![\"Chula](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/SUT-L-Election-Chula-Vista_121.jpg\")
Chula Vista Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez speaks during the city council meeting at Chula Vista City Hall on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 in Chula Vista, CA. (Michael Ho \/ For The San Diego Union-Tribune)\n\u2018There\u2019s a lot here\u2019<\/p>\n
Over six weeks this summer, a labor union\u2019s push to amend Chula Vista\u2019s governing charter split the City Council, drew accusations of a backroom deal between the mayor and a union representative, and then collapsed under the weight of public backlash \u2014 all before it\u00a0ever hit the ballot box.<\/p>\n
What began as a 13-point package promising modernized government \u2014 including pay raises and extended term limits for council members,\u00a0as well as\u00a0contract advantages for the city\u2019s public safety employees\u00a0\u2014 ended instead in dueling narratives: a mayor who says he was offered a quid pro quo, a union leader who calls that accusation absurd, and four council members who insist they never wanted any of it in the first place.<\/p>\n
The paper trail \u2014 and the people whose actions it recounts \u2014 tell a messier story.<\/p>\n
The Chula Vista City Council voted 4-1 on July 21 to pull the charter package from the November ballot, sending it instead to the Charter Review Commission with no timeline for its return. A second 4-1 vote barred the commission from even considering the measure\u2019s proposed pay raises or a shift to full-time council status.<\/p>\n
The package, submitted by the Laborers\u2019 International Union of North America Local 89, would have raised council salaries from roughly $64,600 to $110,000 a year while allowing council members to keep their full-time jobs, extended term limits from two terms to three, created a new Salary Setting Commission to determine future salary increases for elected officials, given the Ethics Commission subpoena power, imposed new lobbying disclosure rules and granted binding arbitration to police and fire unions in contract negotiations.<\/p>\n
City spokesperson John Cihomsky said in an email that elected officials first received the proposal June 16 \u2014 the same day LIUNA presented it during public comment.<\/p>\n
Chula Vista Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez speaks during the city council meeting at Chula Vista City Hall on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 in Chula Vista, CA. (Michael Ho \/ For The San Diego Union-Tribune)
\n\u2018There\u2019s a lot here\u2019<\/p>\n
LIUNA policy director Kelvin Barrios said in an email the union spent months researching charter amendments and reviewing \u201cbest practices from charter cities throughout California\u201d before bringing the proposal to Chula Vista. The goal, he said, was to encourage the city to \u201cmodernize its Charter and ensure it reflects today\u2019s expectations for transparency, accountability, and effective local governance.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez, who moved to formally agendize the proposal during his council comments at the end of the June 16 meeting, said LIUNA first reached out in March, and by the time a full draft landed in his inbox on June 16, the scope caught him off guard.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhoa, there\u2019s a lot here,\u201d Fernandez said in an interview prior to the July 21 council meeting.<\/p>\n
All members of the City Council interviewed for this report, as well as Barrios, maintain that Local 89 crafted this package independently of council or city support.<\/p>\n
The measure was then first heard at a July 14 council meeting, where Mayor John McCann\u2019s motion to strip the proposed pay raise failed to receive a second and a separate motion to route the package through city commissions before any ballot action also stalled. City Attorney Marco Verdugo also chimed in during the meeting and said he could not provide legal counsel as the salary increases would also impact him.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy office is working on an agreement with outside counsel to advise on any aspect of the proposal that impacts the city attorney\u2019s salary structure,\u201d Verdugo said.<\/p>\n
The council took no formal action that night. The proposal then returned July 21 and was struck from the ballot.<\/p>\n
Brian Adams, a political science professor at San Diego State University, said unions like LIUNA hold outsized sway in local politics less because of the size of their donations than because of their ability to mobilize votes and fund challengers against officials who don\u2019t align with their interests.<\/p>\n
\u201cTheir endorsement does matter for their members,\u201d he said, adding that police and firefighter unions in particular wield significant influence locally because of their capacity to deter opposition.<\/p>\n
Adams said he was nonetheless surprised by the scale of this particular push, calling it \u201cover the top\u201d compared with how major campaign contributors typically operate. He said public officials are underpaid compared with other comparable jobs, but called the proposal\u2019s structure \u2014 a six-figure salary for a still technically part-time job, allowing officials to keep their current day jobs \u2014 \u201ccrazy.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cUsually I think the powerful interests are a little bit more sophisticated in how they go about doing these things,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Former City Manager Dave Rowlands, who ran Chula Vista from 1998 to 2006, was far less charitable, saying the entire process sidestepped the public hearings and charter review scrutiny that normally accompany such changes.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey gave (the public) no time and tried to jam this in at the last minute thinking no one would notice,\u201d Rowlands said. \u201cThis is a textbook example of how you do not do it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The council\u2019s take<\/p>\n
