Sparky San Diego

Come to the Party

2012-01-05T10:48:00.000-08:00

I hope to see you at the party. Yes, I have excluded the chiefs and a few captains. I am in no mood to deal with them at my party. I had to hold my tongue when working but no longer do and won't. The phony, insincere, persona they project has no place in this world.

I hope to see old friends, partners, colleagues and bosses as I say farewell and thank-you. While I speak out and voice what many feel and believe; I hope people take notice and someone will find the courage to challenge when appropriate and to do what is right.

Be safe and take care of each other. Hope to see you next week!!!

I Got Off The Bus - Watching it Roll

2012-01-05T09:44:00.000-08:00

I am that old, cranky, disgruntled cop, heading out the same door I have seen so many over the years walk through. I never saw myself as being that guy. I often wondered why so many, who during the majority of their careers, were upbeat, hard working, positive officers, suddenly became disgruntled and angry. I get it now. I'm that guy.

I enjoyed my career in law enforcement. That is, until I got near the end. The memories I take away from the job are for the most part positive ones. The friendships and camaraderie built over the years will be with me forever. The loss of friends from disease, violence and accidents have taken their toll. But the biggest contributor to the anger and frustrations leading to me being disgruntled is the administration of the San Diego Police Department. Take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I am admittedly disgruntled and some would say I have an ax to grind. But I am not fearful of the brass and being retired no longer have to hold my tongue and smile at the thin skinned administrators who believe because they have been elevated to a higher rank they are somehow smarter or more important than everyone else.

In my almost 33 years, I have worked for five chiefs, countless captains, lieutenants and sergeants. I have worked for some outstanding, dedicated professionals who were true leaders. They were ethical, honest, caring professionals who knew their craft and were tough disciplinarians, yet compassionate individuals. They were experienced, knowledgeable, tenured officers who spent time in investigations, patrol and the all important but miserable administrative jobs. They learned from doing and were not afraid to buck the status quo and challenge when things were not as they should be. They were leaders who earned the respect of the troops. They cared about their own integrity and that of their employees and what toll a bad apple among the ranks would cause. You knew there were activities that would result in certain termination. Solicit a prostitute and you were fired. Associate with known felons, gang members or drug dealers or commit a crime of moral turpitude.and you were fired. Have sex on duty and you were sure to receive a suspension at the very least. Drunk driving arrests resulted in lengthy suspensions; second offenses would result in termination. Lie or falsify reports and you are of no use to anyone and you faced certain termination. Off-Duty incidents were thoroughly investigated. Lansdowne's response to off duty incidents; "call them in and tell them to knock it off." No investigation, no discipline, no accountability. "Boys will be boys." The erosion of ethics and accountability began almost immediately.

Things were not perfect and in 25 years of being an employee advocate/representative, I often advocated for employees who got themselves into trouble. I sought fair, reasonable and equitable discipline for transgressions. When an employee was found to have been involved with a prostitute, associate with known felons, gang members or drug dealers; get arrested for drunk driving; lie or falsify a report; I would often tell them what to expect. No one would support fighting for a person involved in criminal activity after a fair and complete investigation that proved the allegation and followed the rules.

Promotions have always been a bone of contention. Subjective vs Objective; filling a "need"; nepotism; friendships; reputation; rumor; politics. All play in the promotional process. The bastardizing of the Civil Service Rules governing promotions started with Bob Burgreen and have grown even worse under Lansdowne. Lansdowne added another layer to the promotional process, outside of Civil Service; "Kiss the Ring" that you must participate in if you have any hope or desire to get promoted. Put your ethics, backbone, brain and ability to make a decision in the closet, for you are of no use to the administration if you only act with ethics; stand up to or question a directive from the chief; make a decision that is clearly thought out and in the best interest of the employee and the department; or associate with someone with whom the administration dislikes. Remember; YOU are guilty by association when it comes to me!!!!

The ability to pass over candidates repeatedly and without explanation has reached new heights with this administration. We can all think of a certain promotion (we all have one or two or more in mind) and just shake our head in bewilderment. The higher the promotion (Captain and Chief) the greater the impact to the department for passing over the most qualified and experienced candidate. Look no further than the most recent promotions to understand the direction this department is headed. The chief surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. Tell him the truth or disagree with him and he will cast you to the furthest command; out of sight out of mind. You should have put lipstick on that pig and told him she was beautiful before telling the old man the truth or disagreeing with him. Learn to use "Extraordinary" in every conversation (worked for one) and in the face of flooding after days of heavy rain, make sure the chief hears its sunny and 72 outside.

Does anyone have faith that any one of the recently promoted chief's or captains will challenge Lansdowne and speak up against or in disagreement with ANY issue? If you do, I have some land for sale at a great price in Florida. I can show it to you after 9 PM on any night the tide is low and there is no moon.

Micro-management is not supervision and surely not leadership. Cheerleaders or not leaders. Longevity does not equal experience. Trust is earned and Respect is gained. Information is power. Speaking up is not an act of defiance. Dilbert has no doubt been in the chief's conference room. He has written extensively about the goings on on the 7th floor of Headquarters.

This department is run on fear. Captains running scenes from their offices as well as running around jumping radio calls taking command of scenes once handled by a patrol sergeant. Lieutenants rushing out to bank robberies, domestic violence calls, street robberies and taking charge, directing sergeants, officers and detectives. Captains calling detectives, directing routine investigations after reading cases in CRMS, sometimes before the sergeant has had a chance to assign the case. Chiefs showing up at hostage scenes where SRT is being deployed and telling them what window to look in and how to use a pole mirror in an attempt to get eyes on. Then countermanding the SWAT units decision to make an emergency entry. Tell tale signs the chiefs and captains don't trust anyone and are the only ones who know how and what to do. All because of fear.

Chiefs, Captains, Lieutenants calling sergeants as they respond to hot calls, demanding information before it is available. When no information is available because no one is on scene yet, they will get in their car and respond, taking charge and getting in the way. Of the current field lieutenants, how many, if any, have experience in a pro active investigative unit (outside of Vice) or worked for more than a month in investigations (Homicide, Sex Crimes, Robbery, Narcotics) at any rank? The answer is none.

The sad truth is the administration is breading a culture of "wait for the brass." This is in turn breading a bunch of supervisors who are followers, not leaders. It all starts at the top. The assistant chiefs are afraid of number one. The captains are afraid of the assistant chiefs and number one. This is pushed down to the lieutenants who are afraid. Afraid to make a decision or act and the need to be in charge (or at least look like they are). Lieutenants and Captains refuse to stand up for their people out of fear they too will suffer the consequences of the chiefs anger. The thinned skin of chief officers when someone with the audacity to speak up or challenge "The Bigger Picture" is amazing.

"The Big Picture." How many times have you heard this phrase? The problem with this phrase is the command staff only sees what it wants to see and uses this phrase to create fear and justify their actions when there is no other explanation.

"The Big Picture"??? The wrong people are in the wrong seats on the bus. The bus is headed for a cliff and there is no one capable of stopping it.

Polish the Brass

2012-01-03T16:59:00.000-08:00

I retired last week and even in retirement I seem to get under the skin of the thin skinned brass of the San Diego Police Department. It is no secret I have little to no respect for the command staff of the department. The individuals who occupy space on the seventh floor of the Headquarters building need only look in a mirror to answer the question as to "Why" I have elected to eliminate them from my retirement party guest list.

I put out a flier letting friends and colleagues know of my impending retirement and party to celebrate. In the flier I made a not so tongue in cheek comment not wanting to deal with the brass and for them to stay home. This comment was directed at chief officers and a few captains. It did not take long for word to get back to me they were not happy with the slam. A couple captains I respect asked if they were included in the "No Brass" comment as well as several lieutenants. I explained my reasons and to whom the comment was directed at and meant for.

You see I have served for 32 years and 8 months as a sworn officer with the SDPD. During this time I also served for the better part of 25 years as an employee representative. I also served two times on the POA Board of directors. I made some enemies along the way. I was not shy about calling bullshit when the administration ran afoul of rights, MOU or policy. I knew the bill of rights, policy and the MOU better than they did. I pointed out when they were wrong. They didn't like it. I always did my pointing out in private and professionally. When the offending party fought back and continued the actions I was not shy about calling them out in public. Kill the messenger seemed to be their natural reaction.

I have been lied to so many times by chief officers that I grew weary of having to hear their voices. I have watched chief after chief spew lies to and about officers over everything from reasons for transfers, promotions, discipline, to why something (pick the event)occurred that did not make any sense. I watched chief officers and captains talk glowingly about an officer retiring, knowing the chiefs were all to happy the officer was leaving. Like me.

I know full well how the chief officers feel about me. They are doing the happy dance now that I am gone. They are no doubt having their own party to celebrate my departure. So I find it humorous they took exception to being excluded from my party's guest list. Their only reason for attending is to make themselves feel good and show people they are stand up, by attending and saying kind things about me. Excuse me while I puke.

My party is to rejoice and share happy memories with friends and colleagues. It is not a forum for a chief officer to say a bunch of empty crap everyone in attendance knows is crap so he or she feels good. I'm too old and to disgruntled to sit idle while one of them goes on and on about how I will be missed and how I made this a better place and how my experience and knowledge made them all better people. I'm about to up-chuck again.

I gave a few captains and four chiefs a bottle of beer for Christmas. The label on the beer was appropriately labeled, "Kiss Ass" ale. My case of "Ass Clown" beer did not arrive in time for the chief to get his beer and a couple of captains. I heard one of the recipients on the seventh floor wondered why he was included, saying he thought he always got along with me. If lying to me and doing everything in your power to screw me every chance you got was getting along... Well now you know I know.

My flier was on the desk officers desk as you enter the chiefs office. The officer was unaware of the exclusion of the Chief's. Someone removed the flier from the desk where retirement fliers are placed, any guesses who? It really does not matter to me. It shows the attitude and thinking of the persons on that floor. God help anyone who may associate themselves with me.

Respect is earned. A leader has ethics. Rank is acknowledged. Rank does not earn respect and a leader tells the truth and acts ethically even if the words and actions have an adverse consequence to him or herself. Killing the messenger does not make the message mute. I may be gone but I am not dead.

I hope to see friends, colleagues and partners at my party, Friday, January 13th, at the range. I have invited the Captains I respect and the lieutenants were told the no brass comment does not apply to them. To save any embarrassment, chiefs and those captains not offered an invite should stay away.

I Made It Out Alive

2011-12-31T08:24:00.000-08:00

Today is my first official day as a retired cop. Thirty two years and eight months as a San Diego police officer. I had some fun times, met some wonderful people, lost too many friends and co-workers to untimely and sometimes horrific incidents. I saw more stupidity and violence than imaginable. Met some characters you really had to see to believe.

All in all the job was a blast. The politics of the job was the number one factor for bad memories. I will save the bad for another time. I made it out alive and in one piece. I have my health and am looking forward to a long retirement. I have a number of items on my bucket list of things to do before i die and don't plan on laying around.

I plan on writing more often and speaking out as just that old retired guy who maybe has some insight others may not possess. Until then, have a safe and happy new year.

Hiking the Pacific Crest Trail 2012

2011-11-27T19:49:00.000-08:00

After 32+ years I will be retiring from the San Diego Police Department on December 30, 2011. I will be 55 years of age and in OK shape with the exception of being a bit overweight (OK, so I carry around a pony keg and not a six pack). I often get asked what my plans are after I retire. I tell people my first adventure will be to hike the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) and I get this look of; what?

The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is a 2,663.5 mile hiking trail that runs from the Mexican border at Campo to Manning Park which is located 8 miles into Canada from Washington State. The PCT is a national scenic trail that traverses three states (California, Oregon, and Washington). I will climb 60 some mountain passes; descend into 19 major canyons; pass more than 1000 lakes; 3 national monuments; 7 national parks (Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Yosemite, Lassen Volcanic, Crater Lake, Mt. Rainier and North Cascades National Park), 24 national forests; and 37 federally mandated wilderness areas.

The PCT starts out in a desert like area that is hot, dry and rugged. It passes through mountains that are tall, steep and snowy (Forrester Pass 13,153 feet). The trail will require crossing creeks, streams and rivers; climbing over rocks, logs and bridges. In the course of hiking the trail I will climb over 314,711 feet of up and down climbing of hills and mountains and then into valleys, canyons and meadows. The lowest point of the trail is the Cascade Locks of Oregon, at 140 feet above sea level. The highest point along the trail is Forester Pass, California, at 13,153 feet. I will hike 1,698.8 miles in California, 456.8 miles in Oregon and 499.8 miles in Washington. (More people have climbed Mt. Everest than have completed a thru hike of the PCT.)

Most hikers attempting to thru-hike the PCT will begin their journey in mid to late April. There is a kick off for hikers the last weekend of April called the “Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off” (ADZPCTKO) which is held at Lake Morena, near Campo. The idea is to begin the southern portion of the hike early enough to avoid the extreme high temperatures of the desert and arrive at the southern portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Kennedy Meadows) when the snow pack has had time to melt (June 10-15). Once a hiker makes it to Kennedy Meadows the goal is to make Canada before the snow begins to fall in Washington (Late September – Early October). The hike should take roughly five months to complete.

I will encounter snakes, spiders, mosquitoes, bears and poison oak. I will carry everything I need on my back in a pack that will weigh in at about 20 pounds, less food and water. I will use a tent (Big Agnes Fly Creek / 2 pounds) and cook at least one hot meal a day. Granted the food will be freeze-dried or dehydrated, but hopefully good enough to eat every day for five months.

There is a saying among hikers “Hike your own hike.” The premise is to hike according to one’s own dreams, goals, expectations, and not have your hike determined by someone else’s expectations or goals. I intend to hike continuously from the southern terminus at the Mexican Border to Manning Park in Canada. I plan on hiking at my own pace and enjoying the solitude and solace of being alone in thought as I walk the trail. I hope to purge the negative thoughts of a lifetime in law enforcement. I hope to also reflect on the fun times and accomplishments of a 32+ year career. I will take side trips to hike Whitney, Half Dome, Crater Lake and others as they present themselves. I will take hundreds of pictures, lots of videos and write daily of my experiences. I will share the good and bad in hopes those who wish to follow my adventure get a flavor of what I am experiencing.

The two most often asked questions I get; “Who are you going with?” and “Why?” The answer to the first question is, “No one. I will be heading off alone.” I will be considered a “solo” hiker. I won’t be alone on the trail. There are hundreds that begin the hike every year. So along the way I will come across people who are attempting a similar feat.

The answer to “why” is a little more complex. I began to dream of hiking the PCT several years ago. I have always enjoyed hiking, camping and exploring the great outdoors. My favorite place to unwind and explore is the Eastern Sierra’s. I read journals of those who have attempted or completed a thru hike of the PCT and began to contemplate following in their footsteps.

So why am I going to attempt to thru hike the PCT? I guess because I became fascinated with the challenge. I also was looking for something to help purge the negative effects of 32+ years in law enforcement. The more I read about and learned about the trail, the more I thought about doing it myself. There are two other trails people thru hike (Appalachian Trail and Continental Divide Trail) annually. I decided if I were going to make an attempt at thru hiking it would be the PCT and not one of the other two. I think hiking the PCT is very doable for me and a challenge I seek in retirement.

In my readings of other thru hikers journals and BLOGS, I came across a man named Jonathan Ley. He has hiked the PCT and Continental Divide Trail and written about the experiences. Ley writes of an encounter with a Border Patrol Agent a few miles from the border after starting his PCT adventure. The agent said, “You know, I’ve seen other people doing this walk. I just don’t get it… I mean, what do you get out of it?” Ley said it was the first direct, “why?”

Ley went on to write a list of why he thru hiked. Many of his reasons mirror mine;

Life is made of experiences and I hope to have as many as possible.
Unfulfilled dreams become regrets and I intend to have as few as possible.
To share in something unique, that few have known or will ever know.
To learn about my limitations.
To learn about the world and to better understand my place in the natural order of things.
To avoid living a life that has already been played out by countless others.
To think, dream, imagine and to reflect, unencumbered by the distractions of life.
To endure mental and physical hardships and perhaps become stronger as a result.
To learn what is truly important in life.

Ley closed with the thought most on my mind. Maybe it isn’t what I am about to undertake, rather who I am that is important. I am not hiking to do something but more to become something… to become someone. I don’t know if the person I have become is good or bad, but I am going to attempt to find out.

I am heading into this adventure with eyes wide open. I am aware of the obstacles to completing a thru hike of 2663.5 miles. I am retiring six months ahead of when I had planned so I can begin the hike this year rather than wait another year. I began preparation a little over six months ago by buying a package of material from a hiker who had hiked the trail years ago and put together planning and hiking tips for those interested in attempting a similar feat.

I will detail my planning in future posts and re-tool this site to allow for those with interest to follow my hike when I start. I plan on beginning my hike sometime after April 15, 2012. In closing, I will use a quote I have seen on various journals and blogs;

“Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well-preserved body but rather to skid sideways, totally worn out with a Yuengling in your hand and shouting “Holy Shit… what a ride!!!”

It's Time to Party

2011-11-22T21:45:00.000-08:00

I secured the "Rock House" at the range today for my retirement party. With my last days ticking off and retirement 36 days away (16 work days) I agreed to an old fashioned, range, retirement party. Since I am leaving at the end of next month (December 30, 2011) I decided to hold my party after the holidays. I selected Friday, January 13, 2012.

Friday the 13th.

A flier will be out shortly. Mark the date and join me in saying "Farewell". Bring your ball ammo, practice rounds, hollow points, tracer rounds and wad cutters... but leave the brass at home... there is nothing more frustrating than having to deal with the brass after a great day lobbing rounds down range... we can all throw some shots back and tell a few tales and reminisce about what was...

I have enjoyed (for the most part) my 32 1/2+ years of service. Times have changed and I am looking forward to the next chapter in life. Mark the date and let's have some fun.

A New Beginning

2011-10-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

I will be taking the next step in life very soon. I will be retiring on December 30, 2011. I have made an appointment with the Retirement Board to sign my papers on November 8, 2011. I made my decision while contemplating my next adventure. I have a dream of hiking solo from the Mexico/USA border (Campo) to Canada along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). I do not want to put off this adventure for another year and if I truly expect to complete the hike in one season, I need to hit the trail mid April to finish before the snows begin in the north (No later than the first of October).

I began reading everything I could find on thru hiking the PCT to get an idea of what I was getting myself into. I contacted several people who had completed the hike as well as several who made the attempt but fell short. I learned much from them and am excited to give this adventure a go. Hiking for five to six months straight; 2650 or so miles; alone; carrying everything I need on my back; will be challenging, difficult, rewarding and at the same time rejuvenating and a way to purge the negative memories of 32+ years in law enforcement.

Several people ask, "who are you going to hike with?" When I tell them no-one, I get the same, "you are an idiot" look. Many cannot fathom undertaking such a task willingly and alone. I get questions about being lonely. I explain my desire to enjoy the solitude of hiking mile after mile, lost in my own thoughts and dreams, doing what is often described as, "hiking your own hike." There are usually five to six hundred individuals who set out to hike the PCT every year. I will stumble across many during my hike and when the desire strikes will have people to talk and share stories with. I plan on writing daily and sharing my thoughts and experiences.

I will soon "re-tool" so to speak this BLOG and begin to write about the preparation for my hike and use this site to write about the adventures ahead. I will throw in a few shots at politicians and the goings on in San Diego as well as thoughts of a department that once was and what it has become.

I hope to entertain and at the same time allow you to share in my adventure; the pain, the joy, the sights and sounds, as well as the struggles of living in a tent for days on end and eating food that can be cooked by adding boiling water.

Life is good and I look forward to the next chapter.

A small example of where I will venture, living simply, enjoying the peace, quiet and solitude of what the PCT has to offer.

What's REALLY Going On?

2011-04-20T21:38:00.000-07:00

The little rube lives by the motto; "Do as I say, Not as I do." He wants everyone to believe he is above it all by not participating in the City's Retirement. Truth be told he has made millions of dollars, ALL taxpayer dollars, through government contracts he has sought out by stretching the truth and spinning reality. He will have everyone believe he is the guru of eliminating government waste and spending. Reality is he spends more money promoting his agenda and promulgating his many falsehoods. The City Beat did a story the other day titled, "Hey, big spender" outing the little rube and how he is spending taxpayer money. It would not surprise most of you that the rube spends more money than his council colleagues. He has spent almost as much as all of his colleagues combined in printing and postage. The rube spent $91,888 and his colleagues combined spent $123,087. The little rube has spent two to fifteen times as much as his council colleagues in discretionary spending on travel, conferences, office supplies and consulting ($50,000 for his Roadmap and addendum report regarding enrolling public safety new hires in a 401k retirement). He calls himself a "Watchdog?"

The little rube is using taxpayer dollars to further his goal of seeking higher office. His run for mayor in 2012 is being financed in part by tax dollars. Where is San Diego's Elliot Spitzer? It's high time someone start paying attention to the goings on in District 5's council office. How much groundwork is being laid during business hours for his quest for higher office on the taxpayer's dime? Is the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the rental of various venues to promote his agenda and introduce himself to voters outside his district a legitimate use of public funds?

Who is paying attention?

When the government approved the use of 401K style plans to supplement retirements, they were never intended to be stand alone retirement benefits for workers in America. The plan being promoted in San Diego to move all city employees with the exception of Police Officers into a 401K retirement will have catastrophic consequences. When private employers moved away from the "Defined Benefit" retirement plans a drastic change in the workforce took place. Employees no longer felt loyalty toward a company. The days of working for the same company until retirement were gone. Where 20, 30, 40 year employees was the norm, now the average worker will change jobs 5 to 8 times in their lifetime; some spending on average only 18-24 months with the same company. Chasing the dollar has become the norm. The same will happen to those who come to San Diego. The citizens will suffer in ways they cannot imagine. When government employees cannot share in profits or receive bonuses and their pay is lower than the private sector, why would a high quality, highly educated and qualified person want to join their ranks? Technical jobs; fire fighters, paramedics, lifeguards, engineers, attorneys, DNA laboratory and water quality experts will be filled with those seeking experience and training and quickly move to city's offering better wages and benefits that include a secure defined benefit retirement.

The mayor's legacy is taking shape and it is not a good one. I called this one a long time ago. He will go down in history as one of the worst if not the worst on record. He had every opportunity to do the right thing and fix a broken city. He instead jumped on the political bandwagon being whipped by the Union Tribune. He said openly in his early days when running for mayor, he could not tell the truth about the retirement system because he would not get elected. He has continued this and refused to take the risky and bold stand to do the right thing and actually make the adjustments necessary to bring the retirement system back to its once acceptable funding level.

The old addage, "You get what you pay for" is soon to become reality. The groundwork has been laid and the house of cards is crumbling around us.

"Anonymous" Posters Beware

2011-04-04T21:45:00.000-07:00

I am sure to tweak some noses with this rant. I have made my feelings known on prior occasions as it relates to the comments made by the "Anonymous" person. Usually these comments appear in a verbal joust with someone in the comments section of a specific post. So I am sure there are those who may have not gotten a true read of my feelings for those who hide behind the "Anonymous" label when taking shots at others, me or my rants.

As a disclaimer, I get why some feel fear of retribution for speaking their mind. I don't always agree with the reasons for being anonymous, but in this city and on this department, I get it. Having said that, I believe if you have something to say, own it, say it and stand tall. This means identifying yourself and not skulking behind a computer screen using the "Anonymous" tag.

I recently jousted with two "Anonymous" individuals who complained about their perceived lack of fairness for people like myself who rant on their BLOGS and in some way are not held accountable (See March Madness). In the first comment, "Anonymous" wrote;

"So how do you get to have a blog like this and not get in trouble? Are you aware of our departments dispatchers being fired for face book postings? From what I understand and heard in line up two of the dispatchers were being fired and they mentioned no names or department information. Just some immature post about clothing and being treated bad. They get fired and you get praised... Sheez very unfair is it because your in the drop? I don't think either of them are... But both have taken very good care of me in the field. They are Hero's every day. Such a loss to our department. Rant About that... You probably won't post this because it will put you in a bad light."I responded with the following: "I posted your comments "Anonymous" even though you do not have the courage to use your name. I fail to see how your comments put me "in a bad light."The problem with your comments is you speak of rumor and conjecture from a position of not having facts to support anything you write. I will not comment on anything you mentioned regarding a private, personnel issue. Your comments about their issues are out of line and not professional. In regard to my "not getting in trouble" due to my writing this BLOG; how ignorant and naive you are. I walk a tight rope every time I press the send button to post a new rant. I have few if any supporters among the command staff of the SDPD and could most likely NOT find a supporter among any of the elected politicians in San Diego. I have paid a high price for my willingness to write about the issues in San Diego politics.I use my name and do not hide behind my computer screen when I write my BLOG. I wish those who take the time to post comments could have the courage to do the same. I do understand why so many do not, but posting rumors, information regarding personnel issues or derogatory comments about individuals without taking ownership diminishes the credibility of the information. I won't rant about the issues you posed above. I would also suggest you not either."

Then the following was written by another "Anonymous" writer:"I have to agree with anonymous on this one. I have come to the realization that "freedom of speech" only applies to "blog writers" Ever notice that whenever anyone questions or comments about something that is written in blogs the blog writers get offended and some even throw tantrums that they are being questioned about it !! How is it that they are the only ones who can say anything about anybody and not be willing to answer to any of the crap they "blog" about?? Makes no sense to me and never will.....My motto is if you can dish it out you sure as hell better be able to take it !!!"I had to laugh at the comments by the last coward, I mean "Anonymous" writer. I thought to myself, "Really? Do you not get what a BLOG is and who controls its content?" Those of us who write a BLOG do so for many reasons. Mostly we enjoy the therapeutic aspects of writing about our thoughts, feeling and frustrations in life. We do enjoy a level of freedom related to our writings as it relates to the First Amendment. I pride myself in being as factually correct as possible and am not afraid to add my personal feelings and beliefs at the same time. I have demonstrated a willingness to allow others, even the "Anonymous" contributors to comment to my BLOG, even when their comments have no relevance to anything written. I responded with the following:

"Another "Anonymous" comment that attempts to take a shot but ends up becoming a self inflicted wound.
I have never thrown a "tantrum" nor been offended at a persons comments to my blog... that is for those who stand tall and take responsibility and ownership for their words. I have also not edited nor failed to post the comments of people writing about my rants with the exception of one poster who I know personally who does not write about my rants but issues she has. I respect anyone willing to show their face and take ownership of their words. I also have little respect for the "Anonymous" poster.

I am responsible for every word I write. This BLOG is mine. I do it for my pleasure, not yours. If you dis-like something you read here, get over it. If you can't get over it, move on and read something else. The purpose of the comment section of a BLOG is to comment on the posters rant. When someone hides behind "Anonymous" I can't get worked up or take serious anything they say.

