PLA decision may result in another lawsuit for IID

EL CENTRO — Imperial Irrigation District Attorney Frank Oswalt warned directors to choose their words very carefully when talking about or discussing the project labor agreement.

On Tuesday he told the directors any comments they make could be used in a court of law if the district is sued for breach of contract or anything else.

Two directors, Alex Cardenas and Norma Sierra Galindo, voted for the PLA and still support it after the new board ruled the motion made to pass it was ambiguous and confusing, and thus moot.

Cardenas said he was not confused and knew exactly what he was voting on in relation to the PLA at the Dec. 1 board meeting.

“It was very clear on what I was reporting on,” he said.

Thomas Enslow with the Building & Construction Trades Council from Riverside County, said the PLA was an approved deal and that all the documents had been signed by both parties.

“It is a legal binding document and can’t be unilaterally rescinded or ruled invalid after the fact,” Enslow said.

He said contrary to the narrative in the board memorandum, the Dec. 1 packet made it clear what was being voted on.

“There was no confusion among board members that day,” he said, adding that this can be proven because not one director requested additional clarification before voting.

Enslow added the agreements and side letters were presented to the board at the special meeting on Nov. 23 and at the Dec. 1 meeting where the board voted 3-2 for the PLA.

“It was an action item for the proposed PLA of the trade council and IBEW Local 47. There was no confusion at the Dec. 1 meeting.

“We find it outrageous that two board members who were not seated on the board at the time are now claiming the motion made was not understood by the board,” he said.

Enslow questioned whether the motion and vote and action taken in closed session was legal because it could have violated the Brown Act.

IID Director JB Hamby, who made the motion, explained that the board was in consultation with its attorney on potential litigation when the motion was made that there was actually no vote taken on the PLA due to procedural issues, so there was no violation of the Brown Act.

Enslow said the unions will follow their legal obligations and expects the IID to do the same.

“Failure of the IID to abide by the terms of the agreement would constitute a breach of contract, notwithstanding the findings of the new board, which would subject IID to damages,” he said.

Hamby would not comment on whether litigation could be possible.

“We will defend the decisions we make,” he said.

Enslow said not approving the PLA is a disservice to the community and to the party who negotiated it.

“I urge the board to reconsider its actions and to stand by the agreement that was carefully crafted after a year of negotiation to benefit both the IID and the community,” he said.

Galindo asked Board President James Hanks if the workshops on the PLA he and former Director Bruce Kuhn requested at the Dec. 1 vote were going to happen.

“Your vote took care of that,” Hanks told her.