. Some pay $400 + per month to cover their family. I can’t think of a single other fire department that gets this perk in the whole country. The city manager is not wrong in asking the FD to start paying premiums since healthcare costs rise every year. The FD and PD unions are on a path to eventually bankrupt the city. On a wider scale, the FD is overstaffed and bloated with costs in a time period where fires have decreased substantially.
Just to clear this up..every contract the SAFD has negotiated, they have sacrificed significant pay raises to maintain their insurance. So saying they pay zero premiums is not the entire story, but the city wants you to believe otherwise, all while being deceptive of the actual cost. Yes, the cost of insurance has gone up but so has everyone’s property taxes.
And maybe it’s time the SAFD considered changing their name to accurately reflect today’s threats to San Antonio Fire and Rescue. Fires are decreasing nationally, but they are more dangerous than ever. Add in modern day threats such as WMD, the increase of active shooters, and the ever increasing needs of EMTs as our population ages..they are more busy than ever.