Sunday, January 3, 2016

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Who guards the people from the "guardian" governmental officials? An administrative board attempts to take away power from the voters and free speech from office holders.

The attempts by entrenched administrative governmental bodies (often non-elected appointed officials) to extend their public power, to abuse their positions in their own self-interest and that of their allies and to deny legal power to the voters is a topic I often share here.

 I would not believe a fictional work depicting the following, but here we have it:

"Last week the California Public Employment Relations Board nullified San Diego’s 2012 ballot referendum that replaced defined-benefit pensions with 401(k)-style retirement plans for new workers. Former Mayor Jerry Sanders and other city officials campaigned for the initiative, which was sponsored by private citizens and approved by two-thirds of voters.

Lo, the Public Employment Relations Board, which reviews unfair labor practice charges by government workers, ruled that the city had “breached its duty to meet and confer in good faith” (i.e., collectively bargain) with its unions. The board says the mayor was required to negotiate pension changes since his actions supporting the measure “were motivated at least in part by a purpose to serve the City.”                                                                                                                                                         In other words, because the referendum’s supporters were civic-minded, their civic-minded reform had to be approved by unions, not voters. Thus lawmakers have no right to lobby voters for reforms that cross government unions. But unions are free to petition voters to, say, raise taxes. If the board’s ruling holds, the initiative process would essentially be gutted for challenging any union-negotiated power. Hiram Johnson, the progressive who led the fight for the initiative process in California a century ago, wouldn’t recognize today’s anti-reform progressives."                                                                                                                             The rest of this article is here: