IMPASSE bill against Florida's deputies???!!!!

FOP Lodge 29, Pasco County is seeking assistance in stopping a Fasano sponsored Bill which will be detrimental to members working towards a fair labor contract with a constitutional official. Although this will not affect everyone, your support for your fellow brothers and sisters who will be adversely affected is requested and greatly appreciated.

On 02/02/2010, members of the Fraternal Order of Police stood in the chambers of the Florida Senate Community Affairs sub-committee, in opposition of a Senator Fasano sponsored Bill. President Jim Preston, Attorney Tad Delegal and Lobbyist Lisa Henning spoke against the Senate Bill 610, correctly pointing out the problems with this divisive bill. 20 FOP members in the audience who all voiced their opposition to this bill. Those voices fell on deaf ears and it was clear the Senators on this committee had made up their mind before the hearing. Only Senator Tony Hill (hill.tony.web@flsenate.gov) had the courage to oppose this bill and we thank him for his effort.

Senator Mike Fasano’s bill would recognize county Sheriffs and other elected officials as a “legislative body” for the purpose of collective bargaining. What this means is that the Sheriff as the Chief Executive Officer of the agency would bargain with the FOP, PBA or other collective bargaining representative on a contract. The Sheriff could simply decide, as they have in Pasco and Clay Counties that they can declare an impasse and then rule on that very impasse, which again they have done in Pasco and Clay Counties and then impose their own version of the contract as in Pasco County .

This is fundamentally unfair. The present system of checks and balances guaranteed by our system of government provides that an impasse be ruled upon by the “Legislative Body” of the county which would be the County Commission . How can the Sheriff objectively rule on his own impasse? Even criminals have their cases heard before a judge independent of the prosecution and defense.

The Sheriffs and their representatives in uniform and “on the clock”, stood before the Senate Committee in favor of this bill and spoke about controlling their budgets as they artfully evaded the issue of collective bargaining. Sheriff Beseler of Clay County told the committee that this bill would not impede the collective bargaining process and that he has bargained in good faith with the FOP even though we have been at impasse for 3 years, even though we have filed unfair labor practices against him, even though the Public Employee Relations Commission has ruled that he is not a “legislative body” and even though he has arbitrarily transferred the FOP leaders in the Clay County Sheriff’s Office to less desirable positions to punish them.

Senator Fasano spoke on behalf of his bill and reminded the Senate Committee that only the FOP opposed this bill while PBA representatives sat silently in the last row during this Hearing. If this bill were to pass the House and Senate, collective bargaining for Deputy Sheriffs is dead. We would go back in time to the 1950’s style of dictatorial rule by one man (or woman) who control all of the power and run a sheriff’s office as their own personal fiefdom (Something over which one dominant person or group exercises control). This would not only affect Deputy Sheriff’s, but employees of the Clerk of the Courts, Supervisor of Elections, Tax Collector, and County Appraiser.

This is bad legislation that strips away the hard fought for rights of deputy sheriffs that the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, recognizing Deputy Sheriffs as public employees guaranteed the right to collective bargaining. This bill will impact every deputy in the state of Florida and must be defeated. The issue goes way beyond Pasco and Clay Counties as Sheriffs or their representatives from Hillsborough, Pinellas, Charlotte , Highlands, Gadsden , Lake and Wakulla Counties were present and voiced their support for the bill. This issue is gathering support through the Florida Sheriff’s Association and will spread across our state to every county when sheriffs realize they no longer have to bargain in good faith with their employees but rather declare an impasse and rule on that very impasse making the collective bargaining process null and void for Deputy Sheriffs.

Let your legislators know that the FOP and the hard working, dedicated law enforcement officers we represent stand together against Senate Bill 610.

Those Senators voting against Deputy Sheriffs and for politics as usual, were:

Senator Thad Altman altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Mike Bennett Bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Rudy Garcia garcia.rudy.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Andy Gardiner gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Gary Siplin siplin.gary.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Rhonda Storms storms.ronda.web@flsenate.gov
Senator John Thrasher thrasher.john.web@flsenate.gov
Senator Stephen Wise wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov

This was the first committee meeting of many to come for this bill as it works it's way through the House and Senate. Today was a set back but not the end of the process.

