Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image

Final Report of ERB Funding Task Force
 
FINAL REPORT
OF
THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD FUNDING TASK FORCE
[PURSUANT TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD BUDGET NOTE SENATE BILL 5519 - 2003 LEGISLATIVE SESSION]
TO
THE SEVENTY-THIRD LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
FINAL MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2004
Employment Relations Board Funding Task Force Members

Tom Chamberlain, Task Force Chair, Labor Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor
State Representative Tom Butler
BethAnne Darby, Oregon Education Association
Paul Gamson, Chair of the Employment Relations Board
Jim Green, Oregon School Boards Association
Rick Henson, AFSCME
Anna Kanwit, City of Portland
Maria Keltner, Local Government Personnel Institute
Hasina Squires, Special Districts
Arthur Towers, SEIU

FINAL REPORT
OF
THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD FUNDING TASK FORCE
PURSUANT TO EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD BUDGET NOTE
SENATE BILL 5519 - 2003 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Table of Contents
Section 1: Acknowledgements Page 3
Section 2: Background and the Work of the Task Force Page 4
Section 3: Summary - Findings and Recommendations Page 6
Section 4: Appendices Page 8
 
Section 1: Acknowledgements
 
In addition to the appreciation of the work of the entire Employment Relations Board Funding Task Force (ERBFTF) members (see Appendix C for the Task Force roster), the leadership and efforts of the Chair, Tom Chamberlain, Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, are deeply appreciated.

Special thanks must also be given to State Representative Tom Butler, who helped originate the ERB budget note, and whose interest in this subject and commitment to seeking answers and recommendations were demonstrated many times as he made the long trip from Ontario, Oregon to attend various meetings. The Task Force looks forward to his continued leadership and counsel on these issues.

The Task Force benefitted immensely from the outstanding work reported in the May 18, 2004 Employment Relations Board Operations Review prepared by an outstanding work group made up of: George Dunford, Chair (DAS); Mark Hohlt (Lottery); Margaret Kane, CPA; George Ostertag (DAS); and Craig Stroud (PERS).

Also providing a great deal of assistance to the Task Force were the following individuals: Satish Upadhyay, DAS Budget Analyst; Grace Roth, Executive Assistant, Governor's Office; and the entire Employment Relations Board members and staff who invested countless hours generating information for the Task Force.
 
Lastly, the testimony and presentations by all the interested parties, whether in person or in writing, were deeply appreciated. The information and insights they provided on the issues, ideas, and recommendations have resulted in the production of this report.
Section 2: Background and the Work of the Task Force:
 
Background: The passage of Senate Bill 5519 (2003 Legislative Assembly, see Appendix A) included a budget note that ERB was to work with DAS and LFO "to develop a funding mechanism that is consistent with the workload requirements of each program." In August 2004, the Office of the Governor, through Labor Policy Advisor Tom Chamberlain, announced the appointment of the Employment Relations Board Funding Task Force. The charge was to develop funding recommendations regarding funding for the ERB.
The Task Force members were appointed in August 2004: see appointment letter (Appendix B) and Task Force Roster (Appendix C).The first meeting was held September 16, 2004, at which time the Task Force agenda included:

Review of the charge of the Task Force from the 2003 ERB budget note: to review the issues of ERB services to local governments and their costs, and to have the Task Force come up with a recommendation to address those issues.
 
Review and discuss some background information on the ERB operations and its fiscal picture related to services to local governments and their cost. The Task Force heard from ERB Chair Paul Gamson and DAS Budget Analyst Satish Upadhyay as to the historical ERB funding mechanisms, past proposals, and the current funding process. They also provided data on the historical and current services and cost for the ERB work on state government entities, local government entities, and services to private sector parties.

Discuss the goals and timelines of the Task Force. The Task Force members raised questions, discussed issues and data, and created a list of information they would like to have presented or further developed. This information was to be submitted to the Task Force either prior to or at its next and final meeting so that the Task Force could then formulate its recommendations.

