The ballot language says "The provisions in these (union) contracts take precedence over Civil Service policies." What it does not say is that there are some polices in the Civil Service rules that are not contained in the contracts. One of the most important areas of policy relate to hiring. There is nothing about hiring in the union contracts.
One aspect of hiring is that the Civil Service rules designate veteran's preference points, like many state and federal systems. There is no guarantee that veteran's preference would be retained if the CSC is abolished. None of the Councilmembers sponsoring this issue is a veteran.
The ballot language also says "If necessary, the City Council could create a Human Resources Commission by ordinance to oversee any employment issues for City employees." There is nothing stating what this Commission would do, how it would be composed, or any other guarantee that it would represent and protect the public interest in personnel administration in the City service. Why is there a proposal to possibly substitute one commission whose responsibilities are spelled out in the Charter with another whose purpose and responsibilities are unknown?
There would be no cost savings associated with eliminating a volunteer commission.
The CSC serves as a "check and balance" system to guard against cronyism.
The meetings of the CSC are public, and anyone can bring an issue to their attention. They have the ability to authorize investigation when wrongdoing may be suspected.
The CSC protects employees from political pressure. "It's not who you know but what you know."
They also review union contracts before they go to the City Council for review.
The CSC protects the taxpayers' interests in allowing only qualified employees to be hired and promoted. It reduces the possibility that unqualified employees will potentially create liability that the taxpayers may eventually have to pay for.