It is time for the hard working men and women of law enforcement to voice your concerns over “back-door” politics. Contact your local legislators and express your concerns over the perception of one politician (Fasano) doing a favor for one Sheriff, to avoid any attempt at fair contract negotiations.

If this bill is allowed to pass, it may drastically change ALL current and future labor contracts in the State of Florida when dealing with constitutional officers as previously noted.

Fraternally,

G. Kling
Director, Supervisor’s Labor Unit
Pasco County Lodge 29

Follow our progress on Facebook. Click on this link http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...3893932&ref=ts If you don’t already have a facebook account, you will be asked to sign up and then your request will be sent to our lodge where it will be reviewed for acceptance into this site.

** Permission was received to use all

Whose brainchild is it to try and pass a law making sheriffs a legislative body? From a constitutional perspective, that will float like a lead balloon. :roll:

I know that Senator Mike Fasano actually proposed Senate Bill 610, but I'd like to know who is really behind this unconstitutional bill. The proposed unconstitutional passage of this kind of a bill would be the first of its kind in United States history, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, it brings us closer to a monarchy, instead of a constitutional form of representative governance. :roll:

I hope that the appropriate legislative bodies, judicial watchdogs, representatives and local leaders are aware of this unconstitutional proposal by Senator Mike Fasano. Has Fasano crawled into bed with the devil? :?

Recently I sent an email to Mike Fasano ref. to this bill. His response was not only unreceptive but a little sarcastic, and insulting. I urge you to email this gentleman and make him understand Im not the only deputy that is against this bill.

Here his email: FASANO.MIKE.WEB@FLSENATE.GOV

[gkling]

The next stop for Senate Bill 610 is the Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability. The message that the Deputies in this state do not appreciate the members of Legislators voting their hard earned and constitutional right to collectively bargain, in good faith on a fair playing field away, is not appreciated.

Below is a list of the members that will be voting on this bill February 16th, 2010 at 4pm.

PERC has continually agreed with the FOP on this matter, The Florida Sheriffs Association, is pushing this bill through to circumvent current law and rulings from PERC. You can find the recent PERC decisions by clicking on this link, http://supportyourdeputies.com/union%20documents.php

Some have made reference to this Bill as the “Union Busting Act of 2010”, even though it would be hard to believe a legislator would knowingly take such measures on behalf of some Sheriffs, who have been charged with ULP’s.

Though the argument was that the County Commission should not have the authority to tell a Sheriff how to spend his budget, this bill will not do anything to the budgetary issue, it is specifically drafted to 447.403 which has nothing to do with budget, and deals with issues of impasse only.

This bill will allow a Sheriff to negotiate, declare and rule on his own contract impasse.


The Florida Constitution states “The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on the account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or organization. The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged.” This bill will definitely abridge
the rights of a public employee to collectively bargain, it will make this constitutional right meaningless.

In case number CA-2008-026 PERC , in reference to the Sheriff as a legislative body ruled “if we were to conclude otherwise the sheriff's employees would be left with no mechanism for resolving the impasse and their constitutional right to collectively bargain would be rendered meaningless. Article 1 section 6, Florida Constitution;
S. S. 447. 201, 447. 301, and 447.403, Florida statute."


If you email the legislators, please email Lisa Henning of the FOP a copy of your correspondence to foplegislative@aol.com. If a legislator has any questions please refer them to Lisa Henning at 850-766-8808.



Please call, email or fax these legislators, to ask them to vote no on Senate Bill 610. A couple sample e-mails are located at the bottom of this posting. You can draft your own or cut and paste all or some of the samples. Thank you for your support against such a damaging bill for law enforcement.



Senator Jeremy Ring
Phone: (954) 917-1392
Fax: (954) 917-1394
ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov


Senator Gary Siplin
Phone: (407) 297-2071
Fax: (407) 522-2153
siplin.gary.web@flsenate.gov


Senator Victor Crist
Phone: (813) 975-6658
Fax: (888) 263-3681
crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Charlie Dean
Phone: (352) 860-5175
dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Dennis Jones
Phone: (727) 549-6411
Fax: (727) 549-6413
jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Al Lawson
Phone: (727) 549-6411
Fax: (727) 549-6413
lawson.alfred.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Eleanor Sobel
Phone: (954) 924-3693
Fax: (954) 924-3695
sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Sample Letter 1)



[Your Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State Zip Code]
[Date in the format of MM/DD/YY]

Dear :

I am writing to ask you not to support Senate Bill 610. This bill will soon come to a vote in the state senate.

