Opinion ID: 1378445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The requirement of a showing of need.

Text: I agree with statements by Justice Linde (pp. 104-105) of reasons why the PECBA statute may not be a substantive statute. The fatal flaw in his concurring opinion, however, is his attempt to sweep under the rug the criteria adopted by this court in LaGrande/Astoria I in an opinion by Justice Linde himself, in which it was held that as a matter of constitutional command (281 Or. at 156, 576 P.2d 1204) a statute addressed to a concern of the state with the structure and procedures of local agencies    MUST be justified by a NEED to safeguard the interests of persons    affected by the procedures of local government. As previously noted, it is evident from the decision by this court in LaGrande/Astoria that the question whether there has been a sufficient showing of such a need is a question to be decided by the court. [26] As also previously noted, the holding by the majority opinion is contrary to this requirement, as stated in LaGrande/Astoria, in that the majority now holds that the entire question of need is for the legislature to decide, thus abdicating that judicial function to the legislature and further emasculating what little was left by LaGrande/Astoria as an area of home rule in which cities can legislate without interference by the legislature. [27] The concurring opinion by Linde, J., completely ignores this fundamental question. [28] That concurring opinion (at pp. 107-108) discusses the nature of the interests which are subject to statutory procedural protections under those LaGrande/Astoria criteria and concludes that the interest of city employees in the process by which these matters [wages, working conditions and other benefits] are decided is    appropriate for legislative protection. The question to be decided, however, is not whether such interests are appropriate for legislative protection, but whether legislative protection has been justified by a NEED to safeguard such interests. Such a need is not demonstrated simply by the state's preference for the procedure provided by the statute over the procedure provided by the ordinance.