The Chula Vista City Council on Tuesday moved to place an initiative on the November ballot that would dramatically reshape the city’s government, including by giving councilmembers a $45,000 pay raise and extending their time in office by up to 12 years.
The initiative, authored and supported by a prominent San Diego County labor union, would make major changes to how the city elects, pays and assigns work to its elected officials.
In addition to raising councilmembers’ part-time salaries to a starting level of $110,127, the initiative would grant the mayor and councilmembers a total of three four-year terms in office, create a new permanent council budget committee, strengthen ethics and lobbying provisions and add a binding arbitration provision to city contract negotiations with at least some public employee unions.
The arbitration provision would require the city to submit to a neutral arbitrator when union contract negotiations reach an impasse. Such provisions can give additional bargaining leverage to public employee unions, such as police and fire unions, that are prohibited from going on strike.
The Council on Tuesday moved swiftly to finalize the measure in advance of an Aug. 7 filing deadline. Councilmembers discussed last-minute changes and moved to add one new provision.
The Council is slated to discuss the measure at least one more time later this month before voting to place it on the November ballot.
With the exception of a handful of residents who waited until the end of Tuesday’s meeting to voice their opinion, there was little public input.
The Council’s three Democratic members in attendance appeared supportive. Councilmember Jose Preciado, also a Democrat, was absent.
Republican Mayor John McCann sounded the lone note of opposition.
He warned his colleagues that rushing to overhaul the city’s government without careful planning or extensive community feedback was foolhardy and could lead to public backlash.
“There are 13 charter amendments,” McCann said, referring to the ballot measure’s myriad changes to what serves as the city’s constitution. “This is a major amount…We want to be able to get things right and listen to our citizens.”
The ballot measure was written and provided to the Council by representatives of Local 89 of the Laborers International Union of North America, one of San Diego County’s most politically influential labor organizations.
Many of the union’s construction worker members work on the kinds of large-scale development projects Chula Vista city councilmembers routinely vote on.
Speaking at Tuesday’s meeting, Kelvin Barrios, director of government affairs for LIUNA 89, as the union is known, said his members are seeking to overhaul Chula Vista’s government because the city needs leaders who are more representative of the city’s economic diversity.
By paying city councilmembers more and giving them more time in office, Barrios said, the city can attract a higher caliber of elected leadership and keep leaders long enough to shepherd complex development projects and other long-term initiatives.
“The city is good at reacting but not being proactive,” Barrios said. “We want to attract qualified City Council candidates in the future.”
Councilmembers on Tuesday mostly brushed past discussing the ballot measure’s changes to their salaries and term limits. They seemed more focused instead on ensuring the measure’s binding arbitration provision extends to all city employee unions, not just public safety unions.
An initial version of the measure applied the provision only to the city’s police and fire unions.
“Not many cities do binding arbitration [for all unions],” said Councilmember Cesar Fernandez. “We need more clarity on that issue.”
Two influential county labor union leaders, Brigette Browning of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and Crystal Irving of the Service Employees International Union, attended the meeting and asked councilmembers to extend the binding arbitration provision to all city unions.
“[Non-public safety] city employees feel like the bastard stepchild,” Browning said. “City workers should be treated the same.”
Following Browning’s and Irving’s remarks, Councilmember Carolina Chavez voiced support for extending the arbitration provision and asked City Attorney Marco Verdugo to take steps toward adding the extension to the ballot measure.
“I want to be vocal about SEIU and ACE [the Association of Chula Vista Employees],” Chavez said, referring to the city’s two main non-public safety unions.
With the exception of Browning and Irving, all other speakers who addressed the Council about the ballot measure voiced skepticism or outright opposition.
“These changes were not presented to anyone, including the city’s Charter Review Commission,” said David Stucky, a retired city of San Diego employee who said he has lived in Chula Vista for 38 years. “They potentially will lead to unforeseen consequences.”
“The ability of the current Council to vote on extending their own terms appears like a problem,” Stucky said.
Along with other speakers, Stucky said he feared the ballot measure was little more than a thinly disguised bid for influence by what he described as “a large and politically influential labor union.”
Since 2024, LIUNA 89 has spent more than $100,000 helping to elect the five-member Chula Vista City Council’s four-member Democratic majority according to campaign filings.
The union also spent more than $30,000 against McCann in his unsuccessful bid last year for a seat on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
So far this year, a LIUNA political action committee has spent more than $80,000 in support of Chula Vista Elementary School District Trustee Francisco Tamayo, who is seeking to unseat McCann in November.
McCann on Tuesday said he was especially concerned about his Democratic colleagues’ seeming rush to place the government overhaul ballot measure on the November ballot.
LIUNA representatives drafted and sent the ballot measure to city councilmembers four weeks ago, on June 16.
Since then, the city has held no public discussions or taken other steps to solicit public feedback.
McCann pointed out that other city-sponsored ballot measures have gone before voters only after months of development, fine-tuning and public outreach.
The current measure, he said, appears to skirt that process, including the city’s customary method of vetting changes to the city’s charter via a citizen-led Charter Review Commission.