Senate Bill 610 is an extremely unfair bill to deputy sheriffs in the state of Florida, due to the fact that
this would give complete autonomous power to each of the county sheriffs in Florida. The Florida Sheriff's
Association has been looking for ways to return the powers that were stripped from them by the Florida Supreme
Court several years ago. They have stalled on actually allowing their deputies to have a negotiated contract
by declaring impasses and then declaring themselves a "legislative body". It is important that you, the
officers and our legislators understand that there are no checks and balance when a constitutional officer
is allowed to negotiate, declare an impasse, and then rule on his own impasse. There are several counties
in the state of Florida, where the commission members are unable to have any impact upon a Sheriff in their
community. We, the Fraternal Order of Police are not happy that our legislators are being placed in such a
controversial position during an election year but we cannot stand idly by as the Sheriff's Association tries
to erode the limited rights that deputies have.

These same sheriffs who will try and say that the officers are protected by the Bill of Rights and in the same
breath say that they are exempted from statute 112 the Bill of Rights. If the Sheriff is declared a legislative
body they will not only be able to negotiate, declare impasse, and rule on their own impasse, but are also making
themselves completely autonomous from following even the most basic of guidelines in the treatment of their
officers. We are not the ones requesting that our government make a change, it is the sheriffs and people should
be asking themselves why they need complete autonomous powers that a police chief does not have. Our system of
government has always prided itself on its and checks and balances, by declaring themselves a legislative body these
Sheriffs are looking to find a way to return themselves to the position of doing as they please, when they please,
and how they please. Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Your Name



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Sample letter 2)





Date

Re: Please protect the protectors. Reject SB 610 and HB 0417.

Honorable Senator:

Many law enforcement officers throughout the state are saddened to see such a negative Bill being introduced
for consideration and review. This Bill’s sole purpose is aimed at circumventing a current Florida Supreme Court
decisione and going against the recommendation of PERC, a governing body purposely empowered by Florida
Lawmakers to oversee such matters.

This Bill, if allowed to progress, will give ultimate power to one and only one individual. This Bill will
essentially allow ONE, the power person, to decide over their own decision without any regard for the facts.
This Bill will essentially allow a Sheriff to rule over his/her own decisions in issues solely related to
collective bargaining.

In the House and Senate, there are many who have a say before a law is either accepted or not. If lawmakers
gave such power to the Governor of the State, as this Bill will give to single Sheriffs, any negotiations
would be for naught. The Governor would be able to hear your concerns, yet still go forward with his own
agenda. Simply put, the Governor would be able to be the decision maker on his own decisions.

Here in Pasco and Clay Counties, the respective Sheriffs want that power to rule over their own decisions
when there is a disagreement in labor contractual matters. For over three years, PERC has sided with the
Fraternal Order of Police, yet this law is aimed solely at circumventing current Florida Statutes and the
decisions already made by PERC.

The Fraternal Order of Police are in an impasse over placing “just cause” into a contract, giving members
a fair disciplinary process. The Sheriff wants to be able to give out discipline without practicing “just
cause”. All supervisors are on permanent probation, as the Sheriff can demote any supervisor one rank every
6 months for NO CAUSE at all. Clearly this is not a fair practice and the ability to have a say in your career
should be afforded to every member.

I have in the past likened the process to a deputy writing a traffic ticket to a citizen who says he will
contest this matter before the courts. On the day of court, he shows up to contest his ticket and who does
he see presiding on the bench?…. The deputy who wrote the ticket.

In closing, the FOP has stood fast in requesting the County Commissioners (current law) continue to have
the authority to hear any impasse issues which are in dispute between the labor units and the Sheriff. Current
law supports this, as does PERC. I pray for you and your decision which will affect all of the citizens of
this State and those whose chosen profession is to protect them.

