California Supreme Court Invalidates Anti-Competitive Measure
Bill Dahlin reports on the Supreme Court decision invalidating a collective bargaining agreement which gives preference to state employees over private engineers as a violation of Proposition 35, which the voters passed as a measure to protect the right of the state to contract with private entities for architectural and engineering services:
On November 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, Inc. v. the Professional Engineers in California Government decision. The issue in the case was whether a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the State of California and the Professional Engineers in California Government was lawful, in its entirety, under Proposition 35.
Proposition 35, for the millions of you who do not recall, added a provision to the California Constitution specifically allowing the State of California to have contracts with private firms to provide architectural and engineering services for public works projects. Employees of the State of California lobbied vociferously against the ballot initiative.
Article 24 of the collective bargaining agreement contained a requirement that state employees have “preference” over private companies. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, Inc., sought an injunctive relief alleging Article 24 of the collective bargaining agreement was unlawful on grounds it was in direct conflict and undermined the very purpose of Proposition 35. Regardless of one’s political feelings concerning Proposition 35, the irony of this case is magnificent. The state’s action in agreeing to Article 24 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement is a prime example of our governmental agencies (from the state level down to the most local municipal body) seeking to disregard a voter initiative on matters of political import. Initiatives in California, both statewide and local, are allegedly favored by the California Constitution. They are designed to represent a vestige of direct democracy whereby voters can either rein in or explicitly advise governments of their desired direction.
What the Consulting Engineers case represents is the ongoing battle of those employed in governmental agencies to disregard political decisions of the voters and implement what they, the government employees, continue to believe is the better course of action. The inherent arrogance, and unwillingness to concede that their desire and point of view has been rejected, are mind boggling. Direct legal restrictions against implementing a different policy are being undermined whenever possible. This case is a prime example. Proposition 35 specifically set forth that private architectural and engineering firms could compete for and work on a public works projects. The collective bargaining agreement entered into by the state sought to effectively disregard that Constitutional provision and allow the same state employees to continue to have “preference.” In this seemingly rare occasion, the California Supreme Court has acted to vigorously defend and enforce the rights of the voters. Lest the readers of the blog not recall there are myriad other examples of this type of arrogant behavior.
Remember, for example, the adoption of Proposition 209. Again, whether one was for or against Proposition 209, it clearly and unequivocally set forth certain directions and policies. Proposition 209 demanded that quotas and other methodologies for achieving racial “balance” be eliminated as being unacceptable and contrary to the voters’ desires for the state Constitution. The number of cases and actions by both the State of California and municipalities such as the City of San Francisco seeking to disregard Proposition 209are appalling. For years afterwards, certain municipalities (such as San Francisco), and the government agencies governed by Proposition 209 continued to apply rules they thought were appropriate for dealing with the ongoing issues about race which obviously trace their history back to pre and post civil war realities of racial discrimination (segregation).
As the newest batch of voter initiatives come before the voters in this state in June, 2008, please bear in mind that your vote may or may not actually be heeded and followed by your community and government leaders. They remain, after all, absolutely convinced that they always know best.