The second and final meeting of the Task Force took place on November 23, 2004, and the agenda for that meeting included:

Review and discussion of the informational items requested from the first meeting. ERB Chair Gamson and Budget Analyst Upadhyay walked through the various sets of data that had been compiled in response to the requests.

The Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) made a presentation highlighting three points:
 
1. ERB should be funded by general fund dollars because it is a state policy responsibility;
2. In the alternative, user fees as a funding source should have an appropriate mechanism, unions and employers should be equal partners, and the fees should be applied uniformly across all services provided by ERB; and
3. ERB should be provided with research tools and resources commonly used in the legal profession, including up-to-date equipment necessary to effectively operate.
Local government representatives noted their approval with the status quo (#1), and voiced their concurrence with OSBA's other positions as well.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) highlighted what it believed were the three options under consideration:

1. Current funding method;
2. Use of a per employee assessment on local governments to replace general fund allocations; and
3. User fees and assessments to replace general funds. Of these, OEA favored the first option and found problems with the other two.
Employee representatives agreed with status quo being the preferred option and thereby voiced their concurrence with OEA's position.
To review the minutes of the meetings, please refer to Appendix D and to view the list of information submitted to the Task Force, please refer to Appendix E.
Section 3: Summary - Findings and Recommendations
 
After the two meetings were held to gather information, discuss the issues and ideas, and make findings, at its last meeting held on November 23, 2004, the Task Force discussed how best to proceed in formulating its recommendations. The following are summaries of the Task Force findings and recommendations, and serve as the Task Force's Final Report submitted in response to the 2003 SB 5519 ERB budget note.

Summary of the findings:

Oregon ERB services are funded as follows:

o State government relations services are funded through an assessment on state agencies of $1.35 per employee per month.
o Local government relations services are funded by general funds and by four other budgeted primary sources: contract mediation fees; fees to mediate grievance and unfair labor practice (ULPs); interest-based bargaining training fees; and filing fees for ULP complaints and answers.

The actual revenues generated from these local government fee assessments have historically not reached the projected/budgeted revenues.

This has historically required the ERB to tap into other revenues to help fund these local government services.

The proportion of local government services far exceeds the proportion of ERB funds received from fees received from local government.

From informal surveys done of other states, it was noted that most states fund their employment relations services through general fund mechanisms. Even among the states that indicated that they used a fee assessment, Oregon's fees appeared to be the highest.
Information was presented noting a correlation between the amount of the fees and the use of services; when there had been an increase in fees there appeared to be a substantial reduction in the use of the services.

Summary of recommendations:

Upon review of the all the data and testimony submitted to the ERBFTF, the Task Force members did not favor a per employee assessment on local governments, on employees or on employees' exclusive representatives. Of the Task Force members present at the November 23, 2004 meeting, they unanimously voted in favor of the first three recommendations below. With Chair Tom Chamberlain absent, the 9 members of the 10 member Task Force voted five (5) in favor, three (3) opposed, and one (1) abstaining on the last recommendation below (#4).
1. Status quo for now on the ERB funding mechanisms;
2. A continued study of the ERB fees;
3. A more immediate look at ERB fees for private sector use of the services; and
4. If the scenario comes down to there not being enough general fund resources available to adequately fund ERB, that new and increased fees be considered as a remedy, with the costs being borne equally by employers and employees.

It must be noted that the discussion and debate on recommendation #4 reflected the different views represented on the Task Force.

The four employer representatives and Representative Butler felt that in a scenario where an ERB general fund allocation might not be enough, that the option of new and increased fees (shared equally among employers and employees) should be considered.
The three employee representatives felt that such a recommendation (#4) may be seen as a way to avoid the unanimously adopted recommendations (#1 - #3) with the result being increased fees, and increased fees have historically resulted in the decreased use of ERB services.

ERB Chair Gamson abstained and ERBFTF Chair Tom Chamberlain was absent due to illness.