Respectfully,

FIRST, All you wanna be law emforcement deputies. Just wearing a uniform doe'nt make you a law man. Quit whinning and serve our community. Union thugs are the individuals that are not secure with their own self worth. When you make your books open to the public (and quit wining and dinning on members dollars), you won't have any membership. Go work for the fire department, they have plenty of titty babies.

Wow! You sound so scared! When someone decides to become a law man, we decide to serve our community, not OURSELVES... Work FOR an agency/ not at an agency...you are awful self serving!!!

The FOP has spent some time trying to spin the message on this post. They are just trying to create another demon to fight. This is in an attempt to raise their failing membership. Check out the Florida PERC web site. The FOP has exagerated there membership again. The PBA is not in the fight - WHY?, legal advised that Florida Supreme Court will rule with the Sheriffs because of the Florida Constitution. Do we really want the county commissions deciding on what we get? Why the FOP Gang Boys are spending your dues, drinking in some fancy hotel, we will be left holding the empty bag. Why dont our FOP Boys show us their books? Look at the citys that just reched impasse with FOP...They brag on a few victories, and dont mention the many losses, costing our members plenty.

The FOP is on the way out!!! Thier tactics are offending the State Reps. Thats why fireman make more money and work less. Read and do your homework before you spout off!!!



Some time ago, the FOP filed a civil action against the Sheriff AND the County Commission, arguing that the County Commission should be the legislative body. Since the Supreme Court ruled that deputies are no longer “at will” employees, there has been some debate on this issue.

Read for yourself:

http://perc.myflorida.com/co/allorderre ... seID=25021

Since the civil action is the union against both the Sheriff AND the County Commission, it is clear that the County Commission is AGAINST being the legislative body!

If the courts decide that the County Commission is the legislative body, then the Sheriff will be bound by FSS 447.309. This will require the CEO (Sheriff) to get direction from the legislative body (BOCC) before negotiations begin and during the process (just like a chief in a police department does today with the City Council). It is important to note that the elected people who give the CEO his/her marching orders (like a city council) are the SAME people who settle the impasse.

“….In conducting negotiations with the bargaining agent, the chief executive officer or his or her representative shall consult with, and attempt to represent the views of, the legislative body of the public employer….”

If the FOP wins, it should remove all doubt that the BOCC is the legislative body and is the “public employer.”

They are also the ones (not the Sheriff) who will have to ratify any agreements. So even if the union and the Sheriff come to an agreement, it will not be settled unless the BOCC ratifies it.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... TM&Title=-.>2009->Ch0447->Section%20309#0447.309

Some say that this is suit is ONLY to make the BOCC the legislative body for impasse issues. Once the debate is settled on who the legislative body really is, the law is clear. There is no way to pick and choose. It is either the elected Sheriff or the elected BOCC, not a combination of both.

That is the reason for the bill before the legislature, to remove the doubt. Both the Sheriff and the BOCC are for the legislation.

If you are a deputy, then you have a decision to make. Do you want your Sheriff’s Office to remain independent, like it has been for a hundred plus years? OR do you want to be answerable to the BOCC, much like our brothers at your local police department? I am sure they can tell you stories about how different it is answering to a city council.
If you want to become more like a PD (with the additional politics that go along with it), then get behind the union! If you want to remain independent (and leave the job of dealing with the BOCC to the Sheriff), then tell the union you do not support this direction. Either way, the decision is YOURS. Do not someone else (maybe with a personal agenda) decide your fate.

The Sheriff’s job will become much easier if the BOCC becomes the legislative body. If he had a personal agenda, he would support this. The entire blame during negotiations would be shifted to the BOCC. That is why the BOCC is AGAINST this idea. They know that they will no longer be able to fight with or blame the sheriff. Think about it.

Is it smart to force this on a group that doesn’t want it?Legislative Body

P.S. Where is the PBA? They have read the Florida Constitution...

House Bill 417 / Legislative Body Bill was not Heard Wednesday March 10th, 2010

bert.schenck@myfloridahouse.gov (Lets all email Chairman Schenck, thanking him for his leadership in not hearing this unfair bill, HB 417. He is definitely a leader who supports public safety who has listened to our appeals. So lets take the time to reach out to him and others on this committee (who are listed below) and letting them know we still need their continued support. If we continue communicating with our legislators on this issue and on the pension issues (bills) we will have an impact).