McCann said his council colleagues supported the measure, only reversing course after fielding public opinion on the matter, which was largely against it.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs public pressure grew, the council reversed course at the July 21st meeting and supported removing the measure from the November ballot,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
At both the July 14 and July 21 council meetings, dozens of residents packed the chamber to voice their opposition to the measure. Erica Brancato, a resident of Chula Vista speaking at the July 21 meeting, expressed concern with salary increases for what would still be considered a part-time position, as well as the term-limit increases.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cMassive salary increases when times are tough? It\u2019s deeply concerning to see this council consider doing that,\u201d she said. \u201cIf you\u2019re looking for a place to suspend our hard-earned tax dollars, look out our window. Our community has real needs.\u201d<\/p>\n
After the July 14 meeting and prior to the July 21 vote, Fernandez said he liked the transparency provisions \u2014 strengthening the Ethics Commission, tightening lobbying rules \u2014 but wanted the term-limit reset stripped out. As for his own pay, he was careful not to tip his hand, citing possible Brown Act concerns prior to voting on the measure, though he didn\u2019t hide where his sympathies landed.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve got residents in my district that are struggling to make rent and put food on the table,\u201d Fernandez said. \u201cI don\u2019t need to be increasing my pay at the city.\u201d<\/p>\n
Councilmember Michael Inzunza put it more bluntly, rejecting any suggestion the council ever backed the measure.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe City Council was never in support of this ballot measure,\u201d he said, calling the term-limit reset \u201cabsurd\u201d and the pay raise for a still-part-time job something he \u201cwould never support.\u201d<\/p>\n
Councilmember Jose Preciado, meanwhile, said he was legally barred from coordinating with LIUNA while they spent independently to support his re-election campaign during the spring primary.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re a large part of South County politics,\u201d Preciado said of LIUNA, adding he was not made aware of the proposal prior to receiving the ballot measure on June 16. \u201cYou just assume they\u2019re working on stuff.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked whether that money spent on his re-election campaign bought influence over him, Preciado said he was going to oppose the proposal at the initial July 14 meeting \u2014 but that he was absent due to a health-related matter.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was (going) to say no, no pay raises, no full-time, that\u2019s what I would have advocated for, but I wasn\u2019t there,\u201d Preciado said.<\/p>\n
Preciado ultimately joined the majority on both July 21 votes, supporting the measure\u2019s removal from the ballot and backing the motion barring the Charter Review Commission from considering the pay raise or full-time status.<\/p>\n
City Councilmember Carolina Chavez, who is running for re-election in November and has benefited from independent expenditures made on her behalf by LIUNA, did not respond to several requests for comment.<\/p>\n
The union\u2019s political spending is a matter of public record.<\/p>\n
Campaign filings show a LIUNA-sponsored committee, San Diego Labor Coalition, poured $158,811 into supporting McCann\u2019s opponent, Francisco Tamayo, this year. The union spent $48,131 to back Chavez and $28,142 on Preciado during the same period. Filings show the union used funds to pay for text messages and mailers, as well as \u201cDesign & Voter File\u201d \u2014 covering the cost of pulling voter contact lists and designing the actual campaign mailers or ads sent to them.<\/p>\n
All three campaigns started receiving that money on or around April 30 for the spring primary \u2014 weeks before the charter package was submitted, and weeks before a private June 12 meeting between McCann and LIUNA\u2019s Barrios that would later become the center of the entire controversy.<\/p>\n
![\"Chula](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/SUT-L-Election-Chula-Vista_122.jpg\")
Chula Vista Mayor John McCann speaks during a city council meeting at Chula Vista City Hall on Tuesday, June 2, 2026 in Chula Vista, CA. (Michael Ho \/ For The San Diego Union-Tribune)
\n\u2019A money grab\u2019<\/p>\n
McCann says that meeting amounted to an improper offer, though in written responses he declined to spell out what was actually said, or by whom. On the dais during the July 21 council meeting, McCann said he was told LIUNA would not support Tamayo if he supported their charter amendment package.<\/p>\n
In his written responses, McCann said he has \u201cnotified the appropriate law enforcement agencies of my concerns and threats against me.\u201d McCann did not say whether he notified the city\u2019s Ethics Commission, the District Attorney\u2019s Office or another agency.<\/p>\n