As noted above, of the 10 member Task Force, five voted to support recommendation #4, three voted in opposition, one abstained, and one was absent.
 
Section 4: Appendices:
 
A. Employment Relations Board Budget Report and Measure Summary (including budget note on page 3) - SB 5519 (2003)
Pages 9 to 16

B. Letter of Invitation to Task Force Members.
Page 17

C. Task Force Roster.
Pages 19 to 21

D. Minutes of the meetings: September 16, 2004 meeting and November 23, 2004 meeting
Pages 23 to 29

E. List of reviewed data sets and reports.
Page 31
 
APPENDIX B  
August 9, 2004

NAME
 
TITLE
 
ORGANIZATION
 
ADDRESS
 
CITY, OR ZIPCODE

RE: Employment Relations Board Funding Task Force

Dear Author:
This letter requests that you serve as a member of a task force that will help develop recommendations to the Department of Administrative Services Director regarding funding for the Employment Relations Board.

The first meeting for this task force is set for September 16, 2004 from 2:00-3:30pm and will meet at the State Capitol in Hearing Room 50. I look forward to working with you. Please respond with your acceptance or regrets to Grace Roth at 503-378-6502 and let us know if you will be able to attend on September 16th.

Enclosed is an agenda for the first meeting, along with a list of other members of the taskforce, ERB Operations Review with the Executive Summary and a budget report. I appreciate your willingness to take part in the important work of this task force and look forward to seeing you on September 16, 2004.

Sincerely,
Tom Chamberlain
Labor Policy Advisor
APPENDIX C
 
ERB Funding Task Force Roster

Tom Butler, State Representative - District 60
State Capitol - H-286
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 986-1460
Email: rep.tombutler@state.or.us

Tom Chamberlain, Task Force Chairperson
Labor Policy Advisor
Governor's Office
900 Court St NE
Salem, OR 97301-4047
Phone: (503) 378-6502
Email: Tom.Chamberlain@das.state.or.us

BethAnne Darby
The Center for Public Affairs
Oregon Education Association
6900 SW Atlanta Street
Portland, OR 97223
Phone: (503) 684-3300
Email: bethanne.darby@oregoned.org

Paul Gamson, Chair of Employment Relations Board
528 Cottage Street N.E., Suite 400
Salem, OR 97301-3807
Phone (503) 378-3807, Extension 226
E-mail: Paul.Gamson@state.or.us

Jim Green, Senior Legislative Advocate
Oregon School Boards Association
1201 Court St NE
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: (503) 588-2800
Email: jgreen@osba.org

Rick Henson, Field Service Director
AFSCME
123 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 505
Portland, OR 97232
Phone: (503) 239-9858
Email: rhenson@afscmecn75.com

Anna Kanwit, Chief Bureau Operations Manager
City of Portland
1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Room 404
Portland, OR 97204
Phone:  (503) 823-3572
Email: akanwit@ci.portland.or.us

Maria Keltner, Executive Director
Local Government Personnel Institute
PO Box 908
Salem, OR 97308
Phone: (503) 588-3251
Email: mkeltner_lgpi@orlocalgov.org

Hasina Squires
Special Districts
22400 Salamo Rd., Suite 201
West Linn, OR 97068
Phone: (503) 650-1181
Email: HESquires@aol.com
 
Arthur Towers, Political Director
SEIU
1730 Commercial Street SE
Salem, OR 97309-0159
Phone: (503) 581-1505
Cell: (503) 799-1017
Email: towersa@opeuseiu.org

Staff

George Dunford , Internal Audits Manager
Dept. of Administrative Services
155 Cottage St NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: (503) 378-4027
Email: George.M.DUNFORD@das.state.or.us

Grace Roth, Executive Assistant
Governor's Office
900 Court St NE
Salem, OR 97301-4047
Phone: (503) 378-6502
Email: grace.roth@das.state.or.us
 