There are several proposed bills directly affecting the Pension systems for both State and Municipal Officers that will negatively impact officers across the state if enacted. All of these proposed pieces of legislation are bad and though they are each different, all of them have some version of the following proposals. It is very important that the younger officers and those just starting their careers realize that they need to get involved because these bills are directly targeted toward their future and they will be the ones most affected.

House Bill 0123/Sentate Bill 0212 Relating to claims by Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers by Representative Patterson and Senator Oelrich

House Bill 0413/Senate Bill 0660 Relating to Defined Contribution Retirement Program by Representative Wood and Senator Fasano

House Bill 1543/Senate Bill 1902 Relating to Public Retirement Plans by Representative Zapata and Senator Bennett

House Bill 1025/Senate Bill 1710 Relating to Public Employee Group Heath Insurance by Representative Workman and Senator Fasano

House Bill 1319 Relating to Governmental Retirement Systems by Representative Grady

UNDER THE FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM (FRS) these bills would reduce the Special Risk Class in FRS back to the original membership of Law Enforcement Officers, Correctional Officers and Firefighters

*Reducing the 3% Accrual Rates for Special Risk

*Increasing the high 5 years to the highest 8 years

*Capping your retirement payment at 70% not the current 100%

*Increasing Special Risk normal retirement age to age 60 or 30 years of service

*Implementing an employee contribution for retirement of 1% of salary


FOR THOSE IN A MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM these bills would

* Cap your retirement payment at 70% not the current 100%

*Changes the 185 Premium tax law so that extra money does not have to by spent on extra benefits

*Increases normal retirement age to age 60 or 30 years of service

*Mandates the majority of local pension trustees could not be active or retired pension plan members

Please contact your local legislators and the following legislators and let them know that you are the people that serve and protect the citizens of this state and you now expect them to protect those who serve.

Senator Steve Oelrich, oelrich.steve.web@flsenate.gov

Senate President Jeff Atwater, atwater.jeff.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Mike Haridopolos, haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov

Senator J.D. Alexander, alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov

Speaker of the House Larry Cretul, larry.cretul@myfloridahouse.gov

Representative Dean Cannon, dean.cannon@myfloridahouse.gov

Representative Will Weatherford, will.weatherford@myfloridahouse.gov

Representative David Rivera, david.rivera@myfloridahouse.gov

Representative Pat Patterson, pat.patterson@myfloridahouse.gov

Representative Juan Zapata, juan.zapata@myfloridahouse.gov

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________


The other big issue is Senate Bill 610 and House Bill 417


If you fall into these categories, now is the time to stand up and be heard. These bills will have an ever lasting affect on your careers and most important, your retirement.........

The first stop for House Bill 417 is the House Committee on Governmental Affairs, but thanks to Chairman Schenck the bill was not heard. The message that the Deputies in this state do not appreciate the members of Legislators voting their hard earned and constitutional right to collectively bargain, in good faith on a fair playing field away, is being heard. Below is a list of the members who sit on the first committee of reference. Please call, email or fax these legislators, to ask them to vote no on House Bill 417.

Though the argument was that the County Commission should not have the authority to tell a Sheriff how to spend his budget, this bill will not do anything to the budgetary issue, it is specifically drafted to 447.403 which has nothing to do with budget, and deals with issues of impasse only.

This bill will allow a Sheriff to negotiate, declare and rule on his own contract impasse.

The Florida Constitution states "The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on the account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or organization. The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged." This bill will definitely abridge the rights of a public employee to collectively bargain, it will make this constitutional right meaningless.

In case number CA-2008-026 PERC , in reference to the Sheriff as a legislative body ruled "if we were to conclude otherwise the sheriff's employees would be left with no mechanism for resolving the impasse and their constitutional right to collectively bargain would be rendered meaningless. Article 1 section 6, Florida Constitution; S. S. 447. 201, 447. 301, and 447.403, Florida statute."

