publicly noticed meeting is not an adequate with the City. (See “consultation” (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338 Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo [consultation with employees before commission hearings found sufficient consultation in good faith under § 3507].) Lastly, we are also not convinced by the argument that a different definition City’s should apply, because under current interpretation if the parties reach an impasse PERB’s on whether to proceed with the ballot measure repealing binding arbitration, the impasse would be submitted to binding arbitration. This hypothetical scenario is not before this court and was not before PERB. Constitutional Issues Next, we find that interpretation of section 3507 does not violate the PERB’s charter city home rule provisions of the California Constitution and the constitutional authority of the City Council to propose charter amendments to City voters. California Constitution sets forth the home rule doctrine, which gives the “The chartered cities the power to and enforce all ordinances and regulations in ‘ “make respect to municipal affairs, subject only to [the] restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters . . . (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (International Assn. .” (a).)’ ” (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1197.) of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose Article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution provides that city voters have the to provide in their city charters manner in “plenary authority” “the which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.”
publicly noticed meeting is not an adequate “consultation” with the City. (See Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338 [consultation with employees before commission hearings found sufficient consultation in good faith under § 3507].) Lastly, we are also not convinced by the City’s argument that a different definition should apply, because under PERB’s current interpretation if the parties reach an impasse on whether to proceed with the ballot measure repealing binding arbitration, the impasse would be submitted to binding arbitration. This hypothetical scenario is not before this court and was not before PERB. Constitutional Issues Next, we find that PERB’s interpretation of section 3507 does not violate the charter city home rule provisions of the California Constitution and the constitutional authority of the City Council to propose charter amendments to City voters. “The California Constitution sets forth the home rule doctrine, which gives the chartered cities the power to ‘ “make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to [the] restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters . . . .” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).)’ ” (International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1197.) Article XI, section 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution provides that city voters have the “plenary authority” to provide in their city charters “the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.”
H041407.DOCX