Barrios flatly rejects the quid-pro-quo framing. LIUNA had already endorsed Tamayo and put real money behind him before the meeting ever happened, he said, making any offer to switch sides \u201cfalse and politically motivated.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have never supported John, and it certainly was not going to start now,\u201d he said, describing the meeting as a courtesy briefing, not a negotiation.<\/p>\n
LIUNA, which largely backs Democratic candidates, has spent heavily against McCann, a Republican, throughout his career, favoring Democratic opponents such as Tamayo, Preciado and Chavez.<\/p>\n
On the question of pay raises, McCann said his July 14 motion to strip the pay raise died without so much as a second from his colleagues, signaling his colleagues\u2019 support for the proposal.<\/p>\n
\u201cTheir silence spoke volumes,\u201d he said, calling the whole package \u201ca money grab.\u201d He maintains a \u201cclear majority\u201d backed the measure that day \u2014 a claim Inzunza rejects outright.<\/p>\n
McCann further alleges Inzunza voted to preserve the salary increase at the meeting where the package was ultimately pulled. Inzunza tells it differently: his dissent\u00a0in a 4-1 vote on McCann\u2019s motion to remove pay raises and full-time consideration, he said, was about defending the Charter Review Commission\u2019s independence from council interference, not about the money at all.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a former volunteer on the Charter Commission for five years, I took offense that the mayor was trying to bully or mandate or prevent the Charter Review from discussing items that should be under their own autonomous control,\u201d Inzunza said.<\/p>\n
Behind the political theater sat a more technical fight over binding arbitration. Chula Vista Police Officers Association President David Martinez said LIUNA approached police and fire unions before submitting the package, seeking their backing specifically for that provision. The unions\u2019 shared attorney drafted the arbitration language.<\/p>\n
Everything else in the package, Martinez said, came from LIUNA alone.<\/p>\n
Martinez said the city has long resisted binding arbitration at the negotiating table, since it forfeits leverage the city holds by virtue of police and fire being barred from striking. Under binding arbitration, if the city and a union reach an impasse in contract talks, a neutral third-party arbitrator steps in to decide the terms, and both sides are bound by the outcome.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe city will never give us binding arbitration,\u201d he said, adding that without arbitration, if the two sides can\u2019t reach an agreement, the city can just tell the union to take what\u2019s offered or go without a contract. \u201cIt would be like, \u2018Well, this is all you\u2019re going to get. You can take it or leave it.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Cihomsky, the city spokesperson, offered a more measured take: binding arbitration, he said, technically \u201ccan be negotiated\u201d without any charter change at all.<\/p>\n
Adams, the SDSU political scientist, said the whole approach struck him as unusual.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t think of another example\u201d of a union pursuing binding arbitration through a ballot measure rather than negotiation.<\/p>\n
\u2018Public opinion matters\u2019<\/p>\n
Barrios said the union also examined a similar effort underway at the county level, which proposed extending term limits from two terms to three, and concluded Chula Vista voters should have the chance to weigh a comparable change locally.<\/p>\n
He said LIUNA did not propose requiring council members to serve full-time, though the union believed any salary-setting body should account for \u201cthe significant time commitment and responsibilities of the office.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cihomsky said neither the city charter nor the municipal code requires a proposed charter amendment to go through the Charter Review Commission or any other city body before the City Council acts \u2014 the commission\u2019s role, he said, is strictly advisory.<\/p>\n
He also confirmed the charter places no numerical limit on how many provisions may be amended at once, noting the city\u2019s 2022 Measure K similarly overhauled multiple charter sections in a single vote.<\/p>\n
In the end, Adams said, the council\u2019s reversal was less a mystery than a reflex.<\/p>\n
\u201cPublic opinion matters to elected officials,\u201d he said. \u201cWhen the public does pay attention, when they speak up, elected officials do listen.\u201d<\/p>\n
For now, the measure sits in the hands of the Charter Review Commission, with no guarantee it resurfaces before Chula Vista voters \u2014 if at all \u2014 until 2028.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Over six weeks this summer, a labor union\u2019s push to amend Chula Vista\u2019s governing charter split the City…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":427529,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[7,181,23,100,13,74,84,76,75,3055,1696],"class_list":["post-427528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-diego","tag-california","tag-latest-headlines","tag-local-news","tag-news","tag-politics","tag-san-diego","tag-san-diego-county","tag-san-diego-headlines","tag-san-diego-news","tag-south-county","tag-top-stories-sdut"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/427528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=427528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/427528\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/427529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=427528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=427528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=427528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}