It has also been stated from the legislators that they have to vote for the bill because they don't think it is right or safe for a county commission to tell the Sheriff what kind of weapons to buy. The Sheriffs have stated that the County Commission does not have the knowledge or experience to do so. You may not be aware of this but there are NO qualifications to run for Sheriff and we presently have sitting Sheriffs in this state that have NO law enforcement background and have never even written a parking ticket. Since the bill deals with contract negotiation only and not the purchase of weaponry, I think the members should familiarize themselves with the ACTUAL impasse process to which this bill is drafted toward. In a previous committee a Sheriff stated that the entire contract would go before the County Commission and that the county commission would be able to itemize expenditures and policy of the Sheriff's Office, as you can see from the statute below that is incorrect.


The Process Of Impasse

The contract is negotiated, and if no agreement is reached an impasse is declared by the Sheriff.

PERC is notified of the dispute and a Special Master is assigned.

The Special Master hears the dispute .

The Special Master makes a ruling on any unresolved contractual disputes.

He/she sends a ruling as to the disputed issues which the parties talk about and agree to what we can agree to based upon his recommendation.

What we dont agree to (KEY POINT WHAT WE DONT AGREE TO) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer's recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues after that, and this is critical, the Legislative body SHALL (not may)

Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues

The Full Statute 443.407

447.403 Resolution of impasses.--

(1) If, after a reasonable period of negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment to be incorporated in a collective bargaining agreement, a dispute exists between a public employer and a bargaining agent, an impasse shall be deemed to have occurred when one of the parties so declares in writing to the other party and to the commission. When an impasse occurs, the public employer or the bargaining agent, or both parties acting jointly, may appoint, or secure the appointment of, a mediator to assist in the resolution of the impasse. If the Governor is the public employer, no mediator shall be appointed.

(2)(a) If no mediator is appointed, or upon the request of either party, the commission shall appoint, and submit all unresolved issues to, a special magistrate acceptable to both parties. If the parties are unable to agree on the appointment of a special magistrate, the commission shall appoint, in its discretion, a qualified special magistrate. However, if the parties agree in writing to waive the appointment of a special magistrate, the parties may proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the legislative body pursuant to paragraph (4)(d). Nothing in this section precludes the parties from using the services of a mediator at any time during the conduct of collective bargaining.

(b) If the Governor is the public employer, no special magistrate shall be appointed. The parties may proceed directly to the Legislature for resolution of the impasse pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(c) If the district school board is the public employer and an impasse is declared under subsection (1) involving a dispute of a Merit Award Program plan under s. 1012.225, the dispute is subject to an expedited impasse hearing. Notwithstanding subsections (3), (4), and (5), and the rules adopted by the commission, the following procedures shall apply:

1.a. The commission shall furnish the names of seven special magistrates within 5 days after receiving notice of impasse. If the parties are unable to agree upon a special magistrate within 5 days after the date of the letter transmitting the list of choices, the commission shall immediately appoint a special magistrate. The special magistrate shall set the hearing, which shall be held no later than 15 days after the date of appointment of the special magistrate. Within 5 days after the date of appointment of a special magistrate, each party shall serve upon the special magistrate and upon each other party a written list of issues at impasse.

b. At the close of the hearing, the parties shall summarize their arguments and may provide a written memorandum in support of their positions.

c. Within 10 days after the close of the hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit a recommended decision to the commission and the parties.

d. The recommended decision of the special magistrate shall be deemed accepted by the parties, except as to those recommendations that a party specifically rejects, by filing a written notice with the commission and serving a copy on the other party within 5 days after the date of the recommended decision.

2. If a party rejects any part of the recommended decision of the special magistrate, the parties shall proceed directly to resolution of the impasse by the district school board pursuant to paragraph (4)(d).

(3) The special magistrate shall hold hearings in order to define the area or areas of dispute, to determine facts relating to the dispute, and to render a decision on any and all unresolved contract issues. The hearings shall be held at times, dates, and places to be established by the special magistrate in accordance with rules promulgated by the commission. The special magistrate shall be empowered to administer oaths and issue subpoenas on behalf of the parties to the dispute or on his or her own behalf. Within 15 calendar days after the close of the final hearing, the special magistrate shall transmit his or her recommended decision to the commission and to the representatives of both parties by registered mail, return receipt requested. Such recommended decision shall be discussed by the parties, and each recommendation of the special magistrate shall be deemed approved by both parties unless specifically rejected by either party by written notice filed with the commission within 20 calendar days after the date the party received the special magistrate's recommended decision. The written notice shall include a statement of the cause for each rejection and shall be served upon the other party.

