Municipality of Anchorage v. Holleman
2014 Alas. LEXIS 45
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Ordinance 2013-37 updates Anchorage labor-relations provisions; six new policy subsections and other amendments enacted and took effect promptly.
- Sponsors filed for a referendum to repeal the ordinance; the Municipality rejected the referendum as addressing administrative matters.
- Sponsors sued; superior court granted summary judgment in favor of sponsors, allowing the referendum petition to proceed.
- Municipality appealed the grant of summary judgment; issue-centered briefing followed and oral argument occurred.
- Court later affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the referendum is permissible and not barred by preemption or appropriation concerns.
- This opinion explains why the referendum is legislative in character and thus permissible under the Alaska Constitution and local charter provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERA preempts local referendum on labor relations | Holleman and Alward argue PERA does not grant exclusive authority; electorate may use initiative/referendum | Municipality asserts PERA exclusive control over labor relations | Referendum not preempted by PERA; electorate may decide on ordinance |
| Whether Anchorage Charter/ home-rule status bars referendum | Sponsor's referendum is not banned by charter provisions listing off-limits subjects | Charter and home-rule status grant exclusive authority to Assembly over labor matters | Charter/home-rule do not bar referendum on labor-relations ordinance |
| Whether the referendum constitutes an unconstitutional appropriation | Referendum does not appropriate funds; it challenges a policy ordinance | Repeal could affect budgeting and thus constitutes an appropriation | Not an appropriation; referendum remains permissible under appropriation restrictions |
| Whether the ordinance and referendum are legislative rather than administrative | The ordinance makes new law and policy affecting labor relations | Parts are administrative but overall changes are legislative | The ordinance and referendum are legislative; voters may address by referendum |
Key Cases Cited
- Sitkans for Responsible Gov’t v. City & Borough of Sitka, 274 P.3d 486 (Alaska 2012) (preemption and initiative/referendum considerations under PERA and local law)
- Anchorage Municipal Emps. Ass’n v. Municipality of Anchorage, 618 P.2d 575 (Alaska 1980) (OFF-scene analysis of PERA applicability to local governments)
- Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform v. Municipality of Anchorage, 151 P.3d 418 (Alaska 2006) (approach to determining when an initiative makes an appropriation)
- Carmony v. McKechnie, 217 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2009) (limitations on initiative to bypass statutory processes in zoning/land use context)
- Swetzoff v. Philemonoff, 203 P.3d 471 (Alaska 2009) (Swetzof guidelines for distinguishing legislative vs administrative measures)
- Mount Juneau Enters., Inc. v. City & Borough of Juneau, 923 P.2d 768 (Alaska 1996) (permanency and generic reach of local ordinances; legislative characterization)
- Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell, 215 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2009) (appropriation/monetary impact analysis in initiatives)