Danny Santos, Policy Advisor
Office of the Governor
900 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4047
Phone: (503) 986-6544
Email: danny.santos@das.state.or.us

Satish Upadhyay, Budget Analyst
DAS Budget and Management
155 Cottage St NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: (503) 378-3108
Email: Satish.UPADHYAY@das.state.or.us
 
APPENDIX D - TASK FORCE MINUTES
 
ERB Funding Task Force Meeting
Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 2:00 PM
Room 50 State Capitol - Salem, Oregon
 
Minutes

Attendance: Chair Chamberlain; Rep. Butler; BethAnne Darby; Paul Gamson; Jim Green; Rick Henson; Anna Kanwit; Maria Keltner; Hasina Squires; and Art Towers.

 
Welcome and introductions:
Chair Tom Chamberlain welcomed the Task Force and thanked them for their willingness to serve. The members then introduced themselves and their affiliations. The Chair thanked Rep. Tom Butler for causing the creation of the Task Force to look at this important issue of how the Employment Relations Board (ERB) is budgeted to deliver its services. The Task Force is a result of a 2003 ERB budget note to review the question of how to fund the cost of services ERB provides local governments?

The agenda has two components leading to a second (and last) meeting of the Task Force on October 28, 2004. The first component is to get some background information on the ERB operations and its fiscal picture related to services to local governments and their cost. The second part of the agenda is to discuss the goals and timelines of the Task Force. The Chair introduced Paul Gamson (ERB Chair) and Satish Upadhyay, DAS/BAM analyst for ERB. They led the discussion regarding ERB background information and the fiscal picture related to ERB services to local government and their costs.
 
ERB Background information and fiscal picture:
Paul Gamson, ERB Chair made his presentation on the ERB services. This policy discussion of how to fund ERB services has been going on for years, in particular, how to fund ERB services to local governments. There are no easy answers, but the agency does need stable funding to meet the needs of state and local governments. Gamson highlighted the services ERB provides, three primary areas: 1) private sector labor law (small caseload); 2) state personnel relations law; 3) public employees collective bargaining act (the bulk of the caseload). This third section is where services to local governments are concentrated.
Current funding for the 03-05 budget is slightly less than $3 million. The budget is $270,000 less now than in 1991, when they had 24 FTE, now they have 12 FTE. The revenues are based on: miscellaneous funds; fees (filing, answer, and mediation); general fund (roughly $1 M - primary source for local government services); and state assessment $1.35 per employee/per month for all state employees (state gets its cases heard without filing/mediation fees). The budget note relates to the concern that the state assessment is paying a higher percent of the agency's budget than the percentage of state cases coming before the agency.
It was explained that state cases tend to be more complex and longer cases. In rough numbers, the state cases are a lot more complex and tend to cover larger number of employees (last year, state mediation cases involved contracts that covered about 31,000 state employees, and although there were more local government medication cases, they involved contracts that covered only about 13,000 local employees).

Gamson sent out a survey to the 35 states that have ERB types of services and got 11 responses. Most states fund all of their ERB types of services from state general funds. One unique model is that Florida has 56% general fund, 44% through local sales tax for local government relations. In a 1997 study, only 3 jurisdictions had filing fees for complaints, with Oregon having the highest fees; and other than Wisconsin, Oregon was the only other state that had mediation fees.

In 1995, HB 2159 (handout provided) meant to expand the per capita assessment to include local employees. A rough estimate by Gamson was that an 80-cent assessment per employee per month for all governmental employees (state & local) would equal the current ERB budget and would eliminate the mediation fees (it would not address the filing fee costs). The legislature did not pass the local government assessment. Instead, it amended HB 2159 to double the fees for local government mediation, from $500 to $1,000.