(4) If either the public employer or the employee organization does not accept, in whole or in part, the recommended decision of the special magistrate:

(a) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer's recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues. The chief executive officer shall also transmit his or her recommendations to the employee organization;

(b) The employee organization shall submit its recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues to such legislative body and to the chief executive officer;

(c) The legislative body or a duly authorized committee thereof shall forthwith conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations of the special magistrate;

(d) Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues; and

(e) Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes those issues agreed to by the parties and those disputed impasse issues resolved by the legislative body's action taken pursuant to paragraph (d). The agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and the bargaining agent and shall be submitted to the public employer and to the public employees who are members of the bargaining unit for ratification. If such agreement is not ratified by all parties, pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.309, the legislative body's action taken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (d) shall take effect as of the date of such legislative body's action for the remainder of the first fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations; however, the legislative body's action shall not take effect with respect to those disputed impasse issues which establish the language of contractual provisions which could have no effect in the absence of a ratified agreement, including, but not limited to, preambles, recognition clauses, and duration clauses.

(5)(a) Within 5 days after the beginning of the impasse period in accordance with s. 216.163(6), each party shall notify the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as to all unresolved issues. Upon receipt of the notification, the presiding officers shall appoint a joint select committee to review the position of the parties and render a recommended resolution of all issues remaining at impasse. The recommended resolution shall be returned by the joint select committee to the presiding officers not later than 10 days prior to the date upon which the legislative session is scheduled to commence. During the legislative session, the Legislature shall take action in accordance with this section.

(b) Any actions taken by the Legislature shall bind the parties in accordance with paragraph (4)(c).


House Governmental Affairs Committee

Chairman Representative Schenck
Phone: (352) 688-5005
robert.schenck@myfloridahouse.gov
We had hoped that he would not put the bill on the agenda and save his members from having to make this vote. We need to thank him for not hearing the bill this week and to ask him to continue protecting the protectors rights and not hear the bill in the coming weeks.

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Hernando,Pasco,Sumter


Representative Roberson
Phone: (941) 613-0914
ken.roberson@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2008
Local Delegations: Charlotte,Lee,Sarasota


Representative Braynon
Phone: (305) 654-7100
oscar.braynon@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2008
Local Delegations: Broward,Miami-Dade


Representative Ambler :Ask him to champion our cause. (He's running for Senate)
Phone: (813) 558-1333
kevin.ambler@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2002
Local Delegations: Hillsborough


Representative Anderson-Co sponsor of the bill.
Phone: (727) 943-4760
tom.anderson@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2002
Local Delegations: Pasco,Pinellas


Representative Frishe
Is very open to hearing our arguments and has stated that he really needs to hear from the leo's, so that he knows what his area officers really want.
Phone: (727) 518-3902
james.frishe@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Pinellas


Representative Holder
Phone: (941) 918-4028
doug.holder@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Sarasota


Representative Kriseman
is very bright and we should ask his help in championing our cause.
Phone: (727) 552-1380
rick.kriseman@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Pinellas


Representative Mayfield
Cosponsored the bill.The aide has requested that we understand that the legislator has no intention of rescinding her co-sponsorship of the bill. Please remember that if you email them, to be polite and simply disappointed.
Phone: (772) 778-5077
debbie.mayfield@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2008
Local Delegations: Brevard,Indian River,St. Lucie


Representative McBurney
Phone: (904) 359-6090
charles.mcburney@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2007
Local Delegations: Duval


Representative Randolph
Phone: (407) 893-3084
scott.randolph@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Orange


Representative Skidmore
Phone: (561) 470-6593
kelly.skidmore@myfloridahouse.gov

First Elected: 2006
Local Delegations: Broward,Palm Beach

[Unregistered]

Whatever came of this bill?