Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Arbitration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County counsel urges settlement in long-running labor arbitration; board votes to proceed as advised
Summary
After closed-session legal advice on the Gallo labor/arbitration matter, outside counsel recommended settling for roughly one-third of worst-case exposure (cited ~ $37,000) to avoid costly arbitration; the board returned to open session and recorded roll-call support to proceed as counsel recommended.
Clare County commissioners convened a closed session on Sept. 18 to receive legal advice about the county’s ongoing Gallo labor/arbitration litigation, and returned to open session with a plan to proceed as recommended by counsel.
Outside counsel (introduced in the meeting as Mr. Addis) told commissioners he had reviewed filings and the judge’s behavior closely and recommended a settlement that would resolve the matter for about one-third of potential exposure. Counsel said that figure would be “about $37,000” (he corrected a misprint of $32,000 in his written letter) and argued the county could avoid the expense, time and operational disruption of a full arbitration. He warned that arbitration preparation alone — assembling witnesses, preparing exhibits and presentation time — could approach or exceed the county’s projected arbitration-preparation costs.
Judge Farrell and county counsel told the board they believed the legal record had merit for the county’s position but that the judge assigned to decide the timing issues had not issued a dispositive ruling and that the judge’s apparent unwillingness to “pull the trigger” on dismissing the case increased settlement risk. Commissioners discussed the tradeoffs between litigating and accepting counsel’s risk-management recommendation.
After the closed session, the board returned to open session and members recorded affirmative roll-call responses consistent with proceeding “as recommended by counsel in closed session.” The motion as described on the record asked the board to authorize the county to “proceed as advised by counsel in closed session of this date” without disclosing numbers or specific settlement terms in the public meeting.
The action does not include an admission of wrongdoing, according to counsel’s description, and was framed by counsel as a pragmatic step to protect taxpayers from higher costs and prolonged court involvement. Commissioners said the settlement approach would also inform contract language and bargaining timelines to reduce similar exposures in future labor agreements.
The next procedural step on the record was to have staff and counsel finalize any required settlement documentation consistent with the motion the board approved in open session.
