The Chula Vista City Council recently voted to block a wide-ranging charter amendment proposal from appearing on the November 3 ballot. This decision effectively cancels proposed pay raises for local officials and sends the remaining union-led suggestions to a review commission for an indeterminate period.
The 70% pay hike that triggered a 4-1 rejection
The most contentious element of the proposal, submitted by the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 89, was a dramatic increase in compensation for elected officials. According to the report, the measure would have boosted council salaries from approximately $64,600 to $110,000 annually and transitioned council positions to full-time roles. Mayor John McCann led the charge against these changes, arguing that the city does not need to provide such a steep raise to its leadership.
In a 4-1 vote, the Chula Vista City Council specifically excluded these salary increases and the shift to full-time status from any future consideration by the Charter Review Commission. This move ensures that the financial windfall sought by the LIUNA Local 89 proposal is dead on arrival, regardless of how other parts of the charter are eventually handled.
Mayor John McCann’s allegations of a LIUNA Local 89 quid pro quo
The political collapse of the measure was accelerated by claims of backroom dealing. Mayor John McCann informed the council that during a June 12 meeting—four days before the proposal was officially submitted—a representative from LIUNA Local 89 suggested the Mayor's re-election campaign would go unchallenged if he supported the charter amendments. This allegation of a quid pro quo cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the 13-part package.
Kelvin Barrios, the policy and community engagement director for LIUNA Local 89, has unequivocally denied these claims. As the report notes, Barrios asserted there was no "illusion or the allure" of a deal, pointing out that the union had already endorsed the Mayor's opponent, Francisco Tamayo, before the meeting in question took place. Despite this denial, the allegation provided the political cover necessary for the council to distance itself from the union's draft.
Why Bobby Ray Salas and the Board of Ethics flagged the 13-part bundle
Beyond the salary disputes,the structure of the proposal drew criticism for being an "all-or-nothing" package of unrelated issues. Bobby Ray Salas, Chairman of the city's Board of Ethics, stated that his board voted unanimously against placing the measure on the ballot. The primary concern was that structurally significant changes—ranging from the creation of an Ethics Commission with subpoena power to a $120 annual registration fee for lobbyists—were bundled together without independent review or public deliberation.
This strategy of bundling is a common but risky political tactic, often used to hitch unpopular measures to popular ones. in this case, the attempt to pair labor-friendly binding arbitration for police and fire disputes with a one-year lobbying ban for former employees backfired. Maida Estrada, president of the Association of Chula Vista Employees, highlighted this misalignment, questioning why the focus was on investing in five elected officials rather than the 500 city employees who maintain municipal services.
The indeterminate timeline of the Charter Review Commission
While the salary hikes are gone, the remaining components of the LIUNA Local 89 proposal have been referred to the Charter Review Commission. However, Councilmember Michael Inzunza noted that the council did not set a fixed deadline for the commission's return, effectively leaving the proposal in limbo. Inzunza argued that the public requires significantly more time—potentially up to a year—to weigh in on the complexities of the remaining amendments.
Several critical questions remain unanswered.. It is unclear whether the Charter Review Commission will actually pursue the extension of term limits from two to three consecutive terms, a point championed by union member Al Sanchez to ensure project continuity. Furthermore, the report does not clarify if the proposed binding arbitration for emergency services will be stripped alongside the salaries or if it will be treated as a standalone labor issue in the future.
Comments 0