“All these items [in the ballot measure] are getting lumped together with the kitchen sink,” McCann said. “We need citizens to vet this.”
McCann, whose own salary would not rise immediately if the ballot measure passed, expressed astonishment that the measure would award councilmembers a six-figure salary for what he said amounts to a part-time job.
McCann made a series of motions seeking to slow down the advance of the measure and refer it to one or more of the city’s citizen-led review commissions. The motions died after none of the other councilmembers moved to support them.
City Councilmember Cesar Fernandez said he too supports the idea of soliciting more public input, including via the city’s Charter Review Commission.
But he also voiced urgency about overhauling Chula Vista’s government to catch up to the city’s current fast-paced growth.
“This is a medium-to-large city with complex, multi-tiered projects that take 12 years to complete,” Fernandez said. He cited a trolley line crossing project he’s currently working on that likely will outlast his time on the City Council.
“This feels like a full-time job,” Fernandez said.
Fernandez said he struggles to balance his city responsibilities with his other job as a teacher in the Sweetwater Union High School District.
“[I’m] locked down from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,” he said.
“[Serving as a city councilmember] should be compensated at a level accessible…to nurses or librarians who can’t quit their job,” Fernandez said. “This is about improving the representation here and making these offices accessible to working class people.”
Local unions want you, the public, to pay more, by tilting the system in their favor, and by having their paid for elected officials in office longer.
“More representative of the city’s economic diversity” is a buzz word salad.
I understand unions needing to advocate for projects that support their members. But when unions advocate for any project regardless of community impact, and use money to create a higher cost of living, through sales taxes, to trickle projects back down to them, and erode even their own retirees affordability, they are self serving political dealers, no different than a corporation.
Sounds like the same type of BS self-serving charter amendment that the County wants, with a pay raise too. Same secrecy, same unvetted changes. I will be voting no and hope you do too.
And one council member, Cesar Fernandez, already has a full time job with the Sweetwater School District. His total compensation according to transparent California, already exceeds $200k. So he wants to make over $300k as he will be allowed to keep doing both jobs.
My Lord help us! Now they’re trying to near double their pay, for continuing to operate in the dark. No public info as usual, because they’re all about self interests. This obviously includes the “union” corporation ruled by the same types. What a mockery! No showing for scrutiny and time for scrutiny, of this forced arb clause that takes away civil rights of jury public peer judgments, that must be favoring the corporatized “union” business manipulators as well. How about using the resources to open schools auditoriums for neighborhood meetings that the “representatives” are mandated, required, to follow instructions from? How about Real qualifications for representatives including proven track records of not self-serving, of not needing to defer to “staff”? How about expanding the number of representatives rather than just more pay and taking away even more from citizens control by locking in ridiculous fiefdom times- 12 years now, with no reasonable limits of recall. What a disgrace. All will be held accountable eventually.
And is Cesar Fernandez going to quit his other job? If he doesn’t, now he’s making over $300k in combined compensation
& they didn’t even write the bill!- as if they could. Just accepted with open beak mouths from any that can pay the green god. Where was Mr. Preciado? Tell us whether there’s any chance for us through you?- At least a non- self-serving Stand? Not even the rubber stamping Charter or Ethics or Any commission also reveals all you need to know. AND: got a survey recently about an idea they have for a high tax increase, all about how their pitch should be worded to put people under yet another of their spells, to say “yes.” VOTE NO NO NO
No one in their right mind will vote for this.
The union members likely will.
Not even trying to hide their influence buying. 🤦♂️
First, I’d like to know which part-time job pays six figures, because many full-time jobs don’t even come close.
This proposal highlights a much bigger issue. It appears that some union leadership is focused on securing benefits without adequately addressing how they will be funded. Have they considered that many of their own members live on tight budgets, pay substantial union dues, and are already struggling with the rising cost of living? The last thing they need is additional financial burdens to fund six-figure part-time positions.
It’s also concerning when elected officials appear willing to move a proposal forward without fully examining its long-term financial impact on taxpayers and the city’s budget. Before approving measures like this, there should be a transparent plan explaining exactly how they will be paid for and what the consequences will be for residents.
it feels like a full time job?
preciado couldn’t even show up.
if you get the raises are y’all going to stop working your other jobs? haha. very doubtful amiright?
Fernandez admitted he doesn’t have enough time to do the councilmember work so why would we pay him more money?
It’s a part time job, but try contacting chavez or preciado and getting any response. Inzunza has another job but is a facebook warrior and posts a lot, mainly about e-bikes.
I agree with this proposal. Recently Marcus Bush in National City voted against the Indirect Source Rule at the APCD. This and his reluctance to vote against the USD Clean fuel Depot makes me think that there is considerable pressure on our part time elected city representatives to find full time employment or just a better job. I think being an elected is a tough job and you take a lot of BS from everyone including myself. Maybe this also compromises their ability to perform their job ethically although I won’t expect them to admit it. If so, cities need to consider paying their elected (s) a competitive salary or expect them to possibly be motivated to vote according to their own future job prospects