Satish Upadhyay (DAS/BAM) gave the fiscal data related to the ERB funding and cost of services, particularly the information related to services and costs of ERB services to local governments. Upadhyay handed out 4 tables of the ERB revenues and costs, and how they pertain to services to local governments. The first table showed the ERB funding history from 91-93. The revenues have primarily been through general fund and other funds (state assessments). The second chart showed the local government labor relations funding history. The third table shows the problem between local government budgeted funds and actual revenues, and the last table shows the other fund revenues: mediation fees; filing fees; and miscellaneous income (projected vs. actual revenues). These revenues have historically helped fund the services for local government. However, all three revenues are not being generated as budgeted, so the agency is having to use other funds to make up the difference. Upadhyay indicated that ERB is using other revenues and savings for this (i.e. from ending balances and employee vacancies).

It was noted that part of the budget note was to conduct a DAS audit, and that audit report was in the members' packet. A question was asked if the recommendations have been acted upon to correct some revenue/cost issues. ERB Chair Gamson then briefly reviewed the ERB actions to address the audit issues & recommendations. The agency has made every effort to be as efficient as possible. The two main areas of problems were systems and tools (desk top computers, recorders, computer data systems). In the findings of the audits, there was a list of 7 issues/recommendations to address; Gamson indicated that progress has been made on all 7 recommendations.

A question was raised whether cases were the primary indicator of workload, and whether the allocation of resources was based primarily on caseloads? It was noted that cases are separated by state cases and local cases. Furthermore, cases are put under three categories: where resources are used; where heavy resources are used; and where there is extreme heavy use of resources. These factors are outlined in the DAS audit report.
 
Task Force Goals and Timelines:
Chair Chamberlain facilitated a discussion about how the Task Force may wish to address its directive, and what information members desired before the next meeting.
 
1. There was a question of the break out of the ERB services/costs by local government services by types of local entities. ERB Chair Gamson handed out a chart with such a breakout of such costs (cities, counties, school districts, etc.). The chart does not include factors such as complexity or size of the cases. However, Gamson indicated that on average, state cases take a day longer that other cases.
 
2. There was a request for a better breakdown of the case histories (beyond the handout provided by ERB Chair Gamson), not just by state vs. local cases, but also looking at the complexities of those cases. Not just by the numbers, but also factors such as the size of case (some may be a small local case size - 5-10 employee, versus a state case with thousand of employees), and some may have some very complex issues involved that will take more time and resources to deal with.
 
3. Jim Green, OSBA, indicated that he could have somebody come to talk about what an 80-cent assessment per local government employee per month would mean for school districts. Chair Chamberlain suggested that OSBA and the other local government entities should write up such information and submit it to the Task Force before the next meeting so that the members could get a feel for the implications and reactions of such a scenario.
 
4. There was a question as to how many local government employees there may be, and there was a follow up as to who gets assessed, only FTE or part-time employees? It was stated that it was position count, so any part-time positions (filled positions) are assessed (not just FTEs).
 
5. A question was asked if there are any other alternatives for local governments to address these types of cases, or are they required by law to use these state ERB services, if they are required and they are unwilling or cannot afford to pay for the state services, maybe we should change the law.
 
6. There was a reference that the current state law may only allow for state generated resources to be used only for services to state agencies. It was noted that there may be different interpretations of that statute and it was asked if there might be some clarification of what the statute is and how it may be interpreted?
 
7. It was also asked that if indeed there were established some distinct revenues for each state and local services, would there be additional ERB administrative costs to account for services/costs associated with providing such distinct state/local services from distinct state/local revenues?
 
8. There was a question whether the Task Force should look at not just the 80-cent assessment option, but there also might be some examination of increasing filing/mediation fees to increase the local government revenues? While this option will also be explored, there was also a statement that history has shown that when fees have been increased, the number of cases filed (use of ERB services) has decreased (1995 increase shows such a decrease in use). There is interest in information of the affordability issues, and how increased fees impact the case filing.
 
9. The question was asked whether we are trying to get to the EBL or agency request? It was discussed that the primary interest if to look at the mechanism versus the amount of revenues.
 
