Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board
216 Cal.Rptr.3d 757
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2012 San Diego voters adopted the Citizens Pension Reform Initiative (CPRI), a charter amendment changing pension benefits for certain new hires.
- Mayor Jerry Sanders (and some city officials/staff) developed, promoted, and supported a citizens' initiative campaign; independent proponents gathered sufficient signatures and the initiative qualified for the ballot. The City Council then placed it on the ballot as required by law.
- Multiple unions demanded the City meet-and-confer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) before placing the measure on the ballot; the City declined, asserting a duly qualified citizens' initiative must be placed on the ballot ministerially and cannot be altered by the council.
- PERB found the City violated the MMBA, reasoning Sanders’ involvement converted the initiative into a governing-body action (relying on statutory/common-law agency and ratification theories) and ordered make-whole remedies. PERB thus treated the CPRI as triggering meet-and-confer duties under Seal Beach.
- The City sought writ review. The Court of Appeal held (1) MMBA meet-and-confer obligations do not apply to citizen-sponsored initiatives placed on the ballot by voter petition, and (2) PERB erred in recharacterizing the CPRI as a governing-body-sponsored proposal via agency/ratification theories. PERB’s decision was annulled and remanded with directions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMBA meet-and-confer applies to citizen-sponsored charter initiatives | Unions/PERB: MMBA's procedural protections should apply when a measure affects negotiable subjects, even if citizen-sponsored; Voters and statewide interest permit limiting initiative power. | City: MMBA duties apply only to proposals "proposed to be adopted by the governing body"; a qualified citizen initiative must be placed on the ballot ministerially. | The court held MMBA meet-and-confer obligations do not apply to duly qualified citizen-sponsored initiatives placed on the ballot. |
| Whether Sanders’ advocacy converted the citizen initiative into a governing-body-sponsored proposal under statutory agency | PERB: As "strong mayor" and lead labor negotiator, Sanders acted as the City’s statutory agent, so his initiative activity was attributable to the City. | City: Charter vests legislative power in council; mayor lacked authority to convert an initiative into a council proposal without council action. | The court rejected statutory-agency attribution; charter and law require council action to sponsor a measure. |
| Whether common-law actual/apparent agency or ratification made the City liable for Sanders’ conduct (thus triggering MMBA) | PERB/Unions: City acquiesced, accepted benefits, and failed to disavow Sanders' actions, so apparent/actual authority or ratification imputes liability. | City: No evidence council authorized or manifested approval of acting on its behalf; council was powerless to alter or refuse to place a qualified initiative on the ballot. | The court held PERB erred to apply actual/apparent agency or ratification to convert a citizen initiative into a council action; the doctrines were legally inapplicable on these facts. |
| Remedy: Could PERB order make-whole relief that effectively nullified the initiative? | PERB: Make-whole relief can remedy MMBA violations, including pension-related losses. | City: PERB lacked authority to rescind or order remedies that would negate a voter-approved charter amendment when the foundational liability finding was erroneous. | Because the underlying liability finding was annulled, PERB’s make-whole remedy was improper; PERB decision annulled and matter remanded to dismiss complaints. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, 36 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984) (MMBA meet-and-confer must precede a governing body placing charter amendments affecting negotiable subjects on the ballot)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (explains the varying degrees of judicial deference to agency legal interpretations)
- Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.4th 765 (Cal. 1994) (discusses limits on referendum/initiative in areas of statewide concern and legislative intent to restrict referendum in specified contexts)
- Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, 25 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. 2001) (distinguishes citizen-sponsored initiatives from council-generated measures for procedural obligations like CEQA)
- Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal.2d 371 (Cal. 1968) (principle that legislative powers vested in governing bodies cannot be delegated without compliance with charter requirements)
- San Diego Municipal Employees Assn. v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.4th 1447 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (addressed PERB jurisdiction and allegations that an initiative was a sham to avoid MMBA obligations)
- Inglewood Teachers Assn. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 227 Cal.App.3d 767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (discusses burdens for proving apparent authority/agency under public-employment law)