10. There was also discussion that if you have a $2.9 M budget in 1991 and 24 employees and we now have a $2.6 M and 12 employees, someone will ask why? Is it caseloads, complexity, or other factors? It was asked to have a side-by-side comparison of the actual costs for the two budgets (91-93 and 03-05) with an explanation of the differences and impacts.
 
11. There was a question on the chart on page 7 of the audit report as to whether that related only to state conciliation caseloads? ERB Chair Gamson noted that the page 7 chart was just conciliation cases, and does not include unfair labor practices, for state personnel relations, unit cases, and representation issues. It was requested that to get a better breakdown of the ERB caseloads. This request is desired to be from 1995 to present if data is readily available.

Chair Chamberlain suggested a outline of an agenda for the October 28th meeting as follows: presentation on the information and data requested by the Task Force (such information will be sent out a week before the next meeting, or as soon as possible); and then work to formulate a plan for a Task Force report and recommendation.

This proposal can then be worked on by staff and sent out to the Task Force members before it is finalized and disseminated to the Legislature, Governor, ERB, and other affected governmental entities, agencies and interested organizations.
 
Task Force members were asked to provide any information that helps understand the allocation of the program funds, between state vs. local government expenditures. Chair Chamberlain asked that any written testimony be submitted a week before the Oct. 28th meeting so that it could be distributed to Task Force members.

The meeting closed with a confirmation that the next meeting would be October 28, 2004, 9 - 10:30 AM, Room 50, State Capitol. It was also noted that the outcome of that meeting is to formulate a Task Force recommendation on the issue of the cost of ERB services to local governments and how to pay for them.

 
ERB Funding Task Force Meeting
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 9:00 - 10:30 AM
Room 50 State Capitol - Salem, Oregon
Minutes

Attendance: Rep. Butler; BethAnne Darby; Paul Gamson; Jim Green; Rick Henson; Anna Kanwit; Maria Keltner; Hasina Squires; and Art Towers.
Absent: Chair Tom Chamberlain was ill and unable to attend.
Staff present: Danny Santos

Welcome and Introductions: Paul Gamson, ERB Chair, notified members that Task Force Chair Tom Chamberlain is ill and has asked that as a representative from the Governor's Office, that Danny Santos act as the chair to run the meeting. So without objection, Danny chaired the meeting.

Danny Santos welcomed and thanked the members for attending the Task Force's last meeting. He recognized Rep. Butler for making a special long trip to attend the meeting, again demonstrating his interest and leadership on these issues. It was noted that today's agenda is to review the work from the September 16th meeting, including the requests for additional information, then to entertain new testimony and information, and lastly to close by developing a Task Force recommendation.

 
Review of data & information requested at the last meeting:
Paul Gamson reviewed the list of information requested by Task Force members. The sets of information had been mailed to members with a November 8th memo from Tom Chamberlain. Gamson discussed each of the requested sets of data and answered questions:
Breakdown of ERB local government services by types of local entities.
 
Data on the complexity of local vs. state government cases (based on the duration of the hearings).
 
Data on the number of local government employees in Oregon.
Information that PECBA is a mandate on all state employers (no opt out provisions).
A historical and informal review of the statutes concluding that ERB services using existing funding for local government services.
 
Data on the impact of user fees on ERB services (increase in fees, decrease in demand for services).
 
Comparison of 1991 and 2003-05 ERB budgets.
Statistics on local and state government by case type.

 
Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) and Other Presentations:
OSBA made a presentation highlighting three points:
 
1. ERB should be funded by general fund dollars because it is a state policy responsibility;
2. In the alternative, user fees as a funding source should have an appropriate mechanism, unions and employers should be equal partners, and the fees should be applied uniformly across all services provided by ERB; and
3. ERB should be provided with research tools and resources commonly used in the legal profession, including up-to-date equipment necessary to effectively operate.
Local government representatives noted their approval with the status quo (#1), and voiced their concurrence with OSBA's other positions as well.

The Oregon Education Association (OEA) presented a memo highlighting what it believed were the three options under consideration:

1. Current funding method;
2. Use of a per employee assessment for local governments to replace general fund allocations; and
3. User fees and assessments to replace general funds. Of these, OEA favored the first option and found problems with the other two.
Employee representatives agreed with status quo being the preferred option and thereby voiced their concurrence with OEA's position.

 
Development of the Task Force recommendations:
With the review of the requested information, and the OSBA and OEA presentations, and other comments, the Task Force then discussed what recommendation it may wish to make. It was noted that from the meeting discussions, it appeared that the options before the Task Force appear to focus on three primary areas:

A recommendation to increase the fees to use the ERB services
 
A recommendation for an assessment on local government employees
Make no change

It was desired to have to make recommendations that had the greatest agreement by the Task Force members, ones that may not be seen as everyone's first choice, but still may be the most agreeable option amongst the Task Force.

While status quo seemed to be something that everyone saw a viable option, members did discuss other options. It was discussed that assessments on local government employees did not appear to be an appropriate solution. Rep. Butler discussed the idea of increased fees and noted that the status quo was not working. It was discussed that if there was a shift in trying to get additional revenue, it should be borne by both sides (employers and employees).
Jim Green (OSBA) made a motion with four components: Moved that
1. Status quo for now on the ERB funding mechanisms;
2. A continued study of the ERB fees;
3. A more immediate look at ERB fees for private sector use of the services; and
4. If the scenario come down to there not being enough general fund resources available to adequately fund ERB, that new and increased fees be considered as a remedy, with the costs being borne equally by employers and employees.
 
While there was agreement on the first three components, there was significant debate on the 4th component. It must be noted that the discussion and debate on component #4 reflected the different views represented on the Task Force.

The four employer representatives and Representative Butler felt that in a scenario where an ERB general fund allocation might not be enough, that the option of new and increased fees (shared equally among employers and employees) should be considered.

The three employee representatives felt that such a component (#4) was too open ended and may be seen as a way to avoid the unanimously agreed upon components (#1 - #3) with the result being increased fees, and increased fees have historically resulted in the decreased use of ERB services.

Green amended his motion to split it into two motions, the first one with components #1 through #3, and the second motion being component #4.

The first motion passed unanimously (components #1-#3).

On the second motion (component #4), of the 10 member Task Force, five voted to support recommendation #4, three voted in opposition, ERB Chair Gamson abstained, and ERBFTF Chair Tom Chamberlain was absent due to illness.
 
Next steps:
Members were informed that the Task Force's activities, conclusions and recommendation will be drafted into a report that will be disseminated for review and comment, after which it will be finalized and submitted to the Legislative Assembly, LFO, Governor's Office, ERB, and DAS.
 
Adjournment:
The meeting was then adjourned at 10:30 AM
 
APPENDIX E
 
REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BORAD FUNDING TASK FORCE

1. Employment Relations Board Operations Review, May 18, 2004
2. Employment Relations Board Budget Report and Measure Summary, including budget note on page 3 - SB 5519 (2003)
3. House Bill 2159 - 1995 Session
4. Employment Relations Board Funding History
5. Table of cases filed by State and Local Government - 1998 to 2004
6. Employment Board Relations Findings and Results for 2001-03 and 2003-05 (through 9-23-04)
7. Breakdown of ERB local government services by types of local entities.
8. Data on the complexity of local vs. state government cases (based on the duration of the hearings).
9. Data on the number of local government employees in Oregon.
10. Information that PECBA is a mandate on all state employers (no opt out provisions).
11. A historical and informal review of the statutes concluding that ERB services using existing funding for local government services.
12. Data on the impact of user fees on ERB services (increase in fees, decrease in demand for services).
13. Comparison of 1991 and 2003-05 ERB budgets.
14. Statistics on local and state government by case type.
15. Oregon School Boards Association Memo
16. Oregon Education Association Memo