Feel free to leave your comment anytime... you will neither offend me nor get me to throw a tantrum... but understand I will fire back and point out how wrong you are when it is obvious..."So I get home this evening and see the following:

"You need to go back and re-read what I posted.....Never once were YOU singled out, I said "some" blog writers throw tantrums when they are questioned about certain things said in there blogs. If you chose to take that personally that is on you. I simply was trying to make the point that in my personal experiences/opinions only the blog writer has the right to say whatever they feel and if they happenexpress their feelings on what was written "certain" blog writers cant handle it or the truth. Seeing how you have and I quote from your response "no respect for me or take anything I have to say seriously" because for certain reasons I choose to respond anonymously ?? how mature is that?? I rest my case. P.S. not all anonymous responders are bad people.....take care." "Because for certain reasons I choose to respond anonymously?"

Yes, you hit it on the head. First, the comments about BLOG writers is written on MY BLOG and implied, by agreeing with the first contributor, who is hiding behind his/her computer screen, that my response to his/her initial comment was in some way throwing a tantrum. Try and fend off responsibility for comments, but it does not pass the smell test. It's easy staying anonymous and skulking behind a computer screen to make comments unchecked because ones identity is not known. The comments were clearly directed at me and my response to the first "Anonymous". Taking responsibility and ownership for words and actions requires an individual to stand tall and upfront. That means showing his/her face and providing their identity. To do anything less shows a lack of integrity, honesty and courage.ANYONE can cast stones in a pitch black room without fear of reprisal. Turn the lights on and this same person will sit silently with their hands in their lap. Some would call them a coward. Others may call them spineless. Few will take them seriously. The "Anonymous" writer is often the same person who sits in the back of a room bitching about everything under the sun, under his/her breath of course and keeps quiet when a supervisor or other individual asks for input. He/she is the first to agree with the person who spoke up, but will do so AFTER the supervisor or other leaves. Like I said at the beginning of this rant; I get why some refuse to identify themselves. That does not mean I agree nor respect what they have to say. I believe that is one of the contributing factors of what is wrong with things today. Too many are unwilling to accept responsibility for their words and actions. There are too few willing to stand up and be counted when it counts. Yet we are all suppose to believe these same people will join in when the chips are down and things get dicey. I know from experience too many expect others to do for them and want others to say what needs to be said. I believe the "Anonymous" poster would be better served to sit silent in thought, than post as "Anonymous" hiding behind a computer screen.I will continue to post comments from those who lack the courage and testicular courage to use their identity. That does not mean I will respect them or what they have to say. If this proves in some way what the coward "Anonymous" wrote, I'm guilty as charged. Lastly, not all anonymous posters are bad people. They just lack courage in my eyes.who hide behind the "Anonymous" label when taking shots at others, me or my rants.

As a disclaimer, I get why some feel fear of retribution for speaking their mind. I don't always agree with the reasons for being anonymous, but in this city and on this department, I get it. Having said that, I believe if you have something to say, own it, say it and stand tall. This means identifying yourself and not skulking behind a computer screen using the "Anonymous" tag.

I recently jousted with two "Anonymous" individuals who complained about their perceived lack of fairness for people like myself who rant on their BLOGS and in some way are not held accountable (See March Madness). In the first comment, "Anonymous" wrote;

"So how do you get to have a blog like this and not get in trouble? Are you aware of our departments dispatchers being fired for face book postings? From what I understand and heard in line up two of the dispatchers were being fired and they mentioned no names or department information. Just some immature post about clothing and being treated bad. They get fired and you get praised... Sheez very unfair is it because your in the drop? I don't think either of them are... But both have taken very good care of me in the field. They are Heros every day. Such a loss to our department. Rant About that... You probably won't post this because it will put you in a bad light."

I responded with the following:

"I posted your comments "Anonymous" even though you do not have the courage to use your name. I fail to see how your comments put me "in a bad light."

The problem with your comments is you speak of rumor and conjecture from a position of not having facts to support anything you write. I will not comment on anything you mentioned regarding a private, personnel issue. Your comments about their issues are out of line and not professional.

In regard to my "not getting in trouble" due to my writing this BLOG; how ignorant and naive you are. I walk a tight rope every time I press the send button to post a new rant. I have few if any supporters among the command staff of the SDPD and could most likely NOT find a supporter among any of the elected politicians in San Diego. I have paid a high price for my willingness to write about the issues in San Diego politics.

I use my name and do not hide behind my computer screen when I write my BLOG. I wish those who take the time to post comments could have the courage to do the same. I do understand why so many do not, but posting rumors, information regarding personnel issues or derogatory comments about individuals without taking ownership diminishes the credibility of the information.
I won't rant about the issues you posed above. I would also suggest you not either."

Then the following was written by another "Anonymous" writer:

"I have to agree with anonymous on this one. I have come to the realization that "freedom of speech" only applies to "blog writers" Ever notice that whenever anyone questions or comments about something that is written in blogs the blog writers get offended and some even throw tantrums that they are being questioned about it !! How is it that they are the only ones who can say anything about anybody and not be willing to answer to any of the crap they "blog" about?? Makes no sense to me and never will.....My motto is if you can dish it out you sure as hell better be able to take it !!!"

I had to laugh at the comments by the last coward, I mean "Anonymous" writer. I thought to myself, "Really? Do you not get what a BLOG is and who controls its content?" Those of us who write a BLOG do so for many reasons. Mostly we enjoy the therapeutic aspects of writing about our thoughts, feeling and frustrations in life. We do enjoy a level of freedom related to our writings as it relates to the First Amendment. I pride myself in being as factually correct as possible and am not afraid to add my personal feelings and beliefs at the same time. I have demonstrated a willingness to allow others, even the "Anonymous" contributors to comment to my BLOG, even when their comments have no relevance to anything written.

I responded with the following:

"Another "Anonymous" comment that attempts to take a shot but ends up becoming a self inflicted wound.

I have never thrown a "tantrum" nor been offended at a persons comments to my blog... that is for those who stand tall and take responsibility and ownership for their words. I have also not edited nor failed to post the comments of people writing about my rants with the exception of one poster who I know personally who does not write about my rants but issues she has. I respect anyone willing to show their face and take ownership of their words. I also have little respect for the "Anonymous" poster.

I am responsible for every word I write. This BLOG is mine. I do it for my pleasure, not yours. If you dis-like something you read here, get over it. If you can't get over it, move on and read something else. The purpose of the commed people.....take care."

"Because for certain reasons I choose to respond anonymously?" Yes, you hit it on the head. First, the comments about BLOG writers is written on MY BLOG and implied, by agreeing with the first contributor, who is hiding behind his/her computer screen, that my response to his/her initial comment was in some way throwing a tantrum. Try and fend off responsibility for comments, but it does not pass the smell test. It's easy staying anonymous and skulking behind a computer screen to make comments unchecked because ones identity is not known. The comments were clearly directed at me and my response to the first "Anonymous" commenter.

Taking responsibility and ownership for words and actions requires an individual to stand tall and upfront. That means showing his/her face and providing their identity. To do anything less shows a lack of integrity, honesty and courage. ANYONE can cast stones in a pitch black room without fear of reprisal. Turn the lights on and this same person will sit silently with their hands in their lap. Some would call them a coward. Others may call them spineless. Few will take them seriously. The "Anonymous" writer is often the same person who sits in the back of a room bitching about everything under the sun, under his/her breath of course and keeps quiet when a supervisor or other individual asks for input. He/she is the first to agree with the person who spoke up, but will do so AFTER the supervisor or other leaves.

Like I said at the beginning of this rant; I get why some refuse to identify themselves. That does not mean I agree nor respect what they have to say. I believe that is one of the contributing factors of what is wrong with things today. Too many are unwilling to accept responsibility for their words and actions. There are too few willing to stand up and be counted when it coun

Negotiated Settlement

2011-03-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

Remember back in January when the City Attorney wrote a letter to all of the labor groups in San Diego and asked to meet so he could, "engage in mediated settlement negotiations regarding pending lawsuits and disputed issues." He went on to say, "This should not be confused with annual labor negotiations under the Myers-Milias-Brown Act."

The other day it was revealed a meeting took place with a mediator, the City Attorney and the Labor Groups and after discussions and a private meeting with the City Attorney, the mediator said the two sides were so far apart there was NO hope of reaching agreement and his services would not be useful. This leaves us to speculate to the reasons the two sides were so far apart.

My belief is the suggestion to "engage in mediated settlement negotiations" was simply a political play by a City Attorney who is no different than the one he beat out for the job. Remember when shortly after being elected, Aguirre called a meeting of all labor groups and said if all the groups agreed to his changes to the retirement benefits there would be 600 million dollars on the table for negotiations? There WAS NO REAL intent on reaching an agreement then or now. The initial letter signaled the intent of the so called negotiations. First there were items of a high priority for ALL of the Labor Groups that were "OFF LIMITS." There would be no discussion or negotiations regarding Retiree Medical. Who is he kidding?

Now that the so called "Mediated Negotiations" are in the toilet where they belong, what is next? Will those responsible for setting policy in this city step up to the plate and enter into legitimate, good faith negotiations with these same Labor Groups? Will the City Council members sit back while one of their own furthers his own agenda by paying for signatures to secure a place on the ballot for HIS "reforms" for everything he views as wrong with employee wages and benefits? Who will make the first move?

Additional changes loom to Retiree Medical. Hiring continues to be frozen and attrition continues to shrink the ranks. Tomorrow begins the SDCERS vote for proposed changes to DROP. I would strongly encourage EVERY City Employee to take the few minutes it will take to vote. I am voting NO and would ask each of you to do the same. The proposed changes are not necessary and will do nothing to solve any of the perceived problems with the retirement system. PLEASE VOTE NO on the proposed changes.

Be safe and do the right thing out there.

March Maddness

2011-03-20T21:36:00.000-07:00

Many of you know the title as that time when college basketball playoffs hit a frenzied peak. I steal the title to describe the politics of the day. I have sat back watching the idiot Governor of Wisconsin, the goof in the city attorneys office and the little rube on the city council, as well as the others and could find no other way to describe their words and actions. The age we live in, with information technology the was it is employed, the truth is no longer required. The press and politicians have deployed a relentless and unchecked assault of government workers and their wages and benefits for over five years.

When the "Governmental Accounting Standards Board" (GASB) changed the standards of reporting in 1994 for financial disclosures related to Defined Benefit Retirement Plans (GASB Statement 25), it opened the door for those with an agenda to begin the attacks. This new "rule" required cities who had defined benefit retirement plans to list as debts the "projected" retirement benefit each and every employee would receive if they were to work to maximum retirement age and live to the "life expectancy" age. The GASB added an additional "rule" in GASB Statement 26, that required similar reporting of "Post Employment Healthcare."

When GASB changed the rules and required cities to list on their financial disclosures these "Debts" they opened the door for the likes of the little rube, Scott Walker, Jan Goldsmith and Mike Aguirre before him, to spin the meaning of this information and use it to further political agendas. Some will ask why now, when the law went fully into effect in 1996. One reason is most people did not understand the rule and many cities, counties and states carried the information in the notes section of the financial reports or as a separate report all together. As information technology began to emerge and reporters looking to make a name for themselves began to cull information from reports and financial disclosures looking for a story, they latched onto this information and the spin began.

Not one of the reporters to use this information cared to educate themselves about the realities of what the numbers meant nor to print the truth when they were given it. The numbers appeared to be so large, they knew they hit on something they could use to win a prized Pulitzer. Win they did, the truth be damned. Enter politicians with a bent to destroy unions and an economy that fell flat on its face and we find ourselves in March Madness.

A simplistic way of explaining the "unfunded liability" as it relates to GASB 25 & 26 is simple enough. Yet when the press and politicians control the time allowed to provide an explanation and the truth, the rhetoric and spin becomes truth and reality. If you have a mortgage on your home, you most likely know what you owe if you want to pay it off or sell it. Do you know what you would "pay" for the home at the end of say a 30 year mortgage with compounding interest and principle payments? When you list your "debts" do you list what is owed on your mortgage or what you would ultimately pay with interest and principle at the end of 30 years? This is what GASB 25 and 26 is all about. Listing what will be owed (payed to the employee) at the very end of a persons benefit. Logical? Realistic? Accurate? Meaningful? The answer to all of these is NO.

The reason the "Unfunded Liability" has become such an issue, is it is a huge number that most people do not understand. The same would hold true if you listed your mortgage in the same way when applying for any other loan. Try getting a car loan on a police officer salary and having to list your mortgage as a one million dollar plus debt. The fact your monthly payment is within your means, you owe $300,000, the home is valued at $425,000, matters not if you apply the same rule and logic used by the press and politicians.

The rhetoric spun as truth and reality have created such a hate storm toward government workers and their wages and benefits, there is no defending them. In today's "Dialog" the little rube and Jeff Jordan faced off debating the question, "Spare Public Safety Officers From Reforms?" The little rube in his opinion, "Yes, It should include everyone" says the defined benefit retirement plan should be eliminated and ALL employees should be given a 401K style retirement plan, including public safety members. Jordan in his opinion, "No, It pays to exempt Public Safety" says the elimination of the defined benefit retirement is poor public policy and legally and fiscally flawed.

The truth is we as public employees can no longer defend our wages and benefits to the masses. That includes public safety employees. The DOT.COM bubble burst, the economy tanked and millions have lost their jobs. People everywhere have taken a hit to their 401K retirements, their investment savings plans and the equity in their homes. The average taxpayer reads every day that government is having to cut services and eliminate resources to pay for bloated benefits and wages for employees. We are all painted with a dirty brush and labeled greedy. Our wages and benefits are characterized as excessive, bloated, not sustainable and a relic of the past. No opinion piece, letter to the editor or 60 second interview on KUSI will change the perception or reality of the taxpayer to the contrary. Forget the money made by those DOT.COM baby's and the millions upon millions made by workers in private industry. None of that matters today.

What Scott Walker is doing to Wisconsin is just the beginning of what is to come for government workers across America. The assault on government workers in San Diego began a long ago and shows no sign of ending. The little rube's, Craig Gustafson's and Jan Goldsmith's of the world will continue the onslaught of lies and spin to reach their intended goal of eviscerating the wages and benefits of government workers, including public safety members. We continue to have little recourse and no leverage to stop the bleeding. We do not help ourselves when one of our own betrays the public trust. We cannot continue to defend our current benefits and simply say by reducing or eliminating them we will lose experienced officers and struggle to compete for qualified candidates. As the war against government employee wages and benefits spreads from Wisconsin, we need to offer up reasonable changes to our current benefits. The "status quo" is not acceptable.

I don't know what those changes need to be, but I know they need to be made. We need to explore modifying even those benefits for existing employees to begin to garner some support from taxpayers. We have to preserve the core defined benefits of our retirement as well as retiree medical. To do this will require sacrifice and changes, even to existing benefits for current employees.

In the interim we must act professional and take care of each other.

Detroit Police Shooting

2011-01-29T09:22:00.000-08:00

This video needs no lead in or comment.

http://www.freep.com/videonetwork/767998473001/Detroit-police-video-of-precinct-shoot-out

It has been a violent start to 2011 for Law Enforcement nation wide. Be safe out there and watch each others backs.

The Mayor; The Hypocrite

2011-01-28T08:06:00.000-08:00

Did you happen to read the article January 18, 2011, on the Voice of San Diego, written by Liam Dillon, titled “Mayor: I Like My Pension Just Fine” ? Before you read further into this post you might want to take the time to read what the mayor had to say about his pension from the police department. When you finish, tell me if the word “HYPOCRITE” comes to mind.

The arrogance and hypocritical actions taken by this mayor are unconscionable. In the mayor’s State of the City address he said, “It’s clear that public employee pensions, which once brought order to government, are now a destabilizing force. They undermine public confidence, put assets at risk, and disrupt our ability to forecast costs. They are a vestige of a time when life spans were shorter, people stuck with one job, and city workers accepted less pay for greater security.” When asked by Dillon if he was still going to take his pension, the mayor said, “I am. I earned it over 26 years. I don’t feel guilty about that at all.” Hypocrite.

The mayor told Dillon pensions made sense when he retired as chief in 1999. His was legitimate he said, because he didn’t take any of the city’s controversial benefits, such as purchasing extra service time or entering into the DROP. Funny, since his taking a salary for his job as mayor and at the same time taking his retirement from the city is JUST LIKE participating in DROP. The only difference; he gets to spend BOTH of his at the same time where we all have to wait til we leave service. Hypocrite.

The arrogance of his comments is pathetic. He “earned” his retirement over 26 years. So tell me what the hell I have done for the past 32 years? I entered DROP, so I guess in some way I didn’t earn my retirement and am being given a gift? How pathetic he has become. Hypocrite.

Before the mayor was elected he knew the truth about city employee wages and benefits. He knew the truth about DROP; Retiree medical and how it came to exist; purchase of service credits; the retirement payment “pick-up” the city agreed to pay in-lieu of pay raises, and yet he jumped on the band wagon attacking these the moment he entered into the arena of politics. He openly said he would not get elected by telling the truth about these hot topic items. Hypocrite.

Fast forward to today and he continues the assault and refuses to tell the truth. The analysis of DROP has yet to be made public. Care to venture a guess why? Because, it did not come back in support of the many lies and half truths he and others have been spewing for the last seven years. If the study was made public, it would dispel all of the lies and arguments for eviscerating public employee wages and benefits. Hypocrite.

The saddest part of this is the toll on human lives and the complete disregard of this toll, by the mayor. His planned attack on retiree medical, next on his agenda, will again cause the exodus of hundreds of senior, experienced employees from the ranks of the department and other positions within the city’s employees. The unwillingness of the mayor to honor decades old promises and in the same breath say he earned his and is not apologetic for receiving them is criminal. Hypocrite.

Stand by folks, there is more to come from all of this. Contracts between the City of San Diego and its Employees are not worth the paper they are written on. The city attorney will find a loop hole or violation of the city’s charter to void anything agreed to and promised, in an attempt to excise the city from its promises to employees. The “pre-1986” employees who stand to lose the most in this next round will be the first to flee when the mayor eliminates retiree medical from their benefits. Stand by.

The Beginning

2011-01-21T14:50:00.000-08:00

I know I have been away for far too long from writing what is on my mind. Maybe not long enough for some. June 4, 2010, was the last post I actually wrote myself and I struggled for several months as I transitioned from one assignment to another within the department. As time wore on, I tried many times to begin writing again in this BLOG, but found my writings to be more caustic than ever and clearly filled with anger and much hate. I would write for hours, read, re-read, edit and then save a particular piece. I would walk away and come back to the computer and open the piece I had last finished and realize I could not post what I had written.

I received many e-mails, phone calls and had numerous conversations with friends, co-workers, members of the media and others, all wanting to know when I would begin writing again. I have been watching silently from the cheap seats as the mayor, city attorney, little rube and the rest of the city council continued their attack on city employees, our wages, benefits and integrity. I have watched the city I was born and raised in become the most anti employee location in America. I have watched the department I have given almost 31 years of my blood, sweat and tears, evaporate and turn into something I no longer recognize. I got three e-mails that sparked me to write today.

The Little Rube

This year has started off with a bang. The Little Rube has filed papers with the City Clerk announcing his intent to run for mayor. This is not a surprise to anyone paying attention to this individual’s actions. He has taken credit for the decimation of employee pay and benefits and continues to push his outright lies as gospel truth to the gullible press and public.

The Little Rube seems to have gained a supporter in his assault on employee pay and benefits and the number one hot button item, retirement. Jan Goldsmith, the city attorney, has released his latest legal opinion (Opinion 2011-1) where Goldsmith opines the city can legally freeze wages and at the same time eliminate any “performance-based” pay (shift pay, FTO, SWAT, K-9, Motor, Bi-Lingual and all the others) from your highest one your computation for retirement. The thought process is this will reduce the pension debt and lower the retirement benefit for employees “legally.” The law and a court settlement known as Corbett, do not support the LEGAL OPINION profered by the city attorney.

The Little Rube has taken this show on the road. Yesterday I posted the link to YouTube where the Rube was a guest on a Fox Business segment touting his plan and encouraging cities and states across the nation to come see how San Diego is screwing its employees (OK, so the Rube said "reform pensions"). If you missed it you really need to take a few minutes and watch it. If this does not spark you into wanting to get involved in making sure this clown is not the next mayor of San Diego, I’m not sure what will.

The Mayor

Did you catch the “State of the City” address by the mayor? “Lasting Prosperity must be our top priority” was the theme of his diatribe. I sat listening to this political double speak and could not help but think, “Who is this guy kidding?” More attacks on employee wages and benefits and yet a justification and push to spent $700+ million dollars on an expansion of the Convention Center and finding a way to fund a new stadium for the Charges.

“We must take a fresh look at past decisions and be willing to ask more of our employees and more of our citizens.” My ears started to burn as I listened to the political garbage in this speech.. “The city is already a recognized leader in pension reform. And now, I am proposing a bold step to complete our work. By creating a 401 (k) style plan for future employees, including elected officials, we’ll contain pension costs and restore sanity to a situation confronting every big city.” Is anyone going to point out to the republicans, 401 (k) plans were designed to be a supplement to a regular retirement plan and NOT a stand-alone plan to carry a person in their retirement years?

I want to scream at the top of my lungs and drown out the words that are burning my ears. I’m watching the audience as they nod their heads in agreement and want to run through the room slapping these people. They have all bought into this political rhetoric and spin. Hell, I think I would too if I didn’t know the truth. I can’t wait to retire and get out of this pathetic city.

City Attorney

Have you all been keeping up with the latest revelations from our opinionated city attorney? Goldsmith opines (Opinion 2011-1) the city can unilaterally freeze base salary and change the manner in which retirement compensation is calculated. I have read this latest jaundice opinion several times and it makes me want to cry. To think this person went to school, passed the bar, served as Mayor of Poway, in the State Assembly, as a judge and now city attorney. The lines of reality seem to have become blurred for this man.

In a January 13, 2011, letter to all city employee groups (Letter) Goldsmith writes, “This letter is sent with unanimous support of the San Diego City Council and Mayor. It is an offer to engage in mediated settlement negotiations regarding pending lawsuits and disputed legal issues. This should not be confused with annual labor negotiations under the Myers-Milias-Brown Act.” I could not believe what I was reading.

Goldsmith jumps right in explaining how his reasoning on the “substantially equal” provision under Charter section 143, is “legally correct.” I could not contain my laughter as I read this garbage. Hey Goldsmith, I know I am not a legal scholar but can you share with all of us stupid people, when this case was settled and share with us the judge’s ruling? I’ve been following this since you floated this illogical idea/opinion. I didn’t know the judge ruled in your favor.

The letter goes on detailing his view of litigation and necessary changes to employee wages and benefits. Goldsmith has clearly moved into a policy making role. He has inserted himself into a role outside of his duties. Goldsmith is playing politics when his role should be A-Political. His advice and council should be simply that and based on legal reasoning not political agenda or his normal whacky, left field pontificating.

Ann Smith, the labor attorney for MEA, responded to the Goldsmith letter. She outlines the flaws in the city attorney’s reasoning and his challenge to engage in a “mediated settlement.” Ms. Smith hit on a point I also noted and that was the refusal to engage in conversation regarding retiree medical. I wonder where the other labor groups are with their response to Goldsmith. I know the SDPOA has a contract that carries us through June 2012. Many of the items the city attorney laid out to discuss are covered in this contract. Clearly this is yet another attempt to politicize and criminalize city employees, their wages and benefits.

The city attorney views himself as a “player.” When I first read that I could not believe what I was reading. It makes sense now though after reading his letter to the labor groups and his analogy from his time in the assembly. Somebody needs to educate this guy about his role in government and what his responsibilities are in the role he was elected to fill. His continual intrusion into policy making and goal setting is a hindrance to his ability to advise on legal issues or mediate disputes. Can we encourage John Witt to mentor this guy?

The Department

I am winding down in my career and getting closer to pulling the pin on retirement. I have less than 300 work days remaining as a sworn policeman. I have had, for the most part, a very good time in my chosen career. But as I wind down I am finally realizing why so many of our retired brothers and sisters leave the job disgruntled. Learning you are owed nothing for your 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 years of service to the city and its citizens is a real eye opener. To be told this and have it followed up with, “the sooner you realize this the quicker you can get on with your life” left me reeling when I realized this was the sentiment from the top down in this city. This is an opinion fostered by the mayor and relayed down through management. My initial, guttural response cannot be written here. I don’t know what an employee is owed when he or she retires after giving so much, but I know it is something. "Respect" is the first thought that comes to mind, but again I don't know what it is but I know it is something. It was not until I heard this same statement directed at another senior member of the department that I realized it was a sentiment shared in management, forstered by the cities leadership. What a sad commentary on where we are today.

The department will see more sworn personnel leaving as their DROP runs out in the coming six to eighteen months. With hiring frozen, no SDPD Recruits in the latest academy, nor any slated in the near future, we will continue to fall deeper in the hole as far as staffing goes. This is the lunacy of this city and the management of resources. The DROP was designed to plan for the exit of our most senior people, eliminating the drain and hardship of retirements. Instead the cities politicians, managers and press use smoke and mirrors to mis-lead citizens about the level of public safety. They all boast of “No Lay-offs” yet in the last three budget cycles, almost 350 vacant sworn positions have been eliminated and hundreds of others left unfilled.

I’m counting the days and have no intention of leaving before the end of my DROP. I have earned that right and will continue to do my job until the last day. I am enjoying my latest assignment and the people I am working with. Life is good and I am content to finish out my time, right where I am.

Let’s watch each other’s backs and be safe.

The Fire is Lit

2011-01-20T21:56:00.000-08:00

I have been away for some time now and after a number of attempts to write about my rants and musings, I have found me desire to begin anew. In the coming days I will begin posting again and rant about the myriad of topics so prevalent in the public eye. I am going to also bring light to some of those things not so public and seldom seen or heard by the public's eyes and ears.

Prior to taking leave of my rants, I maintained a hands off when it came to department politics and goings on. I have spent an enormous amount of time researching this area and no longer view this area as I once did when it comes to providing opinion or comment on those hot topic issues boiling in so many minds.

I spent four hours tonight writing my first piece, only to have it fade into infinity for some unknown reason, other than a program or computer glitch. I will take time in the morning to re-create the rant and post it during the day on Friday, January 21, 2011. As a preview, take a look at this, "YouTube."

Be safe and feel free to chime in on topics of interest or political goings on you wish to be vetted in the arena of public opinion. Whose line is that anyway?

ANOTHER SHOE DROPS ON YOUR PENSION PLANS

2010-06-21T18:25:00.000-07:00

WRITTEN BY: Just Wondering

If you bought Pension Service Credits or PSCs like me and hundreds of other City employees, between August 15th and November 1, 2003, be prepared to open your wallet again and fork over more of your hard earned, and ever dwindling take home dollars.

On June 7, 2010, the COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ruled against SDCERS and in favor of the City of San Diego with regard to the SDCERS appeal of a local court ruling on the value of purchased service credits.

The court said the question that needed to be answered was, “Did SDCERS have the right to charge the City of San Diego (City) for SDCERS's underfunding of pension service credits DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF AUGUST 15, 2003 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 2003, when the authorizing statute states that the employees purchasing such service credits were and are to pay the full cost of service credits purchased? We conclude, as did the trial court, that this action by SDCERS was contrary to law and thus exceeded its authority to administer the pension system's assets and the trial court properly set aside its decision to charge the City for the underfunding.”

The Purchase of Service Credit program (PSC) allows eligible members, which are active employees, to purchase up to five additional years of service credits.

Originally implemented in 1993, the PSC program was designed to allow employees to purchase periods of time when the member did not contribute to SDCERS, such as

• Military Leave

• Long-Term Disability Leave

• Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) periods

• Special leaves of absence without pay, with your job to be saved

• Any period before reinstatement by the Civil Service Commission

• Certain probationary periods

In 1996, during the Jack McGrory era, about the same time DROP was being concocted by City leaders, they, the City, added the ability for employees to purchase up to five years of general service credits. The City emphasized that employees "would pay into the retirement fund an amount, including interest, equivalent to the employee and employer full cost of such service." In 1997 the PSC program was expanded to include periods of time not actually worked when the City Council passed Ordinance No. 0-18383, "General Provision for Five Year Purchase of Service Credit," allowing employees to purchase up to five years of general service credit, or what is referred to as “air time credits” along with the original reasons listed above.

Because your retirement benefit is based in part on your years of service credit, a PSC will increase your lifetime pension payment.

Many of you, like me, purchased these so-called “air time” pension credits to add time to your years of service to the City. Some purchased the maximum, five years, others, like me, bought varying amounts to reach certain milestones for retirement purposes. By purchasing service credits employees carefully planned to remain chronologically and financially on track for their goals on a retirement date and percent of pay.

SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL STRIKES AGAIN

Here’s where the problem lies. City Charter section 143, states that employees who contribute extra money for their pensions are only "entitled to receive the proportionate amount of increased allowances paid for by such additional contributions." With regard to the City's obligation toward its employees' pensions, Charter section 143 also states that the City "shall contribute annually an amount substantially equal to that required of the employees for normal retirement allowances, as certified by the actuary, but shall not be required to contribute in excess of that amount, except in the case of financial liabilities accruing under any new retirement plan or revised retirement plan because of past service of the employees."

In 1997, SDCERS's actuary advised the board that a two-tiered rate structure, 15 percent for general member employees and 26 percent for safety member employees, would be sufficient to meet the requirement that the purchase price for service credits. SDCERS's board approved the rate structure and employees were then permitted to purchase service credits at the rates the board established.

But then between 1997 and 2002 the City made changes, through negotiated meet and confer sessions and labor agreements. These enhancements to your retirement retroactively gave you credit for past years of service. In 2002, then SDCERS administrator, Larry Grissom, commented that under pricing of the PSC program costs to employees was creating an unfunded liability that the City was not supposed to bear.

Grissom told the board that it had a fiduciary duty to increase the purchase price of the service credits: "But now we are aware of this problem it seems like it is our fiduciary duty to fix it [be]cause every time somebody signs a purchase of service contract, or almost every time it seems like, we're increasing the liability to the plan sponsor, which isn't right. And the Board doesn't have the authority to allow subsidizing for the member's purchase. . . . [W]e need to fix the bleeding."

An actuarial study in August 2003 recommended the Board raise rates upwards to 27 percent for general members and 37 percent for safety members. The actuary noted the 1997 rates were outdated because "they were set by the Board prior to certain negotiated benefit increases by the City and the program was not cost neutral as required by law.

At the August 2003 the Board of Administration adopted the new rates but delayed implementation of the cost increase for 60 days, thus allowing employees to purchase credits at the old rates. When questioned, then Board Member and SD Fire Local 145 President Ron Saathoff, that the cost of the purchase during the 60-day period would be borne by the employees. SDCERS then notified 10,000 city employees of the impending change and the flood gates opened. During the window 5,726 years of service were purchased by 1609 general members and 828 years we bought by 412 safety members. It’s interesting to note that during the so called window of opportunity general members purchased more credits then they has purchased since the inception of the program in 1997.

WHAT DID SDCERS DO?

In 2007 the unfunded liability from the PSC program had grown to 146 million dollars. Public meetings were held. Some of you may recall going to the Convention Center to listen or even testify. During the hearings SDCERS Counsel informed the board that they had:

1. A duty to preserve and protect the fund; to pay benefits that are promised and earned and collect sufficient contributions to support the benefits.

2. But they also had a duty to correct errors when appropriate and not perpetuate erroneous interpretations of the plan."

The fiduciary counsel opined that SDCERS could legally take several courses of action to remedy the underfunding, including:

• voiding contracts

• collecting arrears payments

• offering rewritten contracts

• spreading out additional payments

• reducing benefit levels

• and continuing to collect the shortfall through the amortization of the system's unfunded liability.

The Board voted unanimously to saddle the City with the bill, prioritizing its fiduciary duties to the members and their benefits to the first position. And this is where the Appellate Court says they erred.

In very simple terms, the issue was not the entire PSC program. The court narrowly focused on the period between August 15, 2003, when SDCERS'S board adopted the new pricing of PSC rates, and November 1, 2003, when those rates went into effect. Oh, if you haven’t made the connection yet, it’s the period of time when over 6,100 years of “air time” were purchased, and the gigantic majority of the underfunding happened. When SDCERS failed to maintain the cost neutrality of the program as required by Charter and Ordinance and knew it or should have known it. The court added, “Charter section 143 thus confirms that the City must only contribute payments substantially equal to those of the employee for normal retirement allowances. The employee must bear the cost of any additional contributions. SDCERS allowed employees to purchase service credits at a discounted rate between August 15, 2003 and November 1, 2003. It was that action that caused the deficiency SDCERS later tried to charge to the City." The court say, SDCERS argument citing the decision in Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Assn. did not support this case. In our matter, City employees were NOT entitled to purchase service credits at a rate that did not reflect the full cost of those credits. SDCERS did not have a duty to inform employees of a benefit to which they were not entitled and certainly had no duty to allow them a 60-day window to purchase service credits at a price it knew was below the full cost of the benefit.

Further, SDCERS argued the statue of limitations had run out but the court overruled that argument using the logic the City was dealing with the Board’s action in 2007 to have the City foot the bill, not the actual selling of Credits in 2003. It was not until November 2007 that SDCERS voted to charge the City, as opposed to employees, for the underfunding. The City's petition was filed four days after the board's November 2007 vote. Thus, it was unquestionably timely. Moreover, the unfunded liability was not created as of 2003. It occurred over several years and may have been avoided entirely if, for example, the retirement fund experienced better than expected investment returns, or, as stated above, SDCERS had taken action to ensure employees were responsible for the full cost of service credits purchased during the 60-day period in 2003. It was not until August 2007 that SDCERS announced a shortfall existed and the amount of the shortfall.

In addition, the Court said, “…in 2003 when SDCERS voted to allow service credits to be purchased at the old rates for a period of 60 days and a concern was raised as to who would pay the cost of purchases made during that time period, board member Saathoff confirmed the cost of the benefit would be borne by the employees. (Thanks Ron) There was no indication at that 2003 meeting that the City would bear any of the cost of purchases made at the old rates. There was also no decision made to charge the City for any resultant underfunding.

DANGER – DANGER

A portion of one sentence in bold face above concerns me and may have an affect over the City’s newest litigation concerning Substantially Equal and investment losses. That litigation will determine if you may be responsible for a substantially equal portion of losses to the system. While the Court holds SDCERS accountable for not pricing PSCs correctly, it adds a caveat of investment return experience into the substantially equal argument. Everyone needs to keep an eye on this.

SO WHAT HAPPENS NOW

SDCERS must decide if it will appeal the Appellate ruling or accept it. If an appeal is made the status quo is maintained. But the City will most likely reduce its Actuarially Required Contribution or ARC by a few million dollars. However, an editorial in Sunday’s SDUT Pension Delimma goes further. Attacking the Board for its litigation and praising City Attorney Goldsmith for his accomplishments. Then it warns employees that Substantially Equal ruling regarding investment losses is also within Goldsmith’s grasps.

If SDCERS accepts the Appellate ruling affirming the Trial Courts ruling the Board acting unlawfully, then because of its fiduciary duty to the members, and advice of fiduciary counsel the Board will be forced to choose an option or combination of option outline earlier. And those options mean you either lose your PSCs purchases, adjust the time purchased or pay the amount that makes them cost neutral to City of San Diego.

To read the full Appellate decision.

Political Correctness

2010-06-04T17:15:00.000-07:00

When did it become acceptable in society to lie to each other under the guise of being "Politically Correct?" It seems we have all become so oversensitive to the words of others that we all walk on eggshells and skirt the truth for fear of offending someone. When cops do it to other cops, it creates anger and distrust. When management does it to their subordinates it leads to low morale and dissension. The bottom line is cops can smell the BS before the delivery is complete.

So why does management continually feel the need to employ the "Politically Correct" answers when every cop with a year on the job can see right through them? Politically correct people are generally your self righteous suck-ups who have nothing better to do than make sure everyone knows how 'caring' and 'thoughtful' they are by being overly polite when it is not necessary.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. In the case of the mayor, who would rather fuel the lies and misrepresentations of those political hot topics, he made a moral judgement that is was OK to lie if the end was getting himself elected to office. There were no consequences for the lies, but telling the truth could possibly result in his not being elected. So he lied and was proud of it.

When someone lives for others, he is often considered, "Altruistic." Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Most of us in law enforcement could be considered altruistic by nature and maintain a high level of ethics and morals. But something happens as we climb the ladder and ascend into the management ranks. Political correctness begins to take hold and those ethics and morals we entered the job with seem to wane. Those holding management positions will often say, "You don't understand." We often say, "You have forgotten from where you came." It has become a sad commentary to where we are today.

I said to the mayor when he was seeking election to his first term of office, that his willingness to lie and continue the misinformation and half truths about employee benefits, was what was wrong with politics and politicians. It is what is wrong with society; the willingness to allow such behaviour. But why do we allow it in our profession? Why do we as a group succumb to the political correctness of dealing with issues and people? How did we move so far from honest, straightforward talk?

Holding people accountable requires honest, straight, frank talk. Yet we have watered down the processes and refused to allow for this type of discussion. We became a fragile group who could not handle the truth. When change is desired by management, they tend to struggle with the delivery of why. In reality "Why" does not matter, but if they are going to give a reason, it should be real, honest and straight forward. We can see through the BS and it simply angers and creates disgruntled employees when the politically correct reason is provided over the truth. This is compounded when three members of management deliver three reasons for change, none of which resemble the other.

I have often said, "It is not what is done, but how it was done." We may not like the change of whatever is taking place, but we can accept it and move on if we are part of the consideration for the change and the communication is honest. That honesty requires a different level of communication that needs to be free of the political correctness that has crept into virtually every conversation. The social norm for police management is to take the politically correct avenue, normally the easy way out, to avoid conflict. This is creating a divide and an "us" versus "them" attitude. When those vying for promotion are more concerned with "ME" and how "ME" looks or is perceived, we are all losers. We have lost the "Altruistic Value" that made us special.

We must demand honest conversation in everything we do. Political correctness has no place in government or law enforcement. Do not mistake political correctness with being a caring individual or showing compassion for the feelings of others. We need to learn how to look each other in the eyes when we talk and to be honest with our words. We also need our words to match our actions. We will all be better for it and only then can we begin to grow as an organization.

Where to Start

2010-05-31T19:40:00.000-07:00

Many of you have asked where I have been and why I have not posted of late. Truth be told I have not been in the proper frame of mind to write about the things going on in San Diego as well as the Police Department. I have written several pieces that have yet to see the light of day because after proofing them and reading them prior to posting, I myself felt they were either to caustic, negative or would bring a level of discredit to the department or individuals. I made a promise to myself when I began this blog that I would do my level best to keep the posts professional and factual.

I began an internal struggle that lead to me losing interest and not caring about many things going on in my life. This blog was always an outlet for me to blow off some steam, say what many were thinking and give a voice to those who cannot find the courage to speak up. I started to feel as though I was yelling like the crazy guy on the corner of 4th and Broadway. The anger, frustration, pain and sorrow I was fighting internally was making its way into my writing and I could not allow that.

My sanctuary was Internal Affairs. Just saying that kind of makes one wonder how in the hell Internal Affairs could be a sanctuary for anyone, even me. I had spent almost twenty-five years as an employee advocate, representing members of the SDPOA during departmental actions. I handled grievances, poor performance issues, conduct issues and many other personnel related disciplinary issues for the member. I was transferred to Internal Affairs in 2007, and I knew the system and procedures inside out. The job is about getting to the truth, whatever that is, and determining if the actions were within policy. The position of a Sergeant in Internal Affairs is as an Investigator and you simply handle your cases and manage your time. I did not supervise anyone and only had to worry about my cases and help others in the office. It was a perfect fit for me since I failed in my last attempt at promotion. I had lost my desire to mentor, coach or lead others in anything. I just wanted to ride my last months out and be left alone doing a job I enjoyed and excelled at.

I was not of the right frame of mind to supervise others. I took not getting promoted harder than I let on or that most would ever suspect. It hurt and it caused me to withdraw. Part of that withdrawal was a slow pulling away from my writing. I still wrote everyday but it was not for publication. My writings became venom and fire and not suited for publication. I kept my thoughts and feelings to myself and did my job in Internal Affairs. I helped out whenever asked and took on any case sent my way. I handled criminal cases against officers, internal investigations as well as the normal citizen complaint. I assisted the other sergeants in the office with their cases and answered questions about the Police Officer's Bill of Rights, procedure and the best way to deal with delicate and troubling issues. I was safe in Internal Affairs and could do my job without a lot of interaction with others. I was not supervising others and only had to manage myself. It was my sanctuary that allowed me to continue to do my job without the emotional ties or interactions I became to fear. I did not need a mask to hide my pain and anger. I could be quiet on those days that I struggled and no one was the wiser. Well, except one person.

I was lucky enough to have a great partner while working in Internal Affairs. We helped one another with interviews of witnesses, complainants and officers. We bounced ideas and issues off of each other and we came to trust one another. We don't normally have partners in Internal Affairs. We usually just seek out who is available to assist when necessary and will bounce issues off of one another and generally we as a group had a great time doing a job that at times could be stressful and frustrating. We took care of each other because we could not sit in the coffee shop and talk about our cases or what was going on. We could not get on an elevator and continue conversations from the office. We owed it to the officers to maintain that confidentiality. That left us a band of sergeants that entertained ourselves and ate lunch in our office together almost daily. You become isolated to an extent and while it sounds awful, it was what worked for me.

One day we were having coffee and my partner looked across the table at me and asked me a question that jolted me to my core. "Are you depressed?" I shot quickly a firm, "No" and felt myself looking down rather than across the table. I sat there for what seemed like an eternity, and in reality it was maybe a few seconds, as my body started to respond to the next question fired in my direction, "Are you sure you are not depressed?" What was it that was being seen that I was doing or not doing that would prompt such a question? I honestly had not given much thought to this, but now I was being forced to take a closer look into the mirror and what it was that I was projecting that would prompt this question. I also needed to address the question.

We talked for a while about the observations my partner noted and the reasons for the question. The conversation was open, honest and frank, but generally one sided. I did not acknowledge my feelings or fears and would not allow myself to say yes. We walked back to headquarters and for most of the eight blocks we said very little. We would usually laugh and talk about stuff. This time it was different.

Yes, I was struggling with being depressed and really did not know it. Maybe I knew it but was not willing to acknowledge it, especially to someone else. I had experienced a lot in the last several years and the cumulative toll had caught up. No one else either recognized the symptoms or refused to broach the issue, but the cat was now out of the bag and I needed to figure it out. I decided that night to do something about it. I thanked my partner the next day and set out to get a handle on my feelings and what was going on in my head. The process has been painful and enlightening at the same time. I don't like mirrors anymore because I am not comfortable looking at me right now.

Some of you reading this will no doubt have questions for which I have no answers right now. I write about my struggles not to seek pity or sympathy but to enlighten others. The times we are in today have taken their toll on good people and others out there are struggling like me. If you have a friend or partner who is not sleeping, drinking more than before, seems more introverted and withdrawn, struggles to laugh and is quick to anger, don't be afraid to talk to them. My partner saw these changes over time and was not willing to ignore them. You need to do the same. If you are the one who is struggling, it is OK to ask for help and to get yourself back on the correct path. We owe it to each other to look out for one another and to offer help and support.

My sanctuary is being taken away from me. I am being transferred to Northwestern Division effective June 12, 2010. I am fearful of what the future holds but am confident I have friends who will be there to prop me up and offer support when I need it. My partner is also being transfered and we will no longer be working together. I owe my life to my partner and am thankful for the intervention that was no doubt difficult. So, if you ever read this post, Thank You... I owe you more than you know....

I will try and post more regularly about some of the issues generating concern of late. Be patient and take care of each other.

Substantially Equal and Substantially Secret?

2010-05-11T15:23:00.000-07:00

Written by; Just Wondering
A hearing was held this morning, May 11, 2010, in Department 65 regarding San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith’s new litigation against SDCERS. This new theory, “Substantially Equal”, is designed to attack your pension benefits and relieve the city of its financial responsibility. Goldsmith believes SD Charter Section 143 requires you to pay for a substantially equal portion of SDCERS investment losses even though the City, the plan’s sponsor, has paid for those losses, when they have occurred, since the inception of the system. In addition to the issue of losses, Goldsmith suggest that System profits, ones made six out the last ten years are not yours to share on an equal basis. No those should be negotiated via the meet and confer processes. More on this later.

Why was this hearing held in Chambers

A funny thing happened today, the hearing, which was more about scheduling than anything else was held in chambers, NOT in open court. No one but the City’s three attorneys, Elaine Reagan, SDCERS’ general counsel, Judge Lewis and a court reporter were present. We can only speculate as for the reasons for a private hearing in chambers. I can report Ms. Reagan, was surprised when Brian Marvel told her the hearing would be held in chambers out of the public’s view. Marvel, who was there to observe on behalf of the POA, was, himself surprised when the Judge’s bailiff, informed him the hearing would be in chambers. As to who wanted this hearing held in private we can surmise it was the Plaintiff, Jan Goldsmith, or the City, not SDCERS by Ms. Reagan’s reaction to the news it would not be held in open court.

At the end of the hearing Judge Lewis denied the City’s request for an expedited hearing. The City sought a June 28th hearing date, claiming the City will be irreparably harmed if it is forced to pay its full required contribution, the actuarially required contribution or ARC of $231 million dollars. Goldsmith’s deputies argued they could save $40 million dollars. What they really want permanently shift the responsibility for investment losses onto your back and for you to pay the $40 million under their substantially equal theory. Some say this amount is about $4,000 for each current City employee.

So what does this mean for now?

With Judge Lewis’s denial, the City will be responsible for the payment. But the City is NOT require to pay the full amount, 231 million on July 1st, they can, if they choose, delay it or make installment payments, according the Mark Sullivan, SDCERS Board President, who was also present in the courtroom, but not part of the hearing in chambers. The installment or delayed payment option has always been available to city, but just like your mortgage, or personal credit cards, if you choose to delay or spread the payments over time, interest accrues increasing the overall cost.

The next hearing on this matter is scheduled for July 16, 2010 at 0830. This could change as the parties strategize for tactical advantage or others, such as the POA or MEA decide whether they want to join in on the litigation.

Danger WILL ROBINSON… Danger

Remember I mentioned substantially equal sharing of investment gains. Goldsmith suggests gains are not part of his “substantially equal contribution” argument. He’s said they should be the discussed in the meet and confer. But how would that work, especially in years where labor groups and the City reach multi-year contracts and no meet and confers are scheduled?

Here’s another warning about “gains”. Remember Proposition B? Overwhelmingly passed by the voters it mandates a vote of the electorate to approve any enhancement to pension benefits. In fact the City Attorney’s own in partial analysis says, in part, “The ballot question states that voter approval is required for “any increases.” The text of the measure states that increases in benefits due to cost of living adjustments would not require a vote of the electorate.”

Any number of arguments can be made that sharing investment gains, and lowering your required contribution to the system could be viewed as a pension enhancement. Thus requiring a vote of the people. Do you really think San Diego will pass anything, yes ANYTHING, that even remotely sounds like it improve your pension? If you do, I have a bridge and waterfront property for sale at a good price and I’m looking to unload it.

Proposition D

2010-05-09T21:40:00.000-07:00

In June city voters will be asked to make permanent the change from a City Manager style of government to a "Strong Mayor" form. In 2004 voters approved a trial period of this new form of government. Some will say it has been a success while others (me included) believe it has been a dismal failure. The leading supporter of Proposition D is none other than the little rube. He has been pushing this proposition for almost a year now and his arguments to support are shallow at best. His web site titled: "accountabilityatcityhall" provides his spin for support of making this trial permanent.

Those of us who have watched the mayor perform his role in this new system take a different view of reality. The League of Women Voters of San Diego has put forth the best argument I have seen against Proposition D. I spent an excessive amount of time reading the proposition and all of the arguments in support and opposed. The arguments in support seem to paint a picture of a better way because the old way so to speak is what got us in the trouble we are in. This is simply not true.

The last five plus years of governance under the "Strong Mayor" has proved to be more dictatorial than anything else. The mayor chooses to ignore city council meeting unless he is demanding something. He does not participate in the meetings of the council and gives off the appearance of indifference to their role and if they dare speak out against him or his idea god forbid. The ability of the council to legislate has turned into a battle of will and wit. It is about power and ego. The mayor wielding all the power and projecting all the ego.

The mayor should be the leader of the council. He should be at every meeting of the council and participate in the discussions and held accountable to the public as such. There is no avenue for open debate with the strong mayor form of government because the mayor in the present form does not have to listen to the public or take their input. The council is required to do so and the mayor can ignore it.

We cannot afford to continue this failed trial of governance. I would urge you all to tell friends and family to VOTE NO on Proposition D. It is time to restore the city to a form of governance that makes sense.

Time Away from Writing

2010-05-09T13:57:00.000-07:00

I want to thank "Just Wondering" for taking up the slack and writing a couple of posts for me while I was away. I appreciate the comments from people asking about the blog and when I would post again. Trying to write on a regular basis had taken on a life of its own. In all honesty I felt myself becoming caustic and so negative, the writing was no longer an outlet for frustration or anger but a vise to in some way justify my rants. I have such little time left before I fully retire, I did not want to leave with the label "Disgruntled" and decided to take a break and re-think what I was trying to accomplish.

I have tried to write informative pieces, pointing out differing views of what the mainstream press was feeding the public. I tried in some way to shed light on the actions of elected politicians and their complete disregard for honest, ethical practices. I tried to ensure my pieces were factual and accurate and at the same time provide information allowing others to form their own opinions.

Management and those at city hall were not fans of my writing. But many who worked for the city began to send me ideas for stories and information on the actions of management and the politicians. I said what many would think but feared saying out loud. I said things that I knew to be true and many did not want said. But I began to struggle with saying what I wanted to say at the same time saying it in a manner that would not be offensive. My first couple of rants on this blog were edited after posting to remove inappropriate language and personal attacks on individuals. This was done in an attempt to lend credibility to the content and message as well as not to offend those who may read my blog. I was having trouble doing that more and more.

Sometimes what is important changes as we move through life. What is important in my life has changed and I struggle to make sense of it all. As I do this, I will try and write more often. My next post will deal with Prop D, followed by one about the City Attorney's interpretation of "Substantially Equal" and his ill-advised law suit aimed at SDCERS regarding this issue. I am also planning an election rant about the candidates and other initiatives. My time working for this City and the department is fast coming to an end and I want the end to be in some way a positive memory and not one that might be described as disgruntled. I still very much enjoy what I do and would prefer to finish my career right where I am. This may not happen but if given a choice that would be my wish.

Happy Mother's Day to all of the mothers out there.

Eight Fiefdoms and a Football Stadium – Let the Games Begin

2010-04-30T20:32:00.000-07:00

Written by: Just Wondering

We live in a time where every taxpayer’s penny counts. We live in a town divided into eight council districts, or maybe more appropriately labeled, eight fiefdoms. A fiefdom is an area over which a person, or organization exerts authority or influence. I’m just wondering if that influence is for the greater good?

Our City Council has begun discussing a $500,000 study regarding the Downtown Redevelopment Agency, or CCDC, that could lead to it receiving more tax dollars and each council district less. The argument is this new plan will allow CCDC and the City to pay for more projects downtown, like a new football stadium for billionaire owner Alex Spanos, and of course other projects too. To get a better understanding of part of what CCDC and other redevelopment agencies do follow this.

Here’s my concern, there is only so much of any pie. If downtown redevelopment takes a bigger bite what’s left over? The key here is revenue and in redevelopment areas such as downtown tax revenue is stagnant because the increased tax increment from redevelopment remains with redevelopment agency and CANNOT be used to fund the City’s day in and day out operations. In other words redevelopment causes an increase for city services but cannot pay for it. At first I thought I was missing something, but then Carl Maas, CCDC Chairman confirmed it when he said, CCDC pays for “sticks and bricks, hard assets” it cannot pay for day-to-day operations.

As reported by the City’s Independent Budget Analyst, the City’s general fund, that is its day-to-day operating monies, would lose $300 million if CCDC’s revenue cap is raised. IBA’s report. Take the time and read it yourself. I’ve included the “Conclusion” statement of the report here:

This report, provided in response to a January 13, 2010 memorandum from Councilmember DeMaio, illustrates the potential impacts to General Fund property tax revenue that may result from an increase in the tax increment cap for the Centre City Redevelopment Project. Based on current projections, increasing the cap to a hypothetical level of $9 billion (from the current level of $2.98 billion) would result in a net reduction to the General Fund of over $300 million cumulatively from FY 2011 to FY 2043.

However, this analysis only provides one side of the equation. A number of other factors must be duly considered in evaluating the merits of an increase in the tax increment cap, including the remaining projects and activities that, if not completed, will become General Fund obligations; the potential ancillary economic benefits from continued redevelopment, such as increased sales tax, transient occupancy tax, employment and business activity; and the increased funding for affordable housing.

Let the Fiefdom Fights Begin

During a presentation before Council, Phil Rath, the Mayor’s policy wonk, and Frank Alessi, CCDC's Executive Vice President and CFO, argued the city's day-to-day operating budget actually would receive a $235 million boost if the cap were lifted.

I love guys with crystal balls who can see into the future. I just want them to play with their money, not mine or yours. Even better, why doesn’t CCDC guarantee the risk, instead of you, me and every other San Diego taxpayer. Oh, wait, they can’t, the law forbids that.

Rath and Alessi say the money would come from additional hotel rooms and sales taxes, as well as CCDC repaying debt. Oh by the way, that’s the debt, one Councilmember, Donna Frye, has been trying to get them pay for last several years with no progress whatsoever.

According to an article in the Voice of San Diego, Rath and Alessi brought up matters some council members were sure to like.

“For Councilman Carl DeMaio, they discussed the downtown redevelopment agency, not the city's day-to-day budget, paying $215 million in outstanding debt for Petco Park. For Councilwoman Donna Frye, they discussed accelerating a repayment to the city for outstanding federal housing loans. For Councilman Todd Gloria, they discussed further money for homeless services. Also, Rath and Alessi prominently mention an additional $1.2 billion for affordable housing.”

Council President Hueso fought for his fiefdom saying, "I think we largely heard from advocates who want to see downtown continue to grow. I want to see downtown continue to grow. But I also want us to make a proportionate reinvestment in other parts of the city." Guess he means his district.

But since the law forbids redevelopment agency dollars paying for public safety services, libraries and park and rec center operations, look for no help there. And when financial and economic times go really South, as they have today, the taxpayers, the media, and the politicians blame their mismanagement problems on the employees, their wages and so labeled “Cadillac” benefits.

The City’s General Fund, the one according to the Independent Budget Analyst which already runs a chronic structural deficit, cannot afford any additional loss of revenue on vision through a crystal ball.

Our so called leaders need to get this city’s finances back on solid ground and away from the risk filled morass and practices of the past. The taxpayer’s treasury has nearly run dry thanks to 25 years of mismanagement, fraud, and other schemes. It’s time for San Diego get cut up the credit cards, properly fund its obligations to its number one responsibility, public safety, and stop spending money it doesn’t have in the bank.

City Bankruptcy: A Fair Review of the Situation

2010-04-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

Written by: Just Wondering

Yesterday I came across this piece in the San Diego Business Journal. It points out the pros and cons on bankruptcy. According to SD City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith,

"Pension Contracts Can’t Be Broken... The law covering municipal bankruptcy differs from those covering individual and businesses bankruptcy, and does not permit breaking existing contracts that cover pension benefits to individuals granted in the past."

Case in point, times two... The Orange County bankruptcy, pension payments were not altered. In the closely watched case of the City of Vallejo, the city approved cuts to certain retiree health benefits but didn’t touch pension payments.

While San Diego does not appear to be interested in bankruptcy it is already attacking your benefits with an aggressive offensive attack on two fronts.

First with its newest theory: "Substantially Equal" a term, according to Gene Kalwarski, SDCERS Actuary from Cheiron, it is completely unique in his 30+ years of performing actuarial services to public pension plans.

Under this theory, which has already garnered substantial support, employees may be required to shoulder a substantially equal portion of SDCERS investment losses as well as other costs. Actuarial projections show this could mean a contribution of one (1) to five (5) percent MORE of your paycheck. No one really knows how it works, even Cheiron is baffled.

On the other hand no one is talking about years when SDCERS makes or has made MORE in investment returns than the actuarial assumptions. Just Wondering why?

Is the Sky Falling

The investment returns according to the SDCERS Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports or CAFRs for each fiscal year ending June 30th
2000 = 9.53%

2001 = 14.93%

2002 = -0.45%

2003 = -2.48%

2004 = 20.21%

2005 = 10.80%

2006 = 12.70%

2007 = 16.50%

2008 = -4.66%

2009 =-19.20%

According to the CAFRs over the last ten years SDCERS investment returns are still growing. Even with financial meltdown, worldwide, SDCERS is in the top 2% of public pension funds with its investment returns. In six out of the last ten years, the system OUT PERFORMED, that's right OUT PERFORMED the actuarial assumption of either 8 or 7.75 percent.

So when do start discussing the sharing and the reduction in employee contributions in a "Substantially Equal" way?

Second: For the second year in-a- row, the City, under Mayor Sanders' has proposed freezing cost-of-living increases in retiree health care. He claims it's to help close another budget shortfall. This tactic has little if any affect on you NOW. It certainly under everyone's radar but it is very insidious, in fact so insidious Sanders has reached a new sleazy low.

By the time you realize it will have a huge effect on your future, you won't have a voice OR a seat at the table.

Paid retiree health care is and was a negotiated and promised benefit for all but the newest of City employees. It was promised by then Mayor Pete Wilson and City Manager Ray Blair. It was a quid pro quo for the employees to support the City's desire to exit the federal government's Social Security and Medicare programs. Oh and by the way, it saved the City of San Diego MILLIONS of DOLLARS in matching contributions over the years.

But today, nearly 30 years later, by freezing the "COLA" adjustment for Retiree Health Care, Mayor Sanders is SHIFTING the burden to pay for your retirement health care TO YOU.

If the trend in rising health care costs continues, and there is no indication it won't, the cost of your retiree health care will come close to wiping out your pension during your lifetime. If that isn't something to get your attention I don't know what will.

City Attorney Brings in BIG Guns

2010-04-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

Written by: Just Wondering

On April 16, 2010, SDCERS began discussion regarding the City’s NEW attack on Pension Benefits. The so-called “Substantially Equal” theory using Charter Section 143, as a new tact to undermine what you’ve legally negotiated for over the years. The City, at taxpayer expense, hired another outside attorney group, K&L Gates, LLP, comprises over 1,800 lawyers who practice in 36 offices located on three continents as pointed out by our City Attorney in his MEMORADUM of April 2, 2010. Mr. Goldsmith goes on to praise the attorney who rendered the opinion as a lawyer who “…is among the leading experts in the area of practice.” Read about Norman Milks here.

Two items in the opinion really grabbed my attention:

The City’s pension plan is so unique that it may be one of a kind. SDCERS’ actuary, Gene Kalwarski, has stated that in his 30 years of experience he has never come across a pension system with a limitation that the employer contributes “substantially equal” amounts as the employee.” (Memorandum page 4)

And on page 5

The K&L Gates opinion concludes: “The City does not have an obligation to fund all except some small piece of the ultimate benefit, nor to make up for poor investment performance entirely on its own. Instead, the City and its employees, by substantially equal contributions, fund their respective shares of the whole.”

K&L supports their opinion by citing 1954 and 1962 opinions. The 1954 opinion is that of the Charter Section’s author, Shelly J. Higgins, the attorney who drafted the opinion at the time when section 143 had just been approved by the voters.

So the discussion has begun. Putting the discussion into the context of 2010 with the economic collapse of our Nation’s economy, the financial ruin of the City, and the billions in State deficits, I don’t hold out a whole lot of hope for the status quo. Instead, it seems only prudent to budget for a “substantially equal” increase the amount of money you will be required to contribute toward your pension.

On the bright side, SDCERS newly released annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 2009, shows SDCERS investment returns over the last ten volatile years still ranks “in the top 2% for public pension plans.”

Fact Check This

2010-03-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

At least once a week, Carl DeMaio AKA; the little rube, can be heard telling anyone that will listen, about the bloated pensions city employees are making. Each and every time the rube gives his spin on benefits, he tells those present we are retiring from the city with as much as 138% of our highest one year salary. Since I can remember, the rube has spun the numbers and reality of benefits from medical to retirement to salary of city employees. His goal is clear. If you have any doubt, follow his web site, Clean Up City Hall where he boasts of HIS initiative he is campaigning for and soliciting signature for. His goal is to outsource as many job functions as possible to eliminate as many city workers as possible.

In my last blog post, I ranted about Michael Stetz and his attack on fire fighters. The next day I received an e-mail from Keegan Kyle of the Voice of San Diego. Keegan wrote;

Steve,

I’d like to run a portion of your recent blog post through our Fact Check blog. Do you know where I can find background or city documents to prove the bolded statements below?

“There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years.”

Please do not hesitate to email or call me if you have any questions.

Keegan Kyle

My first thought was, "you're kidding me?" Then I wondered why. What would prompt the Voice of San Diego to "Fact Check" items in my blog and more importantly, what is to be gained when they do? I welcome the evaluation and vetting of information. I have nothing to fear and this evaluation can do nothing but add credibility to my rant. So I say bring it on.

I told Keegan he could verify the information by contacting the City and the Fire Department. I left it at that initially. I then decided to provide him the information I used to make the statements contained in my rant that Keegan indicated he was going to "fact check." In a report written by Lisa Celaya, a Fiscal and Policy Analyst with the office of the Indepentent Budget Analyst, dated May 19, 2008, (IBA Report # 08-51) Lisa wrote the City saved $3 million dollars in 2006 by paying overtime in lieu of hiring additional fire fighters. The report supported continuing the practice of hiring back for overtime to fill vacant positions in fire houses over hiring additional employees.

Keegan said in a follow up e-mail,;

"Steve, Still working on the post. I’ll probably have something together on Monday. I will try to explain our analysis and our rating before we publish. Please don’t hesitate to send me any questions. -- KK

So keep an eye out for the results. I can't wait to see the spin put on this from the city's perspective. The fire department started closing stations in lieu of paying the overtime and stated the savings will amount to $11 million. Now lets see what the "Rating" is given of the information posted in my blog.

But while I have the attention of Keegan, I have a question for him. When is a "Fact Check" going to be done regarding the fabricated and exaggerated information being sold to the public by the little rube? The rube tells of employees retiring with 138% of their highest one years salary. Reality is that is impossible and not permitted by SDCERS. The maximum is 90%. A large percentage of employees do not even retire at that level. The press continues to print his bloated and false numbers and no one feels the need to call him on this. Why? When is the Voice of San Diego going to "Fact Check" the information being told to taxpayers by this elected politician?

The "Next One"

2010-03-24T23:07:00.000-07:00

If you have any doubts why the citizens of San Diego don't get it, you only need read another backwards diatribe by Union Tribune writer, Michael Stetz. In the Wednesday edition of this joke of a newspaper, Stetz penned an article titled, "Fire official overlooks alarming paychecks." Before you go on, take a minute or two to read what he wrote.

I will try my best to stay free of dragging everyone into my miserable world of self-loathing. But beware, I am going to share my thoughts on reality, viewed from where I stand. If in some way this bothers you, close this blog and move on. I talked about the event in a prior post that Stetz uses to again inflame readers, "Ignorance is Bliss - But Deadly". Stetz goes off on the usual tangent saying Frank De Clercq, President of the Firefighters Union, should "look at how the city fire department staff has contributed to San Diego's financial mess," which Stetz claims has helped lead to the kind of cuts that are putting citizens in grave danger.

Stetz regurgitates the inflammatory and exaggerated salaries printed in his tabloid, attempting to bolster his pathetic argument. Stetz ignores reality and conveniently omits the reasons for the high overtime rate of firefighters in San Diego. He continues the bashing of city employee retirement benefits and attempts to lay blame to the brown outs at the feet of firefighters, as well as the increased contribution owed by the city to the retirement system, and he tosses in the city deficit for good measure.

Frank is following in my footsteps, or me his, when he points out the cuts to firefighters and the closing of the stations is a matter of life and death. "This is the first of many incidents that are going to happen" says De Clercq. Stetz attempts to downplay and minimize the cuts, at the same time justifying them saying "But what hasn't been cut? Libraries, recreation centers, beach amenities...." Then Stetz demands "real evidence that the brownout did indeed contribute to the death of Taylor before all this alarmist talk."

Stetz came to San Diego in 1997 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania where he worked for The Patriot-News. Stetz graduated from Towson State University in Maryland, with a degree in English. It is apparent from his writing, he is a company bloke, who would rather cull past diatribes for insertion into his pieces, than do any real investigation into what he writes about. San Diego lacks ANY real investigative reporter skilled in writing clear, articulate, honest and factual pieces. The Union Tribune should think about changing their name to the San Diego Star or San Diego Enquirer or something similar. The name would be closer aligned with the quality and content it publishes. There is little in Stetz's bio to indicate qualifications to take on the types of writing he is attempting.

I will allow fire personnel to provide the arguments related to the fire that claimed the life of a citizen in San Diego. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the dangers of closing fire stations in a city that is already lacking adequate stations to meet the needs of its citizens. The game of Russian Roulette being played at the taxpayers expense is criminal. But for Stetz to blame fire staff for the need to close stations is pathetic.

"Constant Manning" is a term for ensuring minimum staffing. National Standards for the safe deployment of fire personnel suggests a level of staffing for safety to the firefighter and citizen. In San Diego, the city decided years ago, it would cost less money to intentionally under-staff the fire department and staff fire trucks and engines with fire fighters working over time. Stetz and others attempt to paint fire fighters as over time whores who are in some way stealing money from the taxpayers and the cause for financial problems at city hall. No one is willing to tell the truth about this issue.

There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years. Some how this is lost in the assault of the fire fighters by politicians and the press.

The final two paragraphs of Stetz's diatribe show his true colors and make personal a political agenda being waged by him and his colleagues at the Union Tribune. Stetz writes; "Well, when the "next one" does hit, De Clercq should spend a little time examining his paycheck as a city fire captain. He made $154,184 last year in base pay, overtime and something called retro-pay. He also got a $1,350 uniform allowance. How will his pension be paid for? Higher taxes, or more cuts to city services. Including the fire department."

The "next one" will come and I guess if saying this, is somehow a weekly dose of doom and gloom, so be it. Governments priorities in San Diego are completely askew of reality. The press plays a large role in this disparity, with their continued assault of public safety employees and the unwillingness to accurately report the dangers facing citizens. Will the "next one" result in a serious injury or death? Will a fire fighter be injured or killed?

Sunday night at 2348 hours there was a collision resulting in injuries on the 56 at Camino del Sur. The ambulance arrived at 0008 hours, twenty minutes after the first sounds of the collision. The nearest station is located at Salmon River Road and Paseo Montalban, about a mile and a half to two miles away. Was this station closed Sunday also?

Poor Self-Esteem or Self-Loathing

2010-03-22T21:45:00.000-07:00

Self-loathing is an extreme form of poor self-esteem. It is the sense of loathing one’s self – a common theme of people with poor self esteem. I was shaving this morning and while looking in the mirror I kept thinking, “For 53 years old you still got it together McMillan.” Poor self-esteem?

I went back and re-read my last post and the first comment from someone who made the observation I am in some way making an effort to “drag everyone down into your miserable world of self-loathing.” WOW. I always subscribed to the tenant; things in life work out better when you pay attention to and accept the way things are. But what creates tension with this philosophy is so many of these “things” can be changed and do not need to be accepted, if you are willing to say or do something.

Many of these “things” can be changed for the better if one is willing to take a chance. As an example; Paul does not like the grey creeping into his hair, making him look older, so he can have his hair colored to keep his appearance looking younger. But for the woman who is head over heels in love with the man she has been dating for the past year and friends begin to point out his not keeping promises; disrespecting her in front of her friends and family; bringing up seeing him with others and their belief he may be fooling around behind her back; she makes excuses for his actions and pretends their relationship is strong, when in reality she knows the truth and is hurting inside. Making a change does not come easily and pretending things are OK is not wise.

Some would say a helpful way of dealing with troubles is to accept the realities that must be accepted and change what you believe would be most practical and advantageous to change. Like the poker player sitting on a short stack; accept that you have to play the cards dealt. You need to weigh the odds, your position at the table and how much is riding on the hand. You may be able to strategize how you play your cards by bluffing all in, but reality is, sometimes you are going to get dealt some tough hands and no matter how much you hate the cards in your hand, they are your cards and you have to play them.

As police officers we are trained to see what is wrong with a given incident. Human nature is to look at things and see what is wrong. We are not adept or experienced at seeing what is right. There is a Buddhist parable I read a while back that tells of the blind men who came across an elephant in the jungle. One of the men describes his discovery at a tube, flexible and cylindrical and suspended in air; another described his discovery as a boulder suspended over the path while another insisted it is a pillar and not suspended at all. The reality is, like these men, we do not see the fullness of reality, we only see parts of it and from different perspectives, reality is different.

Self-Loathing? Miserable world? Embarrassing? “The sky is falling” and “The world is coming to an end” pessimism? I am asked to give it a rest.

Let’s try something and see where it leads. This may be asking a lot of some. First let us recognize there are different ways of looking at things. Accept that you tend to bump into elephants from a different perspective than me. Think about changing your perspective and view the elephant from the perspective of the person opposed to your perspective and remember this new perspective is just as real. You can even change your perspective again and therefore your reality. Your ability to remain comfortable with these different perspectives will no doubt result in fear, confusion, and an unsafe feeling as well as a feeling of anger. You will no doubt be more comfortable with the perspective that is shared by those closest to you. But don’t condemn me and others for having a differing perspective because we view reality from the shoes we fill, not those worn by you.

I need to lose some weight, my teeth could use a whitening and my hair is need of a trim. I should laugh more and read more than I have been writing. I should volunteer more at Abraxis High School mentoring children struggling to fit in. I should get my taxes done and finish the job of overhauling the front yard at my daughters house. While I am at it a remodel of the master bath is long overdue. Self-Loathing? Miserable World? Not even close.

Ignorance is Bliss - but Deadly

2010-03-21T21:46:00.000-07:00

I have spent some time over the last few days reading the comments to the last post and watching the goings on in San Diego. The response to my last post was amazing in that people outside our realm are starting to ask the right questions. The mayor is having trouble controlling the spin and clearly is feeling the heat. His policy of controlling who can speak to the press and what is said is beginning to create questions as other public safety incidents occur.

Friday, a man died in a fire at an apartment building at the corner of 22nd and Broadway. The fire station a couple blocks away was closed as a result of the city mandated "Brown Out," as a budget savings mechanism. The first fire engine to arrive came from Barrio Logan, not the Golden Hill station a couple blocks away. The first "fire truck" to arrive, was on scene within a minute of dispatch. The trucks operator could not get the ladder to work (one of the young, enthusiastic new fire fighters?) and was not capable of getting water on the fire (fire trucks carry ladders and equipment for rescue ONLY). The second truck (Fire Engine) arrived about four and a half minutes later and began the assault of the fire (fire engines carry hoses and pumping abilities to put water on the fire). The inability of the first truck to get a ladder to the roof, slowed the ability to vent the roof and fight the fire. Response times across the city are on the rise and in time a fire fighter will end up getting seriously injured or killed as a result. The spokesperson for the department did his best to belay blame and down play the lack of an engine company in Golden Hill. The president of the Fire Fighters Union was not so protective of the city.

The events of the last few weeks are but the beginning of what is sure to be more deaths and serious injuries to members of the public. The ignorance created by false and misleading information from politicians; a lax press and a public in denial, will take years to undo. The mayor's failed policies and destruction of public safety has single handily turned San Diego from one of the safest cities in America, to one that is no longer a safe place for anyone. The systematic elimination and removal of officers from task forces; the elimination of support personnel; the reduction of investigative positions; the exodus of over 400 experienced members of the department; and the lack of any real hiring, has rendered the men and women of the San Diego Police Department incapable of doing the job expected of us. This is not due to a lack of ability, desire or willingness, but more a result of no longer being able to do more with less. Don't you hate hearing that phrase; "Do more with less?"

The public expects the same level of service they have become accustomed . The problem is simply a matter of having our hands tied and our limbs cut off. Take as an example; a service area that five years ago had a Detective Sergeant, five Detectives, and Investigative Aide to investigate reported crime and no less than five patrol officers and a patrol Sergeant in the field at any given time; now being policed by two detectives and often no more than three officers and a field Sergeant. The service area shares a Detective Sergeant; the Investigative Aide has been replaced with a volunteer (can't wait for the first court appearance) and three detectives who retired or transferred were never replaced. This service area is a growing area where there is still new housing being built and the population has grown by leaps and bounds over the past seven years.

We have eliminated our horse patrol and harbor unit; reduced the number of canine units and moved patrol officers from field duties into positions whose duties were performed by the now eliminated civilian support person. The smoke is thinning out and the mirrors quickly loosing their luster as critical incidents occur and the ability of public safety in San Diego to respond, exposed. Minimum staffing for patrol officers has been cut to unsafe and unacceptable levels throughout the city. The fire department has resorted to rolling brown outs, closing up to eight (8) fire stations daily to save money. Life Guards are now filling the hole left by the loss of the SDPD Harbor Unit, at the expense of life guards in towers and available for water and surf rescues, expanding their area of responsibility to as much as 50% on some beaches.

If history is any indication, as we move closer to the summer months, crime will increase and the level of violence will escalate. While many will have the public believe crime is at an all time low, reality is, crime is increasing. The apathy of victims, coupled with the inability of officers and citizens to connect in a timely manner, have resulted in fewer crimes being reported. Residential and commercial thefts of all type (Burglary, Grand Theft, Petty Theft, Embezzlement, Extortion, Auto Burglary) are epidemic in virtually every community of San Diego. Citizen apathy has resulted in many to just clean up the mess and move on. Many will tell you they believe nothing will come of reporting their crime, while others will tell you they do not want to report the crime to insurance for fear of higher premiums. Then there are those who will attempt to make a report only to fail in their attempts. The victim will be referred to the telephone Report Unit, where they will be placed in the Que, which at any given time could contain 300-500 victims waiting ahead of them. After waiting several days, the victim moves on and no report is completed.

The elephant in the room right now is the fear of many officers; who is going to be the officer killed because of these cuts? The lack of adequate and safe staffing and the lack of experience has in the past contributed to more officer deaths in San Diego than any city in America. In the 1970's and 80's we lost 12 officers in rapid succession. We spent years building a department that provided for a safe citizenry and at the same time expanding and improving training that allowed for fewer officer injuries and deaths. The use of canines, SWAT, air support, less than lethal weapons and adequate staffing of experienced officers, contributed to this safety and security. We have fewer experienced officers in the field; fewer canines; and now we hear one helicopter is grounded for required maintenance the city is balking at paying for. The fuse has been lit and we are all waiting for the result.

When is the public going to understand the dangers facing them as a result of the cuts to public safety in San Diego? Ignorance is bliss until someone dies. Who will it be?

Latitude 33.051047 Longitude -117.076578

2010-03-09T23:08:00.000-08:00

So if a crime is committed in close proximity to the location identified in the title above, which law enforcement agency would bear the responsibility for the investigation?

In law enforcement circles, territorial turf wars are commonplace. Protecting one's turf is often about ego, pride, and maybe even a sense of responsibility. Folklore has officers from one jurisdiction squaring off to fight officers of another jurisdiction over whose responsibility a particular investigation may fall to. Many of these stories center around an officer or jurisdiction not wanting to take on an investigation, in an area they believe is the responsibility of the other. Seldom if ever do you hear of an officer or agency squaring off to fight to take on an investigation, when that investigation involves a crime committed in the other agencies community.

On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Chelsea King headed off in the early afternoon for a run. Chelsea, a student at Poway High school, lived with her parents in the city of Poway. When Chelsea failed to return from her run, her parents frantically began searching for her. Chelsea's car and cell phone were found near latitude 33.051047 and longitude -117.076578, also known as the Rancho Bernardo Community Park, which is located west of Interstate 15 and South of Lake Hodges. The Rancho Bernardo Community Park and the walking trails West of Interstate 15 along the southern edges of Lake Hodges, are all part of the City of San Diego and policed by officers from the Northeastern Division of the San Diego Police Department.

The tragedy and circumstances surrounding this despicable act, perpetrated by a registered sex offender, were quickly identified by members of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. It appears the initial missing persons report was received and documented by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. As law enforcement descended upon the Rancho Bernardo Community Park to begin their search for Chelsea and the investigation into the circumstances surrounding her disappearance, something out of the norm occurred. Rumors quickly began to spread as word leaked out that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department was in charge and leading the investigation. Whispers in cubicles and hallways within the San Diego Police Department questioned what was going on.

As the events unfolded Friday and into Saturday, information being provided to the press was coming from the Sheriff. The San Diego Police Department appeared to be taking a backseat, in the investigation of an extremely heinous crime, that appeared to have occurred in the city of San Diego; their jurisdiction. Those quiet whispers turned loud as frustrated, embarrassed, and bewildered veteran officers, detectives and supervisors began to question their role and responsibility for a crime that appeared to have been committed in their jurisdiction.

With the arrest on Sunday afternoon of a suspect, the desire to locate Chelsea became even stronger. Little if any information was being released that would give any indication as to the direction the investigation was headed. By Monday, the coffee chatter had nothing but praise for the quick apprehension of a suspect by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. This same chatter began to question the lack of participation and involvement of the San Diego Police Department.

On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Chelsea's body was discovered in a shallow grave feet from the water's edge of Lake Hodges. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department had clearly risen to the occasion and shown their professionalism, experience, and expertise as they methodically and tirelessly investigated this heinous crime. The Sheriff spared no expense and used every available resource to give his deputies and detectives the ability to apprehend the suspect and bring Chelsea home.

A number of questions have arisen regarding the San Diego Police Department's lack of involvement in this case. These questions are not coming from members of the department alone. Was this lack of involvement the result of a dollars and cents decision? Did the Sheriff assert his authority as the lead law-enforcement officer in the county and accept responsibility for the investigation based on his knowledge of the resources available from within the San Diego Police Department? Why did the San Diego Police Department take a backseat in an investigation of a crime perpetrated within their jurisdiction? Was there, at the time, a belief that the San Diego Police Department is no longer capable of handling a case of such magnitude? These and many other questions beg for answers.

It is curious that through all of this, the mayor was not available to offer reassurances to the citizens, nor to offer explanation for the reason the sheriff of the county took control of an investigation within the city. The noticeable absence of the mayor and ranking members of the San Diego Police Department, as well as little or no mention of the involvement of the San Diego Police Department at the various press conferences and updates, have not gone unnoticed.

San Diego should be proud of the Sheriff's Department for their professionalism, dedication, determination, expertise and willingness to do whatever necessary to bring Chelsea home and apprehend the individual responsible for this despicable crime. Citizens in San Diego should at the same time demand answers to the questions being posed above. They should also question the ability of law enforcement to provide for their safety.

Keep Chelsea and her family in your thoughts and prayers as well as Amber Dubois and her family.

Pigs Flying in San Diego

2010-03-08T20:34:00.000-08:00

Just to clarify the title of today's post; the pig was wearing lipstick and I saw it fly by my window at Headquarters around 1415 hours headed south west. I know some of you are thinking that maybe it's the oxycodone talking and right now it could be, but around two o'clock today my phone went off and I started reading a string of tweets from Twitter. The first in the string came from Lani Lutar of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association who said she was "at City Hall listening to pension presentation by actuary together with April Boling and Bill Sheffler." The next message posted by Ms. Lutar said, "This is huge. RT @dillonliam: goldsmith: employees could be on the hook for investment losses http://bit.ly/d8AOuP ." I quickly followed the link that Ms. Lutar provided in her tweet and it led me to the Voice of San Diego and an article written by Dillon Liam, that had city attorney, Jan Goldsmith, wondering if city employees should share some of the investment risk with taxpayers in the employees pension system.

After quickly reading Liam's article, I responded to Ms. Lutar's tweet by saying, "I saw a pig fly by my window this afternoon and thought I was seeing things. It had lipstick on too. Get real." My tweet went to Ms. Lutar and Dillon Liam to which Liam responded, "talk to Mr. Goldsmith and watch the meeting going on now." The meeting Liam was referring to was a City Council meeting where the city attorney was again providing one of his famous or infamous legal opinions, regarding the charter's requirement that the city and its employees contribute a "substantially equal" amount of certain pension costs. I quickly replied to Liam's tweet, "no need to Liam... the law does not support his Alice in Wonderland ideas. Do your own research for heaven's sake."

One of the major difficulties facing the City of San Diego besides incompetence, ignorance, lack of institutional knowledge, the inability or refusal to investigate and understand the history behind past actions, is the fact voters in this town seem to elect complete dolts. I wonder how many of the elected officials in this town have aluminum foil covering their windows. I find it absolutely pathetic that a person in the position Jan Goldsmith holds, would sit on the dais at a city Council meeting, in the eighth largest city in America, and make such statements. (The attorney representing SDCERS disagrees with this analisis and opinion)

If this was not such a serious issue, it would be comical from the perspective that you have two, purportedly intelligent, college-educated, legal professionals, reviewing the same language from a section in the charter and yet their "legal opinions" are so diametrically opposed it is hard to believe they are offering an opinion on the same topic. Why? Politics or ignorance? Incompetence? I did try to get a better look at that pig this afternoon, I wanted to know if it was male or female, but it turned and flew away so fast I missed it.

I'm sure there's going to be more on this issue in the very near future and I can't wait to see how many jump on the bandwagon before the wheels fall off. So far we've got Liam at the Voice of San Diego; Ms. Lutar and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association; the little rube no doubt has his dancing shoes on and party favors bouncing off the ceiling at home; and don't dismiss the mayor, who is no doubt sitting in his office with his feet on the desk, and that supercilious look he always wears, thrusting his fist in the air saying "You go Jan."

Time to apply ice to my hand and take another mind altering drug and drift off to sleep. Oh what will San Diego and our elected band of fools bring us tomorrow?

Another Budget Deficit

2010-03-07T20:51:00.000-08:00

I've had a lot of time to sit and read since I had my finger operated on last Wednesday. Let me apologize early on for any typos or grammar errors that may be left behind when I hit the publish button. A combination of oxycodone and my use of Dragon Naturally Speaking, could be a recipe for disaster, but I am going to give it a try. I spent a lot of time reading the Voice of San Diego, San Diego News Network, SignOnSanDiego, the Reason Magazine, as well as cruising the little rube's website, "Cleanup San Diego."

I'm not sure what's going on at the Voice of San Diego. Over the past several months, their writing and investigative reporting has not been up to what it used to be. Their new fact check blog section at times glosses over the real issues. It's almost as if those that are caught fabricating, twisting, or exaggerating facts are being given a free pass. This is what's wrong with the relationship media has with politicians, in my humble opinion. It's almost as if the Voice of San Diego is starting to buy into the rhetoric.

I sat shaking my head the other day as I read where the city of San Diego is now facing an additional $30 million deficit and people were somehow surprised. I've said from the beginning, the massive cuts the mayor has undertaken will do little to cure the budget problems the city is facing. Until the politicians in this city accept the fact they must create new revenue streams; they can continue to cut until there are no services being provided by government and they will still face sizable deficits year in and year out. The shortsighted cuts the mayor has undertaken by eliminating jobs and services, have in reality, created part of the additional deficit recently realized. The only way for the mayor to reduce the retirement deficit, is to increase contributions and reduce benefits . The mayor has reduced the retirement benefits. The problem is, he has also eliminated the addition of new members into the system which has reduced the income, requiring a larger payment from the city. The mayor's solutions have been shortsighted and in the long run will prove to be costly.

I can guarantee when all is said and done, the new deficit will be much greater than $30 million. In the coming weeks this number will grow to $60 million or more and the mayor will blame the state, the economy and the president. It will not be anything he did, even though he's been the mayor now for the better part of six years. This Mayor will saunter along and at the end of his glorious tenure in 2012, he will blame past administrations and everyone else for the failures of his administration. The Mayor is going to take credit for the recent outsourcing of some of the computer services in the city of San Diego. Let us not forget the company offering the lowest bid was not selected and when calling for after hours assistance, you are speaking with someone in India. But the Mayor outsourced a city service and he is going to take the credit.

The little rube is at it again with his; City Employee Compensation Analysis, dated March 3, 2010. The little rube uses this report to show the true cost analysis for city positions. As only the little rube can do, he spins, exaggerates, and flat out lies about the true cost associated with various positions within the city of San Diego. On page 8 of the little rube's compensation analysis, the little rube lists the salary cost of a Police Officer II. The rube is a master at using numbers to argue or make a point. In this instance, the rube includes a variety of costs in an attempt to poison the taxpayer. His way of making the numbers appear legitimate, the little rube pulls the numbers from various reports generated by the City, SDCERS, and others. As an example of the spin tactics employed by the little rube he indicates the city will spend 38.11% or $26,533 toward a Police Officer II's compensation. The real number is less than half this amount and the little rube knows it. In his compensation analysis the little rube adds such items as Medicare payments, disability insurance, risk management administration, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation insurance premium payments, and "other post employment benefits" as part of the employees compensation. These costs are in no way part of employees compensation. While they may very well be costs associated with an employee, they are not part of his or her compensation package. This is just another way for the little Rube to poison the well so to speak and give taxpayers a false indication of the realities of what employees receive for the services they provide. We all deserve better.

It's time to take the headphones and microphone off and put some ice on my hand and call it a night. Have a great week ahead and be safe.

I'm Back from the Break

2010-02-25T22:09:00.000-08:00

I took a little break in hopes of losing some of the caustic thoughts swimming in my head over the past several weeks. I have tried several times to put some thoughts to words and had trouble over and over writing these thoughts and keeping them clean enough for posting and at the same time trying to keep to my promise to maintain a BLOG that anyone could read. When I started writing almost a year ago now the best feedback I received was the steer clear of the caustic, vulgar, offensive language and keep the personal attacks on the shelf.

Watching the actions of various so called leaders in this city has made keeping these promises very difficult. Seeing good people suffer while being forced out of jobs they love and then being completely eviscerated when told of the job they can "bump" into (golf starter, storm drain cleaner, lawnmower driver, janitor, water police, to name just a few) at a fraction of the pay, is frustrating and painful. Some, who do not understand the personal impact and tragedy of these circumstances, think their words of "Hey, at least you have a job" is in some way consoling and supportive. They are not!!!

These are people who have given their heart and soul to the citizens of San Diego and performed professional jobs that did more than support their sworn co-workers. Some are months from reaching the age for retirement and do not have the ability to "bump" into other positions. The jobs they performed for us and the citizens still must be done. The jobs, tasks, and responsibilities were not eliminated but shifted to sworn members of the department. The non-sworn, support professional was sent packing to save money and help close a budget deficit. To ensure these jobs, tasks and responsibilities are done, sworn officers were pulled from the field to fill these many positions.

An already dismally understaffed patrol force again feels the effects of losing more officers. There are those who will say that isn't so. There are officers from canine, the harbor unit, and horse patrol who have gone back to patrol because their positions were also cut. Yes, this is true. But let us not forget these officer WERE ALL part of what patrol does on a daily basis. Their positions being eliminated saved less than many of us paid in taxes this year. Who is kidding who here?

April Boling talked about the civic problems that concerned her most in a recent interview with the Voice of San Diego. In the interview, Boling made the following statement and observation; "As municipalities cut back services, criminal investigation and and crime prevention are affected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that a reduction in reported crime equates to a reduction in crime." This is something many of us have been saying for a while now. Is anyone listening and more importantly does anyone care?

The mayor is playing duck and cover as the details of the so called "savings" from outsourcing the computer help desk duties for the City is being made public. In a Union Tribune article, it was disclosed that the company who was awarded the contract was not the lowest bidder and did not disclose the night time help would be provided from India. As pressure builds to keep the jobs in the United States, the company says to do so will cost an ADDITIONAL $80,000. So much for saving the taxpayers money. I can guarantee this is not the last we will hear about this issue. This is the first example of what is to come as more jobs are outsourced.

Did you hear the little rube was cited for talking on his cell phone while driving? It was reported in the Union Tribune the rube rolled a stop sign while talking on his cellular telephone and was stopped. The officer issued a "warning" for the stop sign violation and cited the rube for talking on the phone. This is an example of why the legislature found it important to create this law. Inattentive drivers, self absorbed in their world, talking on the telephone, not paying attention to their driving. What would have happened had a young child, running after a ball had run into the path of the rube's car? Would he have been able to stop or take evasive action? The answer is NO; not at all. His attention was not on driving, the world around him or the safety of others.

Brian Marvel, SDPOA President spoke this morning at the monthly Sergeant's Association meeting. He discussed the promotions process; negotiations; and the status of the POA. There is a lot going on and we are greatly disadvantaged by not having our President working full time on our behalf. The elimination of the "Presidential Leave" is just another example of the mayor doing everything within his power to hamper, hinder and eliminate employee advocates ability to advocate for the member. Brian has not been deterred and is working hard on behalf of the member.

Charles Kindred posted a quote from General H. Norman Schwarzkopf on his Facebook the other day. The quote went something like this; "You can't help someone get up a hill without getting closer to the top yourself." I enjoyed a spirited exchange with this one. What do you think of this quote?

Well, it is time to close this rant and say good night. Be safe and have a good weekend.

Promotion Commotion

2010-02-11T23:41:00.000-08:00

If you have not heard the clamor or uproar about the promotions list released today, you are either deaf or out of touch. The fermentation of those competing for the prized golden ring of promotion conjures up a whole list of feelings; agitation, annoyance, ballyhoo, bedlam, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, convulsion, disquiet, dither, excitement, uprising, rumpus, lather, furor, perturbation, hurly-burly. Yes, I took these descriptors from the dictionary and chose ones that most fit the goings on today around the Department. The final scores are out and now the fun starts for those hoping against all hope of grabbing hold of that prized “gold plated ring.” The categories are all set and the games begin for those who find themselves in the top categories. Candidates are creating lists, trying to determine who they are competing against all as the stomachs begin to growl and the teeth grind.

I am sitting on the sidelines this time, having gotten the message from my last experience and have to laugh, but at the same time cry for those in the center of this rumpus (I love this word). It is painful to watch those who have worked so hard to do their job, prove themselves and put themselves into a position to be considered for promotion, only to realize being number one or two or three or even seven on the list really means nothing. They studied for weeks on end in hopes they would miss the fewest questions on the written test. They waited for the results and when they realized they were “in the running” they paid for seminars to prepare for the oral interview in hopes of improving their position. They then practiced their delivery and participated in mock interviews and sought guidance and advice from those in positions of authority and leadership on how best to interview and project their abilities to win over the interview panels.

The promotion list for Sergeant and Lieutenant candidates are set and those in contention know where they stand on the list. Candidates are crunching numbers, hoping they are high enough to be “Certified” when that time comes for promotion. The requirements developed by Civil Service and City Personnel for candidates have been completed and by all rights that should be the end. The decision should be made from the list of certified candidates using the background information provided during the process; each candidate providing equal data during a specific time period and verified by personnel. The Command Staff of Captains and Chiefs should then meet to discuss the candidates using ONLY this information and selections then made. But, that is not how it is done and the candidates are not finished with the process.

The next step in the “process” is what has contributed to the agitation, annoyance, ballyhoo, bedlam, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, convulsion, disquiet, dither, excitement, uprising, rumpus, lather, furor, perturbation, hurly-burly. Some refer to the process as “Kissing the ring of the Chiefs.” Some candidates get the opportunity to meet with all of the chiefs; others meet with several; and some with none at all. Candidates are asked various questions; seldom the same questions; some candidates spend ten minutes with a particular chief while another may spend an hour with the same chief; some candidates will provide a resume and others will not. There is no set guideline or definition for how or what will take place, nor is there a guarantee every candidate will be given the “opportunity” to participate. Up to this point, all candidates were on equal footing. That all goes out the window as this next step in the process begins. I am not going to debate the benefits or flaws in this venture but will say in my opinion this “informal” process is patently unfair and clearly not vetted by Civil Service or City Personnel to ensure all candidates are afforded the same opportunity and treatment. Maybe it’s just me but for an organization that demands its employees practice fairness and equal treatment in everything they do, it fails them by not providing fair and equal treatment in this promotional process.

The golden ring for promotion is a carrot dangled on a long pole attached to a short string. Dangled in front and slightly out of reach for most, the carrot is there to provide hope. That hope translates into desire and the desire translates into abuse. The number of hoops hung in the halls of substation after substation that candidates must jump through has become ridiculous. Those vying for the small number of promotions start out with the best of intentions as they work a few extra minutes on their own. They “volunteer” for this and that and take on tasks and responsibilities of others to show prowess and dedication. Candidates don’t see their actions as wrong or out of line and do not feel used. They have hope, desire and a willingness to do “whatever” they are told so they can stand out and rise above their competitor. They jump through hoop after hoop in hopes of standing out. They grab for that carrot and hope, all while doing whatever is asked and never complaining or refusing for fear of being passed over.

The climate created around promotions has grown to something hard to describe in a way that makes any sense. Watching good people struggle daily to focus on their responsibilities because of the internal strife the process has created is troubling. Who will put a stop to the madness? At a time when we all need to trust one another and pay attention to detail; we find our most talented, distracted by a process they have no control over. The rumors are beginning as to who is where on what list and who is best placed to get promoted first. Human nature allows those involved in the process to be nervously irresolute, taking away from their ability to excel and perform to their potential. Can anyone say counter-productive? It is the process, official or not, but at some point we all need to re-focus and ignore the brouhaha created by the puppet masters and do our job.

Good luck to all the candidates who put themselves out there; studied for the written test and put forth your best in the oral interview.

Give the Mayor a Raise

2010-02-03T21:55:00.000-08:00

Here we go again. The City’s Salary Setting Commission has again recommended pay raises for the mayor and City Council. This year the commission is not just recommending a pay raise, they are recommending a HUGE PAY RAISE. The recommendation for the mayor translates to a $135,536 raise from $100,464 to a whopping $235,000. The City Council would be equally rewarded for their hard work and diligence (in theory folks) with a raise of just less than $100,000 to add to their $75,386 salary.

Now before you all start screaming what a croc of poo this is, I need to admit I actually agree with the premise of raising the salary of our elected leaders. Let us take the persons who occupy the current elected positions out of the discussion and focus on the positions. The old adage, “You get what you pay for” could not be more clear and obvious until you look at the current group of elected persons running this city.

Why would anyone with a brain, experience, and ability to make a difference, leave a good paying private sector job to run for election, for a job that pays less than a tenured police officer? Add to this the hours one would devote to the position, the wear and tear and miles on one’s personal vehicle, and the out of pocket cost for medical insurance. Why would a normal person seek this job unless it were simply for ego, power or some other narcissistic need?

We expect and demand (those of us who pay attention and care) that our mayor be an honest, experienced, educated and dedicated person who understands finance, budget, personnel, politics and has an above average ability to communicate honesty with us taxpayers. When we pay $100,464 to that person, you need look no further than the current person occupying the mayor’s office to understand the need to elevate the pay to attract a higher quality individual.

The mayor has begun to sound off reasons for refusing the recommendations of the commission. He is taking the political high road in his refusal to accept the increases. The council will no doubt follow suit and simply for political reasons. They would be crucified, if they for a millisecond, discussed accepting the recommendation. That is too bad.

The intelligent course of action would be to set a plan in motion to increase the salary for elected members in future years, so as not to affect the salary of the current elected members. The salary for the mayor should be increased incrementally as suggested beginning in 2012 when the next mayor takes office. The same would follow for city council positions, beginning with the city council positions up for election in 2012.

BEFORE any of this can occur, the mayor and council, need to correct the current structural problems with the city’s budget. To do this the mayor and council MUST increase revenue and begin to charge taxpayers the normal cost of services. Until the days of a free ride are put behind this city, nothing will change. The Chargers, Padres, Rock and Roll Marathon, Street Scene, Movie details and the many other special events that are subsidized by taxpayers, must pay the cost of the services necessary to hold their events. The Transient Occupancy Tax, which is the lowest of any major city, needs to be raised substantially and the revenue used to fund public safety and begin funding retiree medical.

The mayor and council must also begin paying their fair share of the retirement contribution necessary to fund their retirement. Their current contribution of 9.06% of the 39.59% required, must be brought in line with the premise of “Substantially Equal” and they must contribute 19.8% to receive their current benefit of 3.5% per year of elected service.

The mayor and council must also act to restore the positions eliminated from the police department as well as the wages and benefits of police officers. None of this will happen with the current mayor in the position of “strong mayor.” He does not have the ability to be honest nor is he capable of putting his inflated ego on the shelf and admitting he has been less than truthful from the beginning about DROP and the other benefits earned by police officers. He continues the politics by refusing to disclose the contents of a DROP study already conducted to determine cost neutrality and stonewalls providing information on the second study he is seeking in hopes of altering reality. I go back to the initial conversation I had with the mayor prior to him first being elected and his comment about DROP, “It’s political, I won’t get elected telling the truth about DROP.”

I’m headed to the eastern Sierra tomorrow to do some fishing. I hope to dodge a few rain drops, a little bit of snow and float down the Owens River trying to outdo last year’s catch. I’m going to do a bit of reading, some writing and relax. I have a couple of rants in my head and will find the time to put them to paper and post while I am gone. Be safe and take care of each other. Go Saints.

You be the Judge - Is he a Hypocrite?

2010-01-28T22:43:00.000-08:00

If there is anyone out there who currently works for the City of San Diego and still supports the mayor of this town, I want you to read closely what I have discovered over the past couple of evenings. If this does not change your thinking, I will assume you work in his office or live in his house.

The mayor took a deferred retirement from the police department when he left after 26 years of service. At age 50 he was eligible to begin drawing his pension of approximately $84,000. In 2005, when the mayor ran for election he said, “If elected mayor, I will remove any position of conflict by not re-entering the pension system. Additionally, I will donate back to the city the portion of my mayoral salary equivalent to my pension benefits to eliminate any double dipping.”

When first elected the mayor took a salary of $36,000 along with his $84,000 retirement benefit. His annual salary with the two combined payments totaled $112,000. When re-elected to a second term, the mayor secretly began taking his full salary of $100,464 annually and his retirement had grown to $92,400, for an annual salary of $192,864.

Remember the mayor said he was not going to re-enter the retirement system and told everyone he would not “double-dip.” Well, he either lied to everyone to get elected (say it's not so) or he plum forgot his promise and had someone sign him up to gain the benefit of his time as mayor.

Now here is the part that should piss off every taxpayer, employee, supporter or non-supporter of the mayor. According to SDCERS actuary Cheiron, in their June 30, 2009, Actuarial Valuation, in Section IV, Contributions, on page 21 of their January, 8, 2010, report, it indicates the “Total Normal Cost Rate for Current Members” (Contribution rate for Elected Members) is 39.59% with the City paying 30.53% and the elected member paying 9.06%. Let’s compare safety’s contribution of 29.26% for police and 29.36% for fire with the City paying 16.04% of police and 15.96% for fire while the employee pays 13.22% for police and 13.40% for fire. The contribution for the General worker is 19.90% with the City paying 9.12% and the employee paying 10.78%. Remember, the mayor reneged on years old promises of the city picking up portions of these contributions in lieu of pay raises (which saved the city money) and forced employees to make these payments (as well as reducing wages and flexible benefit dollars). There has been NO CHANGE to the contributions of elected officials and they still receive additional dollars for their flexible benefits..

Elected officials earn 3.5% per year of elected service and ONLY pay 9.06% of the 39.59% contribution. So a person, who is elected to mayor or city council and serves eight years, stands to receive 28% of their highest salary as a retirement. The mayor will serve two terms totaling 7 years. He would receive 24.5% of his highest one year’s salary or about $24,622; if he were participating in the retirement system. Remember he said he was not going to participate.

Turns out the mayor IS PARTICIPATING in the retirement system for Elected Members after all. He is positioning himself to add more than $24,000, to his $92,400 Safety Retirement. He is doing this and ONLY PAYING 9.06% while Police Officers pay 13.22% and earn 3% per year of service, Fire personnel pay 13.40%, earning 3% per year of service and General workers pay 10.78% earning 2.5% per year of service.

The mayor has been cutting, eliminating and changing our wages and benefits at will, all while secretly increasing his own. When will the public wake up and realize they are being lied to and taken for a ride by this transparent politician? When will the press stop pandering to him and the little rube and start to do their due diligence? Crime is down; city employee retirements are excessive; I’m being promoted to Captain; and the mayor is telling you the truth. I also have some land for sale that is great beach front property; I am free to show it on any night there is no moon and the tide is low.

If just once there was a reporter who would write a story telling the truth about the retirement benefits of city employees; I would be grateful. To see a reporter explain in detail that 90% is the MAXIMUM retirement benefit ANY EMPLOYEE retiring from the city is capable of receiving and not the 130% the little rube says every time he opens his mouth; I would be grateful. If that reporter would explain the “pick-up” the city asked employees to accept in lieu of pay raises and how it saved the city millions of dollars; I would be grateful. If that reporter would accurately write about the city’s request in 1981, employees leave Social Security for the promise of lifetime retiree medical insurance to be provided by the City, so the City could save millions of dollars; I would be grateful.

I know I am asking a lot of a reporter in San Diego. But, heck; can’t we all have a dream?

Crime is Down; Let's Celebrate - RIGHT

2010-01-27T21:13:00.000-08:00

Did you catch the latest numbers released today showing crime is down in San Diego? If you missed them don't fret, they were like everything else in this city; baloney. As with any statistic it is all in what and how the information is compiled. I was writing my rant in my pea brain today as I drove home in traffic, when I received the below press release from the SDPOA. I think this release hit a grand slam explaining the flaws with the results of the Uniform Crime Report Data and the claim of record low crime in San Diego.

For Immediate Release
Uniform Crime Report Data Not True Indicator of Crime in San Diego
Selective Inclusion of Crime Details Results in Deceptively Low Statistics

San Diego, CA – January 27, 2010 – The San Diego Police Officers Association, Inc. (SDPOA) today urges restraint over celebrating today’s crime statistics announcement by the City of San Diego and issued the following statement from Brian R. Marvel, president of the San Diego Police Officers Association:

“The SDPOA is always proud of the men and women who wear the uniform and play such a key role in keeping San Diegans safe. Any decrease in crime rate is a commendable event; however, we believe that it is a disservice to citizens to not provide a full and complete picture of actual crime statistics.

When it comes to reviewing crime rate statistics, as is the case with any data, it is important to remember that the manner of calculating results can be more telling than the actual results.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) that produced today’s crime data released by the City of San Diego does not fully reflect actual crime rate for San Diego. The UCR qualifies its own rankings by saying that the data does not provide insight into many variables and can ‘lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses.’ The UCR openly states that the rankings are a quick overview and can create misleading perceptions about actual crime rate.

For example, the report states that the number of rapes is down, but that only constitutes one of 17 sex crimes reported to the police department. The UCR does not take into account date rape by drugs, same sex rape and spousal rape, to name a few.

All victims of crimes deserve to have their crimes identified and reported yet the UCR reporting process does not reflect all crime data from a major municipality like San Diego. As a result, incomplete data is often used to report on increases or decreases in the crime rate.

The SDPOA would like to work to develop a crime data analysis system that provides the public with an accurate assessment of San Diego’s actual crime rate. The information provided by the Uniform Crime Report could be one component of such a comprehensive analysis; however, it should not be the sole data source for reporting on the current crime rate in America’s Finest City.”

The Uniform Crime Report cautions agencies from relying exclusively on UCR data as the sole indicator of crime in their area. The advisory states, in part; “These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city county, state, region or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/about/variables_affecting_crime.html

About the San Diego Police Officers Association
The San Diego Police Officers Association (SDPOA) is the only recognized bargaining unit for the over 1,800 members of the San Diego Police Department. The SDPOA was established in 1912 and incorporated in 1953 to assist San Diego police officers in issues related to wages, hours and working conditions. The SDPOA also aids members and their families in sickness, distress and death, and strives to improve social relations and welfare among the members. The San Diego Police Officers Association members include over 98% of the San Diego Police force and represent all ranks within the department, including the Chief of Police.

Visit; http://www.sdpoa.org/

Reality is, "REPORTED" crime is down; not crime itself. Citizens calling to report crimes are often directed to the telephone report unit, only to find themselves waiting extended periods of time (hours turn into days) and often are not following through on their reporting out of frustration due to the long wait or lack of follow through (missed call backs or no call back at all). Many more citizens are simply not even making the effort to report their crimes because they believe, and rightly so, that nothing will come of the report. More alarming is the number of crimes being "Maytag-ed" by officers on a routine basis. Trying to keep up with calls for service and remain free for priority calls, which are up and more violent than in the past, officers are finding excuses for not completing crime reports in all instances.

The other statistic I found troubling is the claim response times remained low for the three highest priority calls. Officers responded to over 660,000 calls for service, with the severity of calls increasing from the prior year. Officers responded to more calls with the potential for violence and at the same time fielded fewer officers to handle these calls. By the grace of god and a lot of luck we were spared the loss of an officer in 2009. How much longer can ou luck hold? With the number of new, energetic and enthusiastic officers in the field and fewer experienced officers, the odds are largely against us.

The claims today do not surprise me but give cause for concern. Painting a picture of all is well and San Diego is safer than ever is a disservice to the citizens we serve. We strive to earn the support of the public and yet on a daily basis we let so many down. The citizen who was a victim, sitting at home watching the news report these low crime statistics, will no doubt have a different opinion knowing the truth about their experience.

Here is a statistic I would challenge you to look at; determine how many calls were received by communications; routed to the telephone report unit; and how many actual reports were taken. This would no doubt provide insight into the reason for the low numbers, but not support any claim of lower crime.

Exposed Nerve?

2010-01-26T23:31:00.000-08:00

I guess I exposed a nerve last night when I wrote about my observations and concerns with the San Diego Police Officers Association's communications/lobbyist. I heard from a number of active and retired officers, all voicing their concerns about a myriad of issues. Central to their concerns is a perceived lack of action from the SDPOA Board of Directors and their silence on issues surrounding retiree medical benefits and the constant threats of rollbacks to these and other benefits.

It is always a good read when SDPOA Board Member "Free Radical" aka Woody Dubois comments. He can always be counted upon to be fired up and say what’s on his mind. His comment to my rant was no exception. But I have a question FR/WD; if you were in a meeting with CALPERS trying to work out a solution to this difficult issue, why were you responding to my post and some of the other comments, instead of focusing your thoughts and energy on the task at hand (it’s a rhetorical question)? I appreciate the comments and the information provided but would question the timing.

The number one issue for many of those I have talked with recently is retiree health insurance. Thinking outside of the box and researching every possibility is what it is going to take to solve this and many of the other critical issues facing the members of the SDPOA. Beginning the discussion with CALPERS is the first in a million step process. Have the other unions collectively agreed to this venture? Without ALL of their participation and agreement, this discussion is a non-starter. The sad part of thinking outside the box and trying to find new and innovative solutions is the SDPOA cannot do it alone. But it is this type of thinking and action the members are clamoring for from their POA.

To the naysayers and critics of the SDPOA Board of Directors, I wish to offer some observations and comments. I can be quick to ridicule or challenge when I perceive lack of action or indifference on the part of the board. The reliance on technology to communicate a message to constituents is often met with frustration on the part of the recipient of the intended information. No one medium is best for getting a message out to a mass of people except good old fashion one on one or group talk that involves the delivery of accurate and detailed information followed up with open and honest feedback. The frustration of the member is heightened when he or she perceives nothing is being done on their behalf. Rumors begin to float about and apathy soon follows when information is not transmitted in a manner that reaches its intended target. Being a board member is a thankless and tireless job. There will always be those who think board members are not doing enough; are in over their head; or think they can do a better job. When these same people get elected they find out just how difficult it is to communicate in a timely manner the actions of the board on behalf of the member. The SDPOA e-mail blast is only as good as the message being sent; the SDPOA forum is like this blog in that only a handful of people (same 10-12 people) share their thoughts while many will lurk in the shadows reading the comments of a few; the Informant is a poor medium lacking timely or detailed information on the issues of negotiations, labor relations or concerns of members; the SDPOA phone blast has a limited ability to provide any real information; and the Choir Practice which I have found to be sparsely attended and not effective are all good and bad at the same time. I applaud the board for the effort, but reliance on these message delivery mechanisms fall short of desired results.

I may not agree with the actions or direction of the SDPOA, but I am a strong supporter of the Association. I freely voice my opinion and often ask questions of board members. I believe it is the silent majority that need be prodded to get involved if we are ever going to make a difference as a group. The loudest voice or most ardent critic is not always the opinion most widely held by the masses. But, like the little rube and his message, if left unchecked becomes the most widely held belief. The comments posted on this blog are a small sample of the perceptions or beliefs held by those who take the time to write. I do not judge or filter comments to my blog. I have rejected the comments from one individual who I know and will not allow this person to participate on my blog. The person is not a member of the police department or association; never has been and does not even live in the state.

I will continue to rant and speak out. My perceptions; personal observations; thoughts; snippets of wisdom; and a little bit of random insanity, will be posted for all to see. I welcome others to be insightful and share their thoughts so we can contemplate and debate issues in a civil and open forum. I would urge you to become educated and involved in your association and take an active role in the changes you desire. The nine directors cannot do it alone. They need your help and they need you to hold them accountable as the same time. They in turn need be open to criticisms and feedback without striking out in anger when the message is not to their liking.

What I hear from members more than anything else is their desire for someone to counter those voices most in the public who paint our benefits in a false light and tell the taxpayers all is well. They want someone, anyone, to stand up for them and tell the truth. No one has suggested throwing rocks at the mayor. What is being suggested is someone to accurately and consistently articulate the reality of police officer wages, benefits and working conditions; to counter the message the little rube is preaching with real facts; and to do this in a professional manner. The time and place is here and now. Waiting for a better time or a better place is simply abdicating the responsibility of doing what is right and necessary.

Be safe and support each other. We are all in this together and we are only as strong as our weakest link.

Strange Bedfellows?

2010-01-25T23:58:00.000-08:00

Sitting here this evening watching Jeopardy, I began scanning various internet news sites, Twitter, Facebook and the many BLOGS I follow regularly. While scanning the various posts on Twitter there were several that caught my eye causing me to stop and wonder. Before I get into the content, I want to lay a foundation for where this post is going.

Kimberly Hale is the lobbyist hired by the SDPOA in September 2009 to assist them with lobbying efforts and public communications. Ms. Hale is a Director at Public Policy Strategies, a lobbying firm owned by Tom Shepard, who ran the mayor’s two election campaigns. Ms. Hale is married to Darren Pudgil, the mayor’s communications director. Ms. Hale is the Vice Chair of the San Diego County Taxpayer’s Association (SDCTA). She is also a board member for the San Diego Downtown Partnership who hail themselves as the “voice of downtown.” Ms. Hale is a part time user of Twitter and Facebook.

Lani Lutar is the President and Chief Executive Officer for the SDCTA, whose written creed is; “The San Diego Taxpayers Association is a watchdog organization that looks out for your tax dollars. SDCTA takes a leadership role in fiscal oversight of local government and aggressively resists unwarranted taxes and fees, discriminatory regulations, and ill-advised public expenditures. We challenge local government at all levels to be accessible, responsive, efficient and fair.” Ms. Lutar took over for Lisa Briggs in 2006, when Ms. Briggs accepted a job with the mayor. Ms. Briggs represented the mayor at the table during negotiations with the SDPOA and the city for several years. From 1999 to 2004, Ms. Lutar served in leadership roles on several non-partisan San Diego City council candidate campaigns. In 2005, Ms. Lutar served as an advisor for the mayor’s City Hall Reorganization group. Ms. Lutar has been a strong and loud voice in San Diego, calling for reform and advocating the reduction of police officer benefits and retirement.

Over the past several months, Ms. Lutar and Ms. Hale have traded tales of woe while sitting side by side getting pedicures; or planning this year’s SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner; or having breakfast or lunch together.

What caught my eye tonight were several Twitter posts from both ladies about their activities. Ms. Hale was hired by the SDPOA to assist them with lobbying city hall and crafting the association’s message. The mayor is clearly not a friend of the association and has gone out of his way to destroy a once proud police department and the men and women who serve San Diego. His actions dating back before his election have been detrimental to the members of the SDPOA and public safety in San Diego.

In a Twitter post on November 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “The three p's of life...talking politics and policy while getting a pedicure with Lani Lutar.”

In another Twitter post on January 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “Sitting at the Poseidon Resources' table getting ready to be sworn in by my fav Mayor Jerry Sanders.” Ms. Hale was attending the San Diego Partnership Installation Luncheon to be sworn in (not sure to what).

In another Twitter post on January 24, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Ms Hale wrote, “At breakfast with one of my besties, Lani Lutar. we heart egg whites!”

This afternoon, January 25, 2010, Ms. Hale wrote on Twitter, “We had a fab SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner planning meeting, you will love this year's theme...stay tuned.”

On January 20, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Ms. Lutar wrote on Twitter, “Go Carl! Keep it up! RT @carldemaio: I’m appeariing on CW-6 Morning Show tomorrow at 7am to talk pension reform.”

In another Twitter post by Ms. Lutar on January 12, 2010, at 10:24 PM, she wrote, “We are slowly but surely having an impact on pension reform in the region. The smaller cities rarely get media coverage for their efforts.”

There are many more posts related to “pension reform” posted by Ms. Lutar on Twitter that would concern any police officer who reads them. Ms. Lutar falls prey to the little rube, using his twisted, exaggerated and misleading information to call for further reductions and “reforms” to police officer pensions and benefits.

I think you can get the idea of why the posts on Twitter caught my eye and caused me to do a little more reading. Over the past several weeks, a number of officers have brought up Ms. Hale and what it is she does for us and more importantly whose side is she representing? Politics makes for strange bedfellows and sometimes the lines are blurred and the web broad to catch what is thrown in your general direction. Knowing where the line is and which side you occupy is extremely important, especially in politics.

The Twitter posts and the associations Ms. Hale is a part of are troubling on the surface. To whom does she truly represent? Can Ms. Hale effectively represent the interests of the SDPOA and at the same time participate in policy discussions as Vice Chair of the SDCTA or a board member of the San Diego Downtown Partnership? Does the comment written by Ms. Hale last week about the mayor generate any concern? Is it just me?

Members of the San Diego Police Officer’s Association are concerned for their future. They have seen the little rube and many others, over and over again spinning, twisting and flat out lying about their retirement. We have all sat defenseless as the little rube and others call for pension reforms thru reductions and elimination of earned and vested benefits with nary a peep from our association.

When can members expect to hear or see our message and the direction the board of directors is taking this association and its members? How much longer is the little rube going to be allowed to preach his lies before the association counters the information with factual data and stop his campaign and assault on members and their benefits? Last week the association served the mayor with a public records request seeking information related to any study the mayor may have undertaken related to DROP neutrality. This is long overdue and a welcome action on our behalf.

The members are looking for their association to do more. Is anyone listening?

Political Opinion

2010-01-24T21:47:00.000-08:00

It has been a long time since I have taken the time to read material about our pension, DROP and retiree medical. This weekend I read with interest our illustrious City Attorney’s latest attempt at a legal opinion (Opinion Number 2010-1) related to “Pension Benefits and Other Post-Employment Benefits.” “Just Wondering” beat me to the punch in detailing the highlights of this political opinion. I call it a “political” opinion because I firmly believe a first year law student could challenge much of what has been written and successfully refute the many opinions offered.

I believe, as “Just Wondering” has stated, the “opinion” is a clear play book of where the City is headed in negotiations that have just started. The city attorney’s writings will no doubt result in an “Un-Fair” labor practice complaint by the other unions when changes are imposed because the city team is unwilling to change their demands during negotiations this year. As police officers, we cannot file “Un-Fair” labor practice complaints because we are not covered by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB).

The issue most on my mind as I read the opinion is the retiree medical benefits and the changes already undertaken and changes undoubtedly coming. I entered the DROP in June of 2007. When I signed my “DROP Contract” I had to initial twenty-four (24) items agreeing to and acknowledging the terms of DROP. The title of the form; “DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP) ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE IN DROP AND AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT” is four (4) pages in length and spells out the terms.

The salient points of the agreement are in bold type. The agreement as written on the first page reads;

“Once you enter DROP, you will not be able to change your election to participate in DROP or your agreement to leave employment and retire, regardless of what happens between now and your retirement date. For example, if you elect to participate in DROP and your family circumstances change such that you would rather continue working, you still must retire at the end of your designated DROP period. Also, if any benefit improvements occur between the time you enter DROP and the date you retire, you will not be eligible for these improvements.

This Agreement is designated to help you think through your decision to participate in DROP. You should consider this decision very carefully. This Agreement asks you specific questions to ensure the Retirement Administrator and the Retirement Board that you have, in fact, carefully considered your decision to participate in DROP, and that you understand the consequences of your decision. In fact, your decision is so important that you will have 7 calendar days to reconsider your election to participate in DROP after you sign it.

Please take these questions and this Agreement very seriously. If anything is unclear, do not complete this Agreement without first speaking to a Retirement System staff for clarification.

The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts. Each is important because it demonstrates you have carefully considered your election to participate in DROP.”

The process is clear for entering DROP. Each person sits with a Retirement System staff person who explains all of the details of the agreement. On page 2 of the agreement there are ten (10) statements you must initial. The eight statement states;

“I understand that if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.”

In 2007, when I signed my DROP contract agreement, the MOU with the SDPOA for which I and the City were bound, stated I would receive retiree medical benefits; my DROP account would earn guaranteed interest in an amount equal to the amount earned by the plan (the amount to be set by the actuary as the assumed rate) and the annuity was set at 8%.

According to the agreement (contract) I signed, the city could not change these agreed upon “retirement benefits.” First the change in the amount of interest earned on DROP accounts was forced upon DROP participants; then the retiree medical insurance benefit was reduced; and finally the annuity interest rate was reduced.

According to the DROP agreement I entered into; “if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through the meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.” Remember the first line of the last paragraph on the first page of my DROP agreement; “The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts.” Yet the City Attorney has opined the city can make changes at will and I am bound by these changes. So my signature on the agreement seems to only bind ME to the agreement.

Let’s take a look at what the City Attorney wrote in his latest opinion regarding Retiree Health Insurance. Beginning on page 54 of the opinion the City Attorney discussed the “RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT.” I believe the City Attorney’s opinion is clearly not supported by the facts.

On page 59, the Purpose and Intent of Division 12 of the Municipal Code was set forth as follows:

“Effective August 1, 1997, a health insurance program shall be offered to Health Eligible Retirees as set forth in this Division. This benefit shall be administered by the Retirement System, Notwithstanding any other interpretation of law to the contrary, it is the intent of the City Council to deem this benefit as defined and vested within the meaning of City Charter section 143.1 for those individuals who are retired on the date this benefit becomes effective and thus attain the status of Health Eligible Retirees by operation of law. Health Eligible Retirees may enroll in a City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan or participate in the plan of their choice, subject to payment and reimbursement limitations set forth in this Division. For active employees, this benefit may only be modified in accordance with provisions set forth in section 23.1204 and after a vote of approval by active Members. This City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan shall include at least on HMO plan and at least one PPO plan.”

Clearly in my mind, the City Council agreed to provide retirees Health Insurance when they enacted the above Municipal Code. “The retiree health benefit was initially created when the City withdrew from the Social Security System, effective January 1, 1982. The City Council first authorized the establishment of a City-sponsored group health insurance plan for eligible retirees on January 4, 1982. The City declared that certain benefits would be provided to employees in lieu of social Security participation including City-sponsored group health insurance for eligible retirees of the City. The City Council stated, “it is the intent of this Council to provide such coverage as a permanent benefit for eligible retirees.”

When I entered DROP, I became a “Health Eligible Retiree” if you apply the ruling in Thorning v. Hollister School District, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1598 (1992). The last paragraph of the City Attorney’s political opinion clearly makes my case. The City Attorney wrote;

“In addition to the holding in Thorning, there are several factors that support the conclusion that retiree health benefits as to retirees are vested. First, unlike active employees, retirees can demonstrate a detrimental reliance on the representations and promises made by the City in relation to the provision of the benefit. Second, unlike active employees, retirees have retired with the actual provision of the benefit. Third, unlike most active employees, retirees likely were employed in the 1981-1982 time period when the City ceased Social Security participation, and in turn promised a retiree health benefit. Fourth, unlike active employees, retirees are not represented by the employee bargaining groups that negotiate changed in the benefit. Even if the court does not find the retiree health benefit to be a vested benefit for retirees, it is likely that retirees can successfully claim that the City is estopped from eliminating or detrimentally modifying their benefit.”

The contract I signed states my benefits could not be altered for the better or worse through the collective bargaining process (meet and confer). The Retirement System recognizes me as a “retired” member; the City recognizes me as an “active employee” and subject to all changes.

The City continues to alter the DROP contract I entered into in good faith. The City Attorney opines this is acceptable and the contract I signed is not binding on them. The mayor reduces retiree medical insurance, forcing hundreds to retire before anticipated and refuses to acknowledge a twenty-eight (28) year agreement entered into when then Mayor Pete Wilson asked employees to withdraw from Social Security with the promise of a City provided retiree health insurance.

The posturing, pontificating and continued attack of employees and their benefits is unconscionable. The press, members of the city council, mayor and pundits all spin, twist, exaggerate and flat out lie about current benefits with impunity. The mayor if you remember said DROP and our other retirement benefits were “political” and he refused to tell the truth about them from the very beginning. His political career more important to him than honesty, integrity, or the men and women who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.

To all of those already retired, it appears the City Attorney has put to rest any thoughts of going after any of your benefits. Rest easy and enjoy the retirement you earned and paid for. It is also clear the City Attorney has given a license to the mayor to further eviscerate retirement benefits of Police Officers.

The little rube, Lani Lutar, editorials in the Union Tribune and others continue to assail benefits earned by Police Officers as being excessive and not sustainable. The mayor made a comment at the beginning of his State of the City address that highlighted why you should all be concerned with the people who a clamoring for reductions to your benefits. The mayor was ad libbing at the beginning of the address and not following his prepared speech. He laughed and said his staff gets nervous when he goes off the script. No doubt his many handlers have been telling him he needs to satisfy the calls for further reductions and elimination of benefits.

The latest revelation the city is required to contribute an additional $19 million dollars to the Retirement System should not come as a surprise to anyone. The mayor forced hundreds of senior employees to leave city service and scare hundreds more to enter DROP, in many cases years before planned as well as refusing to allow new entries into the system and the layoffs of hundreds; all contributing to fewer dollars being contributed by members requiring the City to make up the difference. This is but a drop in the bucket of things to come because of the City’s short sighted actions.

The worst is yet to come in my opinion. I am a glass half full type of person but also a realist. With the current climate and lack of testicular fortitude to do what is right, we are left with politicians who simply lick a finger and place it in the air to gage current wind direction so they can ensure they are not heading into that wind for fear of having a rough go of it.

Have You Seen a Pay Telephone Lately?

2010-01-19T22:58:00.000-08:00

Have you attempted calling a co-worker with the police department lately only to find the number has been disconnected or is no longer in service? How many of you working various assignments have had your department issued cellular phone taken away? Sex Crimes detectives are the latest to fall victim to the budget cutting, cost savings by the department. Many have already forfeited their department telephones and more are yet to be eliminated.

It is hard for anyone to argue the need to cut costs and save money. The department was running a cellular telephone bill in the area of over $700 thousand annually. The goal is to reduce this bill to no more than $250 thousand annually. The telephones were in small part a handout facilitated by a project with Qualcomm. The PDA telephones were a project to get more PDA devices in the hands of working police officers to make their jobs more efficient.

Times have changed and we need to take several steps back in time. To a time when there were few cellular telephones and communications dispatchers relayed information for us. Remember pagers? Old school yes but better than nothing? Oops; I forgot, they are all gone also. What are we going to do? We surely won't be able to be as efficient as we were when we had a department cellular telephone in our pockets or on our belts. Have you tried lately to find a pay telephone? Good luck!

Now I am not going to try and make a case for the department providing a cellular telephone for very member. I'm not sure I could do that with a straight face and at the same time defend my logic. Heck, the doctors in Haiti are doing surgery without all the high tech instruments, machines and equipment they were use to before the earthquake. This is a pathetic comparison I know. But the point I am making is we were able to do the job before cellular telephones and we will be able to do it now. The sad part is there are many detectives out there who never did the job before cellular telephones and have come to rely on them for their primary source of communication with their office, informants, victims, witnesses, their supervisors, partners and allied agencies. We will re-adjust and simply go back to the old way of doing things; less efficiently and with less expediency. We will get the job done but the boss will have to wait until 10-19 to get updated information on incidents. This will not go over well. Do you have your own cellular telephone? Will you be willing to use it for department business? The old *51 number (I first put *56 oops) used for not being charged minutes for calls into the department is gone. I know there are some puzzled looks right now and people reading this asking what the hell "*51" is. Ask an old timer and he or she can explain it to you.

The plan as I understand it is to have "duty" cellular telephones for every division or unit to pass around. The phone will be used for call outs and department business. The times of every detective and supervisor having a telephone provided by the department is in the past. The department's goal of saving half a million dollars is admirable and understandable. The question in my mind is how much will this cost the department in the long run in terms of time and lost productivity? Time will tell.

Today I had a "Twitter Joust" with the little rube. Well, maybe better said; I challenged the little rube on four of his five "Pension Reforms" he is touting around town. The little rube uses Twitter more than all the other politicians in this City put together. He uses every medium he can to deliver his twisted and distorted messages. Left unchecked he will no doubt win over many unknowing voters.

Below is the exchange I had with the little rube today on Twitter. I would urge you all to sign up for Twitter and follow the various politicians and other so called "leaders" in San Diego so you can become educated and involved in what they are doing.

carldemaio said; Pension Reform #1: Eliminate "terminal leave" -- did you know city employees earn pension credits on their vacation days after they retire? stevemac1956 said; your last is patently untrue. When on "Terminal Leave" ALL accruals STOP. Check your facts!!
carldemaio said; Pension Reform #2: Eliminate Offsets: We pay more than $10M each year of "employee" contributions to pensions. Not vested. stevemac1956 said; Again you spin truth. "Offsets" were INLIEU of pay raises and cost city LESS money. Learn the history Carl
carldemaio said; Pension reform #3. SPSP Waiver: Eliminate the city match to the "second" pension plan. We did this with MEA, need to do with others (No comment - not our fight)
carldemaio said; Pension Reform #4. DROP Neutrality. City muni code require cost neutrality. Vested benefit has to conform. Let's implement now. stevemac1956 said; It is better than cost neutral. But mayor refuses to do study because he knows this. You should also
carldemaio said; Pension Reform #5. Finish the job of reforming pensions for "new" hires. Electeds, public safety still have high pensions. stevemac1956 said; You need to know facts Carl. DC will cost city 35% more than current DB. Safety retirement is not the problem. Again FACT check
carldemaio said; These 5 Pension Reforms can all legally be done -- no vesting problems. Only thing missing is candor/leadership. stevemac1956 said; The only thing missing are honest politicians who blame others for problems THEY created. YOU simply compound problems with lies
carldemaio said; I'm appearing on KUSI Good Morning San Diego tomorrow at 7:30 am to talk pension reform

This is but a tip of the iceberg as to what this pathetic individual is doing related to your benefits and wages. Stand by for more as he is hell bent on convincing the taxpaying public how grossly overpaid we all are and how generous and outrageous our retirement benefits are. He will not rest until he has eliminated our retirement.

Sanders Love Affair with Goldsmith

2010-01-18T21:05:00.000-08:00

I have been lounging around today enjoying the rain catching up on my reading. “Just Wondering” has posted numerous, on-point comments in the past couple of weeks. Predictions I made months back are starting to rear their ugly head. We have not hit bottom and the worst in my opinion is still to come.

The City Attorney is giving a “State of the City” address on Wednesday. The Voice of San Diego carried a piece on January 14, 2010, titled, “Sanders Hearts Goldsmith” that was written by Liam Dillon. In the piece, the mayor is quoted as saying, “I think you'll see that he's producing legal opinions now that are foundational for a lot of the things that are important for the city," citing Goldsmith's role in future pension reform as well. Someone care to enlighten me as to why the City Attorney is giving a “Political” address to the citizens of this city? It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

It appears the City Attorney is playing all sides in these debates. His record of legal research and the ability to simply provide legal opinion is not the best. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say Wednesday about pension reform, bankruptcy and outsourcing. I hope for everyone’s sake his research is better than past published material.

The latest revelation the city’s pension payment is at least $20 million more than forecast is going to play in the City Attorney’s address, you can rest assured. This will add fodder for the little rube and his minions as they plot further initiatives. The forecast will no doubt add to the budget shortfall and require additional cuts. So it appears the mayor’s statement during his “State of the City” address, “We are beginning 2010 on strong footing” is another of his smoke screens. If this is firm footing, I sure would not want to hike Everest with the mayor.

During all of this, the mayor is headed off to testify at the hearing for Prop 8. I fail to see how his testimony is relevant or necessary. I do see it as another attempt at inserting himself in issues to bring attention to himself. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, how has this become an issue for San Diego’s mayor?

Wednesday will shed light on the direction the mayor will take us related to pension reform as well as retiree medical insurance.

State of the City - Really?

2010-01-13T22:39:00.000-08:00

Did you have an opportunity to catch the mayor’s “State of the City Address?” There were no real surprises and few; scratch that, no new revelations. Some of the comments I heard from various observers;

Did he (mayor) just punt health cost reduction onto city attorney?
Biggest disappointment with speech; no mention of further pursuit of real pension reform.
Elected (mayor) to protect taxpayer and restore fiscal integrity; yet we’re DONE with pension reform? That’s inconsistent!
Projects (Convention Center expansion, Downtown Library, City Hall and Charger Stadium) must be built without sacrificing present quality of life.
I guess we are the dog in the pig and pony story?
Sidestepping the real issues; what did he (mayor) mean when he said before 18 months is over he will come back with a plan to resolve the City’s structural deficit?
No meat and potato’s tonight; just more rhetoric.

The text of the mayor’s speech takes up eleven pages. After listening to the address and then taking some time to read his words; I am left with guessing about his real plan for addressing the structural issues. The address lacked specifics and more importantly failed to mention any plan for raising revenue of any kind.

There were several sideways comments about further cuts to employee benefits. The mayor said, “Last year, when we adopted new contracts with our employees, we took strong steps to clamp down on costs in our retiree health care benefits, the final piece of the pension puzzle. We are now working with our employees to establish logical funding sources and levels. And with the help of our new city attorney, we will finish the job.”

"We will finish the job" is a telling statement. If there was ever any doubt where you stand as an employee of this city make no mistake; you are simply a debt that must be eliminated. The mayor's words leave little doubt of what can be expected during negotiations related to retiree health care benefits.

This is the mayor's fifth address and by many accounts his worst. He again made the comment, "We are beginning 2010 on a strong footing. Our employees are working harder and doing more with less than at any time in City history." I wanted to jump up out of my seat and yell out some very strong expletives. When people refer to us as "Civil Servants" they mean just that. They expect us to be "Servants" in the literal meaning of the word. The mayor made this even more clear during his address. Work harder and do more with less is the expectation.

The press and pundits will weigh in on the words and text of the mayor's address. Those who understand will point out the short comings of his address. Michael Stetz in a January 13, 2010, Union Tribune article, "Mayor's speech pattern wears thin" was printed long before the first word was spoken by the mayor and yet his every point. The last two paragraphs of the piece hit a home-run. "But he wasn't drafted to do the job. He campaigned for it. He even probably voted for himself (well, at least the first time)." "It's time for Sanders to stop looking to the past for blame - he does it quite eloquently, so it might be tough to give up - and realize something. He's in his fifth year as mayor. He must be responsible for something by now, right?"

No comments about public safety were made and no mention of managed competition directly. There is more to come on these and other issues and you can bet the cuts to benefits and jobs were simply the beginning of more to come.

Predictions for January 13, 2010

2010-01-12T23:11:00.000-08:00

There is not an economic indicator today that paints a positive picture. The State continues to bleed; politicians at all levels refuse to develop structural fixes to the budget mess; pundits and politicians chose to blame employees and unions; and no one is willing to do what is needed to seek long term solutions. Reductions and cuts to services, wages, benefits, and jobs continue with no end in sight. There is seldom a day that passes in which some individual; be it a politician, columnist, reporter, advocate or “expert” will promulgate “facts” about municipal employee benefits that contain more lies and spin than reality and truth.

On January 13, 2010, the mayor will give his “State of the City” address. We will no doubt hear him advocate for expansion of the Convention Center; building a new Taj Mahal – City Hall; building a new downtown library; finding a solution for a new Charger Stadium; suggestions for jobs and services to be contracted out; new “sacrifices” or reductions and cuts to employee benefits “to be sought through negotiations” as the mayor again places the solutions upon the shoulders of the City’s employees. There will be a proclamation for new fees and increases to others but no new taxes. The mayor will attempt to sell the public a bill of goods of an improving financial picture for the city and nary a problem with the public’s safety.

The mayor will again fail to acknowledge the sacrifices employees have made and tell the taxpaying public he is looking after their welfare by reducing and eliminating retirement benefits and eliminating retiree medical insurance. During the last state of the city addresses the mayor did not acknowledge a single worker for the city. He simply laid blame at our feet for the deficit and the mounting costs to operate the nation’s 7th largest city. His address on the 13th will be no different.

There are several comments on my last post from “Just Wondering” that offer a hint of what is to come in 2010. Take some time and read this person’s comments and follow the various links offered. Pay special attention to the comment posted 1/12/2010 at 7:16 pm titled, “All of you Public Safety Employees are EVIL” and follow the link “read the story here” which links to “reason.com” The moments and posting on this site will make many of you angry and cause the blood pressure to increase. Keep in mind this is the mindset of the current mayor of this city and the “little rube” as well as Kevin Faulconer. The attacks on public employees (they want us to be servants) is a national campaign that appears to be centered in California and strongest in southern California.

Looking to the future; I think what we have endured over the last several years is nothing compared to what is in our future. The current mayor has three more years to push his agenda of eviscerating employee wages and benefits and taking employees back 30 years. Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines and grumble as you do nothing. We need to make our voices heard and we need to combat the miss-information (outright lies) being provided to the taxpayers.

Talk to your SDPOA Board members and ask them what you can do to help. Get involved and become educated about your benefits so you can correct the lies on the spot and not allow someone to walk away believing the lies they were told. When someone tells people city employees are leaving after 30 years and making “as much as 130%” in retirement; yell at the top of your lungs if needed the truth. The truth is 90% is the maximum an employee can receive upon retirement after 30 years and that only applies to safety personnel. Know your benefits and how to explain them factually to taxpayers and friends alike.

Tomorrow I will post my thoughts on the mayor’s speech and see how close I was to predicting his words. Be safe and enjoy the day.

The End of 2009 – NOT the End of the Pain

2009-12-31T23:25:00.001-08:00

The final hours of 2009 are ticking down and none too soon as far as I am concerned. Dwelling on the events of this past year will simply cause the removal of even more enamel from my teeth and renewed tension to my mandible. Many contemplate resolutions for a new year. By March, these resolutions will be gone from memory and people will revert to the comfort of the past. Politicians will use this time to pontificate and proselytize their agenda, disguised as "New Year's Resolutions." The first to hit the air waves is none other than the "little rube."

Disguised as an "Opinion" piece in the Union Tribune; "Resolutions for San Diego City Hall" the little rube continues his attempt to sell the taxpayer on his vision for policies, "that help create jobs, a truly balanced budget, reductions in unfunded pension and health obligations, and improvements in the water rate structure." The little rube said, "I'd like to suggest four self-improvement resolutions for my fellow city leaders and I to focus on in 2010."

The first of four resolutions; jobs friendly policies that promote putting San Diegans back to work. The little rube boasted of "holding a 'small-business' summit where he compiled a laundry list of examples where city government has been a hindrance rather than a help to job creation." Does the label "Hypocrite" ring true to anyone else? This carpet bagging, spin master, has gone out of his way to ensure the un-employment lines in San Diego continue to grow. His goal is to eliminate as many positions within the city as possible so he can grease the way for his cronies in the name of "Managed Competition." If you think for one second, his resolution of "jobs friendly policies" is altruistic, I would suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. The little rube continues to rail against raising revenue, demanding City leaders reject tax and fee increases, so he can ensure the city continues to face budget deficits. He can then continue to blame employees and sway the taxpayers to eliminate pension and retiree health benefits earned over the past thirty years.

The second resolution; a real balanced city budget, is the little rube's continued cry for managed competition in the name of "structural change." This is the where the spin machine kicks into high speed. The 15 percent to 25 percent cost savings the little rube says will be achieved through managed competition is simply; NOT REALISTIC. Government was not set up, nor is it in the business of "making" a profit. The only part of the little rube's continued diatribe related to this issue I will agree with is the need to conduct a performance audit and ensure the benchmark for performance meets private sector performances for all city services. This not only makes sense but is something good government does as a routine. Many of these audits have been completed and structural changes have already been implemented. When managed competition is employed, minimal savings is realized in the short term, and then experience has shown the companies providing the services realize the need to turn a profit and begin to make changes to meet this goal. The result of this selling of government services to the lowest bidder will be higher cost to the taxpayer and inadequate service in the long term.

The third of the little rube's New Year's resolutions; pension, health benefits reform, is buoyed by his playing loose and free with reality and facts. The numbers this pathetic politician uses to inflame taxpayers is nothing but short of criminal. His use of numbers, facts and spin have created a hysteria and hatred toward city employees and their wages and benefits that are all part of a larger scheme. The little rube uses facts and figures out of context to fit his argument and bolster his false claims. An example is his statement, "Over the years, city leaders granted employees generous pension packages and free taxpayer-funded health care coverage for life." His omission of how the retiree health care benefits came to be is egregious. He refuses to acknowledge the deal Pete Wilson put together to save the city money in 1981, to have employees withdraw from Social Security/Medicare with the agreement of providing city sponsored retiree health care insurance. The City saved money and in theory used the savings to provide these promised benefits.

2010 should be the year city leaders and employees join together and craft a solution to the pension and retiree health care insurance problem. Creating a tiered plan for retiree health care insurance for pre 1986 employees, honoring the decade's old agreement, is imperative to doing what is right. This should, at a minimum, include fully paid medical care insurance for those employees hired before 1986 who lack sufficient quarters to participate in Medicare. Workers who are eligible for Medicare should be provided retiree health care insurance until such time as eligible for this benefit. Working together to create solutions for long term retiree health care insurance, include implementing a shared retiree medical trust for funding adequate benefits is a must. Developing a sustainable Defined Benefit Retirement for Safety members and General members will require sacrifice. Recognizing the gains earned over the past decades, at this time, are not sustainable, we must roll back the retirement of workers. To do this fairly and with minimal impact on the quality of life for the city's employees; a tiered system need be explored for retirement. Participants with less than ten years of service (Safety and General hired after 2000) should be considered for a reduction to the benefit received at retirement which might include; an increase to the age of retirement (53 years for Safety; 62 years for General); a maximum benefit of 2.5% per year of service for the first 20 years and 2.75% for the remaining years of service, with a maximum benefit of 85 percent of the highest one year for Safety employees; and 2% per year of service for the first 25 years and 2.25% per year for the remaining years of service, with a maximum benefit of 85 percent of the highest three years for General employees. Employees and the City will contribute an additional one percent to retirement until the funding level rises above 90%; elected office holders will not be eligible to participate in the City's Retirement program but can participate in a City Matching 401K program up to a six percent match of contribution. DROP should be made available to ALL Safety Members who provide a minimum of 25 years of actual service upon retirement.

The suggestions above will no doubt be met with resistance from both sides. The City will say the changes do not go far enough and employees will say they go too far. I am not advocating these suggestions are the fix all, end all to the City's fiscal problems. I am simply offering suggestions to begin the dialog for obtaining sustainable and realistic retirement benefits for all employees that are acceptable to the taxpayer without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The forth of the little rube's resolutions; reform water rates, is one that lacks detail or vision. Simply showing resolve to create a new water rate structure to provide "financial incentives" to those who conserve is a shallow approach to a critical problem. Pursuing a secure long term water supply has been a dismal failure, due to a lack of vision and action by our elected officials. Suggesting the city expands hookups to recycled water for irrigation without the implementation of the "toilet to tap" program will not provide sufficient increases to meet the needs of our children. Working aggressively to move desalination forward and seeking federal support for this endeavor is paramount.

The little rube actually closes his piece with some truth; "As with any effort to keep faithful to a new year's resolution, city leaders will need someone to act as a constant coach and conscience – and that's where the public comes in." The taxpayer needs to become involved and hold city leaders accountable for their actions or lack thereof. To sit idly by while the city and its employees are decimated is not an option. With the New Year upon us, we need to make a resolution of our own to get involved and make a difference. We must educate the taxpayer to the realities of what we can safely provide and inform them of our true benefits. We can no longer allow the little rube and others to spin reality without providing context and honest, true facts disputing their lies.

I wish to thank all those who offered support to me and my family during 2009. Your prayers and words carried us through the days when we felt so helpless. To those who retired in 2009, after sacrificing countless years of your lives, to protect the citizens of San Diego, I want to thank you for all you gave. My hope is for a better year, filled with good health, joy and love. As we enter 2010, I will leave you with a quote I read this evening on Charles Kindred's Facebook;"We find no real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve" Maxwell Maltz.

We have many obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve in 2010. The real satisfaction and happiness in our lives are our responsibility and cannot be left to others to provide.

Happy New Year Everyone!!!

The Myth; The Legend, Reality

2009-12-20T14:14:00.001-08:00

I laugh every time "Anonymous" posts a belief or information they want people to believe to be factual and accurate. I cringe at times when these posts are directed at people who have little if any opportunity to defend themselves. I have not edited, deleted or in any other way censored comments to my BLOG (two exceptions related to a known person making a comment meant to hurt someone). Rumors in law enforcement circles can take on a life of their own. The myths that grow from these rumors grow to folk lore status. Legends are made as well as demons.

In my 30+ years with the San Diego Police Department I have heard my share of rumors. I have heard the stories that produced these many legends and created as many demons. Many of the actions that elevated these people to "Legend" status generally had some kernel of truth, but over the years the story had morphed into something that vaguely resembles the actual event. Rumors generally start these stories, as the story is passed from one set of lips to an open ear; jumbled in a brain half soaked in alcohol; then repeated with a harmless detail being either added or deleted to make the story more entertaining or important.

There were the people who wanted to create their own "Legend Status" and would embellish upon an incident to make it bigger than reality. There was a Lieutenant who retired and moved to Washington who comes to mind. His was a storied career if you listened to him tell the story. He became a legend, even if only in his own mind. This person was slipping in status and stature and sought to increase his "Legendary Status." He became the center of attention in the mid-eighties when he alleged officers from the SDPD kidnapped him from his home in Washington, shot him in the ear, leaving him for dead, in an attempt to assassinate him for reasons that today are still not clear. Reality is, it never happened as described, but he achieved his "Legend" status and was the focus of attention for quite some time.

In 2006, I retired from the Poway Unified School District's Board of Education (PUSD). I served for twelve years (3 terms) and always held the belief members of the Board of Education should have a vested interest by having children in the schools, to serve on the board. My children had both graduated and I had served my time. I announced my retirement from PUSD and made plans to focus on my responsibility at the time of representing officers as a Director for the SDPOA. When I announced my retirement from the PUSD, I was interviewed by a news reporter who asked if I had any other plans for politics. I said I had considered running for the City Council and would explore that possibility in the future. These comments were seized upon by a couple of POA members who found this to be some sort of conflict (serving as a board member for the POA and exploring a run for City Council). I found myself defending a statement of future aspirations and what effect if any this would have on my ability to represent the members.

Let's fast forward to comments made in my last BLOG post. Someone (Anonymous) asked if I would consider running for Mayor in 2012. Flattered someone would think I could be a candidate in 2012. Reality is that person was most likely just home from the bars and was sporting a nice buzz at 0207 hours and not thinking clearly. But I appreciate the support all the same. Then "Fed Up City Employee" posted they heard somewhere I had considered a run for city council and would I still consider doing so. I can't use the same argument; Fed Up posted at 0921 hours. Maybe this poster is an old timer still working patrol and just got home from working graveyard and stopping off to have a couple of stress reducing beverages and just got home feeling the same buzz. Then an Anonymous poster writes, "Can anyone say skeletons?" I am not sure, but I believe this person was making a comment about my skeletons, in some way insinuating this would be a deterrent for such an action.

I am fortunate to live in a house large enough to have multiple walk in closets to house all of those skeletons. But as I move from closet to closet and change the Fabreeze odor reducers, I take stock of these "Skeletons" and their importance in who I was, who I have become and who cares. I laugh at many of these "skeletons" and how some became legend and reality from myth. I am not going to deny I have done and said some stupid things over my 30 years around this organization. I am not going to hide from the mistakes I have made in my life and place blame with others or shirk my culpability for these transgressions. The difficult task is addressing those skeletons created through myth and becoming legend. I laugh often at comments and actions attributed to me. If R.D. Brown did half of what has been attributed to him, he would first be over 100 years old and second he would either be in jail or dead. I feel like R.D. at times.

Make no mistake about my skeletons; I have them like all of us do. I do not have any that would cause me to shy from making a run for City Council. I am pretty much an open book and have accepted responsibility for my shortcomings and while I may not be perfect (OK, not even close) I would challenge anyone who is, to step forward and make a difference. Speaking to the issue of seeking a seat on the City Council, I am flattered when people ask me if I would consider doing so. I have spoken at length about the possibility of making a run at District One's seat on the City Council. I have explored options and discussed with various individuals that possibility.

Today, December 20, 2009, I have no plans and very little desire to take on that challenge. The "Anonymous" posters who cast stones and aspersions while slinking behind a computer screen, have such little credibility, their words and veiled threats are meaningless. My reasons for declining to thrust myself into that arena are many. The least of which are my skeletons or the anonymous posters. The ability for one person to affect the change necessary to rite this sinking ship is far more than my abilities and temperament would allow. I also refuse to adhere to the play book of either the Republicans or Democrats. I am a registered Republican and would not prostitute myself or my beliefs to garner their endorsement. I refuse to change my affiliation to Democrat and am left with moving to Independent or "refuse to state" to garner support. The seat is currently held by a Democrat and the Republicans are working to find a stalwart supporter of Sanders and the agenda of the downtown power brokers. That person is NOT me.

I am growing more concerned each day with the tone of those elected to represent our interests. The continued bashing of city employees and our wages and benefits by the press and politicians has grown tiresome. The lack of honest dialogue and refusal to make structural changes, have created a hostile work environment. The press and politicians have all found fault with promises made over years of negotiations and rather than offer solutions and reasonable modifications, have simply taken the politically expedient road by eliminating years of earned benefits and wages. The continued call for reductions and elimination of wages and benefits resonates with those taxpayers who have found themselves struggling to survive. Lacking solutions, we are left to defend the status quo which is a no win situation. We must move past that and offer reasoned changes to our benefits. To do otherwise is giving in and giving up.

The Board of Directors with the SDPOA is working hard to address issues of importance to its members. What is important? To me, the issue of "Retiree Medical Insurance" is the most pressing issue needing a solid answer. Being one of those hired before 1986, the retiree medical issue needs to be addressed before any other. To an officer who has twelve to fifteen years of service, this may not be the issue of most importance to them. Preservation of benefits should be the number one priority of all of us. To do this, we must be willing to find ways to sacrifice in areas less important so the future can be preserved. If the City moves to eliminate retiree medical in this year's contract, you can be assured there will be another exodus of officers from an already decimated department. The mayor knows this and does not care. If anything, in his eyes, it is a plus to eliminate those in the DROP or at retirement age from the city's payroll. The need to seek a solution to this pressing issue could not be greater.

Politically Expedient

2009-12-15T22:14:00.001-08:00

What will be the real outcomes of the City Council's actions when they eliminated twelve canine officers; all Investigative Aides; all but eight of the Police Service Officers; twelve Police Code Compliance Officers and the Harbor Patrol Officers from the police department's budget? The mayor and others have told you these cuts will only cause "minimal" delays in response times to calls for service. Let's check back in with Earth and have a reality check here.

I have been a police officer for the City of San Diego for 30+ years and am a resident and native of this city. It is irresponsible and disingenuous to say simply response times to calls for service will be the only effect of these cuts. Reality is people are going to be injured and even killed as a result of these cuts. Some will say I am simply an alarmist and pandering to a fearful group of citizens. Let me take some time and lead you through my thought process for coming to these realizations.

The loss of twelve canine officers will have a profound effect on the ability of patrol officers to apprehend and arrest suspects; defuse hostile and aggressive individuals and prevent the use of lethal force. Suspects often challenge an officer who is pointing a firearm at him, but when the suspect sees the canine he or she will immediately comply with commands and submit to arrest. Eliminating twelve of the thirty six canines will immediately place citizens and officers in harm's way as officers revert to physical measures to apprehend and arrest suspects. Not to mention the numbers of suspects who will elude capture by hiding and fleeing from officers where once a canine would find the hiding or fleeing suspect in short order. There will seldom if ever be more than two canine officers per watch for the entire City of San Diego; from San Ysidro to the Wild Animal Park. Feel free to do the math on how many miles each must cover.

The elimination of the Investigative Aides will require the transfer of thousands of the criminal cases investigated and processed by these Investigators to sworn detectives who struggle daily to keep up with the serious felony cases arriving on their desks. Included in these positions are two Investigative Aides who handle investigations related to seized, recovered and impounded firearms. These two Gun Desk Investigators are responsible for ensuring firearms are not returned to persons legally not allowed to posses them. They also process firearms for possible links to other crimes and work with Investigators in Homicide, Gangs and other investigative units linking crimes and suspects through the guns flowing across their desk. These duties will now fall upon sworn detectives; again removing him or her from their primary duties to complete these administrate and time consuming tasks. The elimination of these Investigative Aides will require additional detectives which will result in patrol officers being removed from their patrol duties to fill these positions.

The elimination of the Police Code Compliance Officers in Vice will have a tremendous negative effect upon the ability of the police department to monitor, regulate and control the many police regulated business in the City of San Diego. The Massage Parlors, Strip Clubs, Bars, Peep Shows and Adult Book Stores, Pawn Shops, Junk Yards, Second Hand Shops, Recycle Centers, Tow Companies, and Alarm Companies to name just a few; are inspected, regulated and licensed by these PCCO'S. Each of these industries has the potential for criminal activity and organized crime and requires close scrutiny of not just their practices but the employees working in them. The revenue generated from the licenses, permits and fines total roughly $7.2 million on an annual basis. The civilian officers who currently do these tasks have developed experience and expertise that have contributed to their outstanding record of performance. The duties and responsibilities for processing the thousands of permits, licenses and applications will now fall on the desk of sworn detectives who will be required to meet legal time requirements for issuing or denying licenses and permits as well as ensure critical criteria for licensing are met. These detectives will be required to become familiar with the nuances of each industry and the many regulatory rules, laws and costs of each. The owners of these industries demand proper, fair and comprehensive oversight. Sworn police detectives will now assume these duties and responsibilities and must learn each industry and the requirements for permitting, licensing and inspecting. Detectives will tire quickly of the administrative monotony and seek to transfer or promote to new challenges and a new detective will be transferred in to begin the learning processes anew. These constant changes will soon result in loss of oversight and allow for more criminal activity to take hold. The quality of life issues surrounding these many industries are to vast to discuss here but you can imagine the degradation to our communities that will soon follow. Lest we forget the loss of revenue from the unintentional lag in processing and lack of adequate oversight and inspection resulting in fines being levied.

The city of San Diego is a world class destination for vacationers and the waterways are a popular play spot for locals. The elimination of the Harbor Patrol Unit of the San Diego Police Department is short sighted, penny wise and pound foolish. The cost of this unit is miniscule (less than $70,000) and their immeasurable experiences and qualifications are hard to quantify and cannot be replaced easily. The lives saved and the accidents prevented by these experienced sworn officers demand a solution be found to fund these positions. To believe the coast guard or life guards will step in and provide the preventive presence and enforcement currently provided is laughable.

The loss of the Police Service Officers (PSO) will have a profound effect on patrol officers. These dedicated civilian police service officers investigate burglaries, traffic accidents, thefts, recover property, assist with traffic direction at scenes and handle the many responsibilities surrounding community watch groups and crime prevention. These duties will now fall to the patrol officer.

Many will say we all have to suck it up. Some will say we are not doing enough. The mayor has boasted the streets are safe and there will be little to no effect on the public's safety. I would suggest the public and police officers are not safe and the pages of San Diego public safety have been turned back twenty plus years and our ability to do our job reduced to 1970 levels. In 1988, Gerald Sanders, Captain, ID# 1840, was the Commanding Officer at Southeast Division. On a normal day in Southeastern Division, Captain Sanders put nineteen (19) police officers, two sergeants, two police service officers and three reserve officers into the field to protect the citizens of Southeast Division. We had begun a program called "Contact and Cover" as a result of ten (10) on-duty officer deaths in the prior 12 years.

Then Captain Sanders was vocal about his desire to increase the staffing in his command and believed at the time he did not have enough officers too safely and properly police this area of the city. Yet today he has eviscerated the civilian support personnel whose primary duties allowed officers to concentrate on maintaining order and providing safe communities. The sworn officer's ability to do their job is made possible by these dedicated persons. The loss of those whose duties will now fall to sworn officers will require detectives to be re-assigned to these vacant positions and patrol officers to take on additional duties. The reality is there are going to be many functions we once provided as a routine that will fall by the way side. The ability of officers on patrol to answer radio calls, conduct investigations, provide traffic enforcement, arrest criminal violators, and provide crime prevention assistance will result in officers cutting corners and taking unnecessary risk.

Unlike Captain Sanders staffing numbers in 1988, divisions throughout the San Diego Police Department fail to meet even watered down minimum staffing on a daily, shift by shift basis. Minimum staffing in 1988 in Southeastern Division was almost two times what it is today. Calls for service were a fraction of what they are today. PSO'S, Investigative Aides, and Reserves were available and staffing was greater in 1988 than it is today and sufficient officers to provide at minimum "contact and cover" for each other. Yet in Captain Sanders own words this staffing was not enough in 1988.

The 10,000 pound elephant in the room is the political grandstanding elected officials and others are doing in the name of no layoffs of sworn police officers. The mayor and others are pounding their chest and proclaiming "No Sworn Police Officers" were laid off and we are all suppose to be grateful. The reality is the layoffs proposed by the mayor and approved by the City Council will have a much more profound effect on the public's safety and our ability to do anything about it. The politicians continue to force the blame for the budget deficit on the city's employees. The politically expedient and politically popular move is to layoff civilian, non-sworn members of the police department and boast of preserving the public's safety.

The proper course of action, as distasteful and painful as it may have been, would have been to layoff the 38 or so academy recruits and 30 police trainees. The budget correction sought would have been accomplished with less effect on the public and officer's safety. This course of action would have required truthful dialogue with the taxpayer and an additional step of offering up real solutions. The current politicians in the City of San Diego do not have the will or ability to do this. Until that time comes, we will continue to face cuts to services, personnel, wages and benefits.

Who will accept responsibility for those injured and killed as a result of the degradation to the public's safety in San Diego?

A “Little Rube” Pull Toy

2009-12-10T21:34:00.001-08:00

Today I was chatting with several others when someone described the little rube as nothing more than one of those dolls kids play with that have a pull string that when pulled plays one of several recorded messages; "We need to reduce inefficiencies" "We need to cut out the waste in government" "We need to start with labor costs" "We need to focus on pension reform and retiree medical reforms" "We need to reform fringe benefits and hold the line on wages" "Efficiency for the lowest cost should be governments obligation." I started to laugh and then it hit me; he's right!

I have always felt the little rube is nothing more than a "one trick pony" that uses simple, short catch phrases that draw people's attention. The phrases he uses in every conversation he engages in are the same and always follow the same theme; "Pension Reform" "Retiree Medical Reform" "Government Efficiency" "Reduce Labor Costs" are the lead phrase of every conversation. Sneak up behind him; find the string; give it a yank; and hear it for yourself.

I was doing my usual search for stories about the goings on at city hall when I came across a Twitter post from the little rube, "carldemaio Drink champagne (or just want reform at City Hall)? Join me for a fundraiser this Saturday at my house." (You will need a facebook account to access the link to his party) The little rube is inviting people to his home, "Help Carl DeMaio reform city government by attending this important fundraiser at his personal home in Rancho Bernardo. Proceeds benefit Carl's 2010 campaign to pass two key ballot initiatives." The little rube is plotting, planning and pushing his own agenda and will stop at nothing to ensure success. Watch for a pension reform initiative in the very near future.

Yesterday was an example of why politics are wrecking San Diego. The outcome of yesterday's action by the city council in eliminating the 80+ civilian positions from the police department will have a profound effect on our ability to provide public safety services to the taxpayer. The cuts were made by the mayor to the civilian support members of the department so he could stand up and proclaim no "Sworn Officers" were laid off. The general public was then lead to believe the positions being eliminated would allow the budget deficit to be eliminated and they would not notice an impact. What the mayor and others failed to tell the public was the duties carried out by these civilian support personnel will now be carried out by sworn police officers at a much greater cost. The cost to accomplish these duties just drastically increased and the efficiency the little rube so passionately advocates for has been destroyed.

While no one wants to be responsible for laying off sworn police officers, I would submit to you the pain of laying off 50 police officers would have had less of an impact on services and our ability to do the job than the elimination of the 80+ civilian support personnel. No, I do not want to lay off 50 police officers, but if the goal is to cut costs with the least impact on services and safety; laying off those in the academy would have accomplished this goal more efficiently. The cuts to civilians were simply the politically expedient way to temporarily solve a long term problem. The sad part of this is it was an opportunity for the department to gain the attention of the ignorant taxpayer who is clueless of the state of public safety in San Diego.

The January 2010 academy is not going to have any San Diego Police Recruits and the April 2010 academy is still up in the air as to whether we will have any at that time. The exodus of officers has for the time being slowed. This will not last for much longer as other agencies begin to hire and chose lateral hires over recruits. Officers with three to ten years on the department are poised to flee this city and the incompetence of its leadership. Early next year officers will begin to leave for other agencies as it becomes clear additional cuts will be taken from their paychecks. Those officers who have been here five years have had three reductions to their paychecks. How long would you stick around?

The elimination of twelve canine officers is a clear indication of what management and this city's leaders think of the safety of officers and citizens. The priorities of the mayor and council were clear yesterday when they voted to keep an urban forester over an investigative aide working the gun desk. The council's priorities further shone when they sought to find a legal way to use water funds to restore $369,000 for the San Dieguito River Park agency rather than explore the recommendation by the IBA to eliminate further vacant positions held in the police department budget to preserve the six PCCO'S. This action would have provided an additional $2.9 million which would have covered the cost of the six Police Code Compliance Officers that were eliminated. Talking about "Government Efficiency" the department and mayor get an "F" for this action. To ensure the duties and responsibilities are handled, four detectives and a detective sergeant will be added to the Vice Unit in hopes these sworn officers can fill the void. I say "Good Luck" it ain't going to happen.

Nothing good is going to come from yesterday's actions by the mayor and council. The so called 18 month budget passed yesterday will be out of kilter and facing another deficit by August. The structural changes that need be done have not even been discussed by ANY of our elected politicians. The cuts to services and elimination of employees will require higher paid employees to pick up the duties and responsibilities of those being laid off. The amount of overtime necessary to get the job done will drastically increase and the learning curve will continue to be an elusive arc. Where we had stable, experienced and hard working civilian support; we are now going to have sworn officers attempting to learn new tasks and looking to transfer about the time they begin to fully function in the job. Duties and responsibilities that require stability and consistency have been replaced with officers who will soon tire of the administrative function and seek new challenges and responsibilities in hopes of promoting or getting back into the game.

Say what you will; we would have been better served for our management and political leaders to do the right thing and lay off sworn officers rather than the 80+ civilian support staff they chose for political expediency and the ability to say, "We did not lay off any sworn officers." We are currently down 300 police officers and this number is going to continue to increase. The fifty to ninety recruits in the academy are years away from helping in any real way. We are in trouble folks and it will get worse when our civilian support staff handle their last cases.

Need a “Happy Ending?”

2009-12-09T22:21:00.001-08:00

At the end of a massage in one of your less than professional establishments a technician will often provide a "Happy Ending" to her client. If I have to explain this to you maybe you are reading a BLOG not really suited for you. If you want to get one of these "Happy Endings" you can pocket your money and just attend a San Diego City Council Meeting prepared to offer testimony and think your words will be considered before a decision is made.

Today's exercise before City Council was yet another example of how truly screwed up and out of touch the politicians are in this city. The impact to public safety that will result from today's action will be lasting and traumatic. The blood that will be shed by citizens and officers alike will be on the hands of those who orchestrated the political cuts in the name of balancing a budget. The mayor is beaming with delight in his latest victory at the expense of the ignorant taxpayer. He boasts for all to hear he was able to close a $200 million budget deficit and not lay off any police officers or firefighters. Then there is the proclamation of more officers on the street to fight crime and everything will continue functioning as before even though the mayor and council just eliminated the Police Code Compliance Officers; Investigative Aides, twelve canine officers, the horses and harbor unit.

Before the council began taking public testimony, I posted a Twitter message at 0926 hours that said; "Sitting in Council waiting to give testimony wondering why. Faulconer just indicated decisions have been made." As the mayor gave his presentation and the questions that followed from council, it became evident they had all been snowed and bought into the rhetoric and lies they were being sold.

I have followed city councils in this city for more years than I care to count. I have sat through my share of meetings and spent countless hours watching the meetings on TV when I could not make the meeting in person. I have seen some characters sitting on that dais. I cannot remember a collective group whose ability to reason and ask appropriate and reasoned questions to get to the heart of an issue, so lacking. They have allowed the mayor to pierce their noses and attach a ring through the greater alar cartilage so he can lead them around at will. Today's display was clearly an example of what is wrong with "Strong Mayor" and this city's government and the so called elected leaders.

The "Strong Mayor" as it is currently being practiced is contributing to the dysfunction in San Diego. Government is designed to have safe guards against one person making all of the decisions. A "Dictatorship" is a more appropriate descriptor of how things are in San Diego; one person making the decision for everyone and eviscerating anyone with the gall to offer a differing opinion or speak out against the "Dictator." The council minions, who were actually elected by the voters, have yet to understand their role and position in this government as it is constructed.

I was disappointed in the actions of the council today. They had an opportunity to challenge the mayor and offer more reasonable solutions and put the interests of the taxpayers first. Today's actions were wholly and completely political and clearly showed the extent of control the mayor holds over the council and departments in this city. The approval of the cuts to the support staff of the police department left me questioning; what are the real priorities of those running this city. To eliminate six Police Code Compliance Officers assigned to the Vice Unit, whose jobs involve a positive revenue increase to the general fund of over $7 million annually and replace them four Police Detectives and a Detective Sergeant all in the name of balancing a budget makes no sense.

The case was clearly made before council today there would have been a lesser impact on public safety had the city laid off 45 police officers. The lay-offs that were approved today will have a lasting and profound effect on the ability of the department to provide adequate police services. To say the cuts will have little effect on service or revenue is short sighted and patently false. But remember; the mayor did not have to lay-off any sworn officers. Political expediency over doing what is right won out today.

My only request is next time I appear before the council and they are going to provide me a "Happy Ending" and perpetrate the charade that took place today, they allow me to make the choice of participating. The council and mayor have nothing to worry about; they eliminated those responsible for regulating the massage busniesses and "Happy Endings" will become the norm again as well as the many other crimes that are bread when regulation takes a back seat to politics.

Chances Missed in Life

2009-11-29T23:57:00.001-08:00

At a time we are all giving thanks on Thanksgiving, I was unknowingly saying goodbye to my younger brother, David Michael McMillan. Growing up, David preferred to be called Mike. Mike has lived in Texas for some time and was here visiting and helping our mother who had open heart surgery last month. Mike has had some physical ailments of his own and was struggling with health issues brought on by the life he lead. On Thursday, November 19, 2009, Mike was having trouble breathing and was taken to Sharps Hospital. Within a couple of days and after a series of tests, it was discovered Mike had cancer. The cancer had taken over his lungs, liver and lymph nodes. This was Tuesday the 24^th and treatment options were being evaluated. Wednesday the doctors told Mike's wife the outlook was grim and treatment options were limited to making him comfortable. If Mike wished to prolong his life, the only option for adding a limited time was oxygen delivered by a machine.

Mike and his wife Debbie discussed the options and Mike made the decision to be kept comfortable and not allow any other measures to prolong his life. Hospice was notified and they were to take over his case on Friday morning. I visited Mike Thanksgiving morning and he was struggling to keep his focus. The pain medications were suppressing the pain and also suppressing his ability to communicate. I returned that evening after Thanksgiving dinner and spent time with Mike's wife Debbie, his three daughters; Kristine, Patti and Amanda. Our sister Julie and her daughter Taylor were also there spending time with Mike. Mike was, for the most part out of it from the pain medication. I left that evening telling Mike I would see him tomorrow.

Friday morning I got up early and headed off to Iron Mountain for a hike to work off some of the calories piled on the day before. The morning was crisp and cool but clear, sunny and perfect for an early morning hike to the top. I met several friends along the way and sat at the top for a bit chatting with others before heading back down. I had just started down the mountain when my cell phone rang and the number showed Mike's daughter Patti was calling. I got a cold chill in my spine when I saw her number. Something told me before I answered the news on the other end was not going to be good.

I answered the phone and Patti struggled to say my name. Fighting not to cry, Pattie said, "Uncle Steve?" She didn't need to say another word. I knew from her voice, what was to come next, "Dad just died." I felt numb and all of the sounds became muted as I stood on the trail processing what Patti had just said. What do you say to a niece who just called to tell you her father, your brother, has just passed away? The pain and anguish in her voice was unmistakable. I told her I would be there as soon as I could.

I ended the call and stood there for several minutes thinking about Mike. I was not prepared for his death. I'm not sure what I expected but for him to pass 48 hours after deciding to forgo life sustaining methods was not even considered in my mind. I started down the trail moving faster than before. I was three miles from my car and the hike was a blur. My mind drifted to our childhood. Mike and I shared a bedroom until I left home. Mike got married before I did and had his first daughter in 1978. I graduated the Police Academy and was married in 1979, having my first child in 1982. Mike worked at General Dynamics like our father. Dad was an engineer who worked first in the space systems, working on the Apollo, Gemini space modules. Mike worked on air frame fuselages and became a lead supervisor.

Mike's last years were spent in Texas with his second wife Debbie. A serious traffic accident almost took Mike's life two years ago. The injuries from this accident had taken their toll. A heavy smoker from his teen days, Mike struggled with diabetes and other issues that restricted his ability to work. Mike drove to San Diego several weeks ago to assist our mother who as I said earlier had open heart surgery to replace a heart valve. Mike was helping out around the house and driving his mother to and from various appointments. When Mike's breathing became difficult and he was admitted to the hospital it was thought at the time he may have had pneumonia.

Mike's two daughters, Patti and Amanda live her in San Diego and were at the hospital checking in on their father. Kristine was in Texas with her husband and was told of her father's illness and decided to drive out to be by his side. Kristine left Texas on Friday last week never thinking her father's life would end so suddenly. Kristine is a special education teacher in Texas and her husband Chris is a volunteer caregiver for hospice. When Kristine arrived in San Diego it appeared Mike was improving, even if slowly. Debbie arrived and after a series of tests she was told the seriousness of Mike's illness.

Friday morning, Debbie, Kristine, Patti and Amanda were by Mike's side when he took his last breaths. There is little to prepare a child for the death of a parent. The feeling of loneliness and fear hit hard as the reality of Mike's passing hit home. The realization of never being able to call their dad to ask for advice or tell him of a first for his grandson or the break the news of an engagement, strikes a pain so great it cannot be expressed in words. The realization of a daughter her daddy is gone is overwhelming.

I was not close to my brother. We travelled different paths in life and as we wandered down these widely different roads we moved further and further away. I loved my brother and will miss him. I have many regrets and wished we had an opportunity to talk more before his sudden passing. Mike is in a better place and his quick passing meant he did not suffer long. His three wonderful girls have grown to be great young women and with the support of the family and friends will get that playful life back in time. Mike's wife Debbie will head back to Texas and her son will take leave from his military post to help her through this difficult time.

Remember how precious and fragile life can be. In the blink of an eye any one of us can be taken from this planet. Cherish every moment with family and do not put off talking to one another and telling them what they mean to you. Do not put off calling a loved one just to say hello. If there is a bridge that needs to be re-built; be the first to make that happen. If you don't, you may not get the chance.

Happy Thanksgiving to all and be safe. Hug your loved ones and tell them what they mean to you.

Re-arranging the deck chairs

2009-11-24T22:32:00.001-08:00

The mayor presented his proposals for cuts and reductions today. The good news is there are no actual sworn police officers facing layoff (That's what they want us to think). That is about the end of the good news, if anyone could really call it good. I have been following the Twitter posts of those tweeting about the cuts and am flabbergasted at the range of comments.

Ron Nehring;
San Diego's Mayor Sanders (R) proposes closing $179M deficit w/ spending cuts, not taxes. It CAN be done.
Andrew Donohue;
His friends disagree. Emphasis from Sanders is that onetime cuts ok because deficit not structural but related to recession.
Andrew Donohue;
if SDPD equestrian unit eliminated, city COO says horses will be sold. But doesn't know whether it'll 2 a rendering facility.
Kevin Faulconer; my initial thoughts on the Mayor's budget proposal are positive. (Press Release)
SDPOA; San Diego Police Officers Association Response to Mayor Sanders' Proposed Budget Adjustments. (Read More)
Scott Lewis/VOSD; But Kevin Faulconer says it's "a good start"? Lani Lutar: City Budget proposal: Mostly one-time tricks ... kicking the can down the road.
Andrew Donohue; He's continuing to push problems into the future, like predecessors. Key difference: He promised, not only not 2 do this, but to fix this.
SDNN; is writing about Sanders pushing mid-year cuts: Under Sanders' proposal, fire pits on city beaches would be eliminated.
The Little Rube; hear my interview on KOGO, Chris Reed Show; about charter amendment for Competition and Transparency in City Contracting. (This is a must listen)

The police department has taken the brunt of the cuts being proposed by the mayor. The mayor's proposal calls for reduction of the Mounted Enforcement Unit. Under the mayor's plan, the Mounted Enforcement Unit will be eliminated and the equipment will be stored or auctioned and the animals will be auctioned or donated; the Harbor Patrol Unit will be eliminated and the ability to conduct proactive boating under the influence investigations will be greatly reduced as well is the ability to conduct boating collision investigations would be limited to shoreline investigations. Calls for service on the waterways will be transferred to the lifeguard service or the US Coast Guard.

Forty-one full time civilian positions will be eliminated. This will impact wait times for investigation support, fingerprint analysis, and other lab support, and will prolong the backlog of requests for assistance. Vacant dispatch positions will result in increased over time. Administrative job duties may either be delayed, canceled, or require sworn personnel to complete, depending on priorities or demand.

Twenty-one Investigative Aide positions will be eliminated. Responsibilities associated with these positions will be deferred to sworn police officers who will be assigned to handle the significant number of misdemeanor arrest cases that are normally assigned to the investigative aides.

Forty-eight Police Service Officer II positions will be eliminated. This will result in increased response times to priority 3 and 4 radio calls for service, which will now have to be responded to and investigated by sworn police officers, increasing the patrol officers out of service time, thereby increasing police response times in all categories. The wait time for citizens in need of accident, petty theft, grand theft, residential and commercial burglary investigations will increase substantially.

Twelve Police Code Compliance Officer Positions will be eliminated. The responsibilities associated with these positions will be delegated to sworn personnel and will create increased delays and wait times for citizens needing assistance and licensing and the many other tasks currently performed by these officers. These code compliance officers are responsible for inspecting and regulating businesses such as pawnshops, peep shows, nude entertainment, massage parlors, street vendors, tow companies, residential and commercial alarm companies, and many other police regulated businesses. The duties performed by these 12 officers generate upwards of $8 million in license fees and fines. Their elimination will simply require sworn police officers to complete these tasks to maintain order in these highly volatile business ventures.

One Hundred Thirty Three and Three Quarter (We still have ¾ of a sworn officer?) sworn vacant personnel positions, will be eliminated from the budget. The savings from these positions being eliminated have already been included in the vacancy savings that was already part of the calculation of the fiscal year 2011 deficit. The elimination of these positions will effectively shut down any and all recruiting of officers for the San Diego Police Department. This will in turn effectively eliminate the need for Academy personnel. The Police Department is currently woefully understaffed and struggles daily to meet the staffing needs necessary to respond to citizens calls for service. The danger faced by officers responding to calls is increasing as every day passes that the department continues to be understaffed. The fatigue and stress coupled with long work hours and constant vigilance to ensure their safety and the safety of others is taking its toll on every member of the department.

The proposed cuts to the canine unit are the most alarming. Under the mayor's proposal, a reduction of K-9 operations by 40% will leave twenty-four (24) K-9 officers to cover three patrol watches. The elimination of these 12 K-9 officers will further jeopardize the safety of officers and citizens. Those suspects who in the past submitted to arrest without physical altercation, simply because a K-9 officer was available and present on scene, will no longer be commonplace. The need for officers to enter canyons, fields and buildings in pursuit of dangerous suspects will now place the officers at a much greater risk for having to use force and the potential for injury will be dramatically increased. The incidence of claims due to injuries resulting from these physical confrontations will greatly reduce any cost savings sought by this proposal. I liken the proposals the mayor has presented to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The elimination of the K-9 officers; the Police Code Compliance Officers; the Police Service Officer II positions; and the Investigative Aide positions, is simply penny wise and pound foolish. One of the greatest tasks and responsibilities of government is the protection of its people. The shortsighted reductions proposed by the mayor will have a profound effect on the ability of officers to provide for the public's safety. Of even greater concern is the peril officers are now being placed unnecessarily so elected officials can gain political capital.

In the coming weeks, changes will no doubt take place, as politics enter the fray and a gaggle of cooks entered the kitchen. The mayor is going to receive pressure from his "fiscal task force" for these one-time cuts and continued shuffling of the deck chairs. There is nothing in the mayor's proposal that addresses the unfunded liability for the retirement system or retiree medical. There is nothing in the mayor's proposal to increase revenue to a level necessary to sustain basic core services in the city of San Diego. The mayor's proposal is a superficial and haphazard proposal for what the mayor terms an 18 month budget. We will be back at this again in very short order (LESS than 18 months).

We are supposed to be thankful that there were no sworn officers laid off. As I sit here writing this I do not feel thankful in the slightest. The bottom line is there are going to be citizens and officers alike injured and in some cases killed because of these reductions. Who will be held to answer?

The Little Rube aka Carl DeMaio Strikes Again

2009-11-23T20:58:00.001-08:00

I am no doubt going to have to edit my language in this rant tonight. Tweet after tweet from this bombastic activist, posing as a city council member, I found myself swearing at the computer as I read this moron's press release; statement titled, "Competition and Transparency in City Contracting"; and last but not least the "Full Text of the Initiative" this self appointed savior of the city has presented to the City Clerk, to begin the process of collecting signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot in November 2010. This ballot initiative is signed by the little rube as well as Bob Glaser. Bob Glaser, for those who do not know, is the goof who sued the city, when at a Charger game a woman ponies up next to him at the urinal trough and dropped her pants and urinates, embarrassing and traumatizing him. He is also a political consultant in San Diego.

The actions of the elected officials in this city are about as pathetic as any city in this nation. The unethical, secret, backdoor political actions are completely and totally out of control. The mayor and his "Fiscal Task Force" secretly planning and plotting the actions of the mayor and now the little rube; writing, signing and presenting for signatures a proposal for a ballot initiative. This is just another in a string of actions by this person that shows his true character and agenda. If he can't get his way at council, he will use the initiative process to further his agenda.

I find his actions, as a sitting council member, to be wholly and totally inappropriate. The initiative process was not designed to be used in this manner. As an elected politician, his first course of action should have been to calendar this issue for discussion with his colleagues on the city council. He owes a responsibility to the other members of the council, an opportunity for input and discussion. I know this may come as a surprise to this "Napoleonic Rube" but he is not the savior of all mankind and the City of San Diego.

The reality is the little rube is a phony and when specifics are required his arguments evaporate. His sound bites, taken alone, sound great and it is hard to find fault with many of his recommendations because of the brevity and ability to comingle facts and information. Begin to ask questions and demand specifics and things begin to fall apart quickly for the little rube. Who would argue it is appalling for city workers to retire with a retirement salary of 178% of their salary at age 50? Just one of the many facts the little rube puts out at every opportunity to the ignorant and misinformed taxpayer. I could go on for hours with the misinformation I have heard from this activist poser.

If the little rube is as smart as he purports to be, his task is a simple one; use his intelligence, fact and logic to garner the necessary votes to place his initiative on the ballot by convincing his council colleagues to agree with the need and voting among themselves to do just that. He has done none of this and has again jumped upon a stool and lambasted an apathetic mayor, disparaged his council colleagues and pounded upon his chest he is the know all, save all, savior of the City. I also want to point out, the initiative, in its current form, is inaccurate and cannot be enforced. There are repeated references to a "City Manager" for which we no longer have in the strong mayor form of government to fulfill the responsibilities as spelled out in this initiative.

The little rube's Press Release, notated at the end; "Paid for by San Diegans for Fair and Open City Contracting, FPPC # Pending 7185 Navajo Road, Suite P, San Diego 92119." Care to venture who these "San Diegans" are and what their connection is to the little rube? I have already marked my calendar to check with the registrar when filings are completed to identify contributors and supporters of this initiative. How much money is the little rube advancing this committee to further his agenda? My guess is the same players as usual. Time will tell.

Wake up San Diego; it's all smoke and mirrors; you are about to be taken for another ride. If you need to see a picture of our future, take a look at Detroit.

San Diego’s Secret Committee

2009-11-21T21:09:00.001-08:00

I believe the "Task Force" put together by the mayor to be illegal. The more I read and understand of the actions taken by the "Mayor's Fiscal Task Force" I believe their actions and the actions of the mayor to be in violation of Government Code Section 54950, known as the "Brown Act." Reading from the draft report's first paragraph, given to the Voice of San Diego; "the group met weekly for four months to study the overall status of the City's fiscal position. The task force reviewed relevant City of San Diego data and records, (IBA Report #: 09-75, Personnel Expense Analysis, Per Capita Income Comparison, City Revenue Comparisons, Fiscal Year 2001-2015 Five-Year Financial Outlook), as well as similar data from other comparable municipalities. The task force interviewed members of the City's executive staff (including Jay Goldstone and his fiscal team). Also interviewed were the City's Independent Auditor and the Independent Budget Analyst - Andrea Tevlin - with her fiscal team. The task force met with representatives from the County of San Diego, various local constituents, including organized labor, non-profits, private business and citizens groups, and various subject matter experts" it is clear this is NOT an "Ad Hock Committee."

In enacting the "Brown Act," the legislature declared public commissions, boards and councils as well as other public agencies in the State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It was the intent of the legislature, actions be taken openly and the deliberations be conducted openly (in public). The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to those who serve them. The people, in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

The law requires the meetings of this group of civic individuals, brought together by the mayor, to be noticed and open to the public. The secrecy of this group and the actions undertaken on behalf of the mayor, demand the public's knowledge and ability to participate. As stated above, the legislature's intent was to ensure all actions on behalf of the public be done openly. I said in my last post the mayor would attempt to identify this task force as an "Ad Hock Committee" which is not governed by the Brown Act. After reading the draft, linked in a Voice of San Diego article on Friday, November 20, 2009, titled; "Bankruptcy an Option, Says Mayor's Fiscal Task Force" written by Liam Dillon, I believe the mayor and members of this "Task Force" have violated the Brown Act.

The recommendations contained in the "draft" document demand public discussion and input from members of the public. To do so after the fact has proven in the past to be futile and meaningless. The secret activities of the members of this "Task Force" and mayor bring into question the integrity of those involved, as well as the process. Their lack of open discussion and debate leaves one to question the process and outcomes. Reading the draft document leaves a lot of questions unanswered and presents questions of legality. The document is rife with assumptions that in some cases are incorrect and could have been vetted, if discussed in a public forum.

I would urge everyone to read the draft of the mayor's "Fiscal Task Force" report. It is imperative we all understand the issues and recommendations from this group; there is a clear agenda present in their writings. This group and the work they have presented cannot be ignored nor allowed to proceed unchecked. We must become an active participant in our future and demand to be included in the discussions and actions of this group, constituted by the mayor.

Open Government & Transparency

2009-11-19T22:10:00.001-08:00

The mayor is at it again! On Tuesday, twelve prominent (if you consider "former" whatever's prominent) well connected, downtown money elite individuals, delivered a "draft" report to the mayor with solutions for fixing the city's budget deficit. The Voice of San Diego attempted to get a copy of the report from the mayor only to be told he did not have a copy to give them. To make this clear, the Voice of San Diego made a public records request for the report and was told the mayor's office did not keep a copy (I find this unbelievable).

In an article titled, "Private Task Force Delivers Report on Finances to Mayor" Liam Dillon of the Voice of San Diego, identified the members of the task force and attempted to shed light on the information being presented. In a prior post here, "The mayor's Legacy" I discussed the mayor's "Civic Leadership 2009-2012" an action team of "civic" leaders picked by the mayor to provide him policy suggestions and help push his agenda. I spoke about the various topics being discussed by these handpicked individuals, all behind closed doors and out of the public's view.

The names of those on the mayor's "Fiscal Task Force" are interesting to say the least. Vince Mudd, owner of Office Interiors; Neil Derrough, former Executive for CBS; Pete Garcia, former Executive with University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors; Mark Koop, Executive for Quan Investment; Marshall Merrifield, Founder of Clark Security Products; Bill Roper, former Executive of Verisign Inc; Dan Shea, Owner of Donovan's Steak & Chop House; Susan Snow, Executive with Odyssey Capital Group; Mark Stephens, Managing Partner with Ernst and Young; Bob Tjosvold, former Executive with Bank of America; Dick Vortman, former Executive with National Steel and Shipbuilding Co; and Barbara Warden, former San Diego City Council member.

Reading between the lines, it appears the mayor and his committee is at odds with who "owns" the report. Vince Mudd is the chairman of this Fiscal Task Force and said the report will be "comprehensive and free from any mayoral vetoes over its content." Sounds as if the mayor was not happy with the report and wanted changes. Mudd continued, "The concept of the report is looking at the fiscal situation as a whole from a real honest perspective, one that's not filtered in any way through a political lens." So help me mayor, the report looks at the fiscal situation of the city from a "real honest perspective" and because it was not in a manner that would be politically correct or in keeping with your agenda, you told this secret committee to take the report back?

Rachel Laing said the mayor created the "Civic Leadership Team" to push his (the mayor) agenda, not to promote the agendas of others. Laing is quoted in the Voice of San Diego article, "When you know it's going to change and you get your marching orders for change, then there is no reason to keep one." Even more light is being shined on this secret committee and their report. Laing is telling us clearly the mayor was not happy with the report and wanted changes. Laing continues, "If there's something in the report that's not accurate or not in keeping with the mayor's agenda then we don't want that out there." Trouble is brewing in Emerald City. Vince Mudd did not share Laing's views. Mudd said, "When the report comes out, I have a tremendously high level of confidence that the mayor is going to want to see what's in it, and there's going to be things in it that the mayor's not going to like it."

The bigger issue with all of this is the secret meetings and the public's business being kept from the public. The "Civic Leadership Team" put together by the mayor will no doubt be called an "ad hock committee" to avoid the need to follow the Brown Act. It is these exact types of actions that caused the California State Legislature to enact Government Code Section 54950-54962, known as the "Brown Act." In enacting this law, the legislature declared public commissions, boards and councils as well as other public agencies in the State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It was the intent of the legislature, actions be taken openly and the deliberations be conducted openly (in public). The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to those who serve them. The people, in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

The secrecy of these meetings, reports, discussions and actions, if not illegal are in the very least, appalling and destructive. "Open government and Transparency" is simply political double speak, lacking any semblance of reality relative to the mayor and his administration. The repeated lies, denials, and secrecy of the mayor have caused the council to keeps its distance and caused employee groups to distrust anything presented by him or his administration. Trust is easy to destroy and virtually impossible to restore. The mayor does not have time to restore the trust he never had. The only thing transparent in the mayor's administration is the mayor himself.

Fundamental Priority

2009-11-18T22:19:00.001-08:00

Keegan Kyle of the Voice of San Diego wrote an article today (11-18-2009) titled, "Next on the Chopping Block: Public Safety." The issue addressed in the article was the discussion by city government of cutbacks to public safety. Keegan correctly identified why this is an important issue that people need pay closer attention to. Keegan goes on to explain why this is now being considered.

"There is no room to cut in either department," said Jeff Bowman, a former San Diego Fire chief. "I realize the city has budget problems, but the city has immense public safety problems." Bowman said public safety should be the fundamental priority of city government over other obligations like infrastructure, recreation or social services.(Taken from VOSD article)

Erik Bruvold, president of the Institute for Policy Research at National University, compared a trimmed-down public safety force to a less costly insurance policy. As the city invests less money in public safety services -- mostly police, rescue and fire -- its residents are going to receive less coverage when an unexpected event happens. (Taken from VOSD article)

We are being told things are not as bad as first thought; things are getting better; the stock market has rebounded; there will be no layoffs; and there will be no cuts to wages or benefits (guaranteed). The city is spending money like a drunken sailor and the police department moves forward with the promotional process for sergeant and lieutenant. Consultants were hired TODAY to begin evaluation of the downtown site for a new stadium for the Chargers; the land necessary to begin the expansion of the Convention Center was purchased this week; and work continues on the planning and development for a new city hall and downtown library.

Yesterday's revelation from the mayor's Financial Director the city's revenue projections are off by $10 million, pushing the projected deficit to $190 million does not sound BETTER to me. Things are getting better folks. Things are not as bad as first thought. I still have that land for sale and I know it's expected to be cloudy the next couple of nights, so if anyone wants to check the land out I am available.

Jeff Bowman, former chief of the San Diego Fire Department seems to be the only person willing to point out the obvious. His honest, reasoned comments are and always have been refreshing. Chief Bowman points out what the mayor and council seem to forget; government's fundamental priority is public safety. Infrastructure, social services, recreation, and other obligations, while important fall in line behind public safety. As Eric Bruvold points out, trimmed down public safety is akin to a less costly insurance policy and the less money invested in public safety will result in less coverage when an unexpected event happens. Keegan understands fully why cutting public safety should be avoided at all cost. Keegan writes, "Reductions in public safety funding could lead to slower response times for some neighborhoods and increase the risk of property damage and loss of life."

Is there anyone in this city willing to stand up and demand the city's politicians focus their priorities on those fundamental priorities that make sense? Public Safety; safe and passable streets; refuse collection; clean water; and adequate education for our children need be the priorities before a stadium; convention center expansion; new city hall or library; parks; pools; seals; fire pits; museums; operas; needle exchange; DARE; STAR; staffing in the mayor and council offices; or any of the other political social service programs provided by the city.

Glen Sparrow, professor emeritus at San Diego State University's School of Public Affairs was quoted in Kyle's Voice of San Diego article as saying, "I don't think that there is any good way that [the City Council] can come out of this. This is going to be a bloodbath." I could not agree more with Mr. Sparrow's assessment of the situation. The sad part is Sparrow is referring to the cuts to employees and services; I believe the bloodbath is going to be the human loss by way of serious injuries and the loss of life. Who is going to accept responsibility for this blood?

Land of Oz and the Emerald City

2009-11-17T22:57:00.001-08:00

When I was growing up, one of my favorite movies was the Wizard of Oz. The first time I watched it was on a black and white television and I was scared out of my wits. The scarecrow; tin man; cowardly lion; Dorothy and Toto; Aunt Em and Uncle Henry; Wicked Witch of the West; the Wicked Witch of the North, Glenda; Munchkins; and The Wizard of Oz; are but a few of the characters in this fairy tale. Their journey to the Land of Oz and Emerald City turns into a quest to find a brain for the scarecrow, a heart for the tin man and courage for the lion and for Dorothy to get back to Kansas. Toto inadvertently outs the Wizard as a fraud and simply an ordinary man hiding behind a curtain, operating a giant console that makes him appear bigger than life.

I have watched this movie more times than I care to count or will ever admit to. I still enjoy the music and story and have found as I grow older, I often correlate the story line with life in what was once "America's Finest City." Can you place the scarecrow; maybe the tin man or the cowardly lion? When you think of the Wicked Witch of the West; what comes to mind? The Wizard of Oz; he is bigger than life and revered by the people until exposed as a phony; who could this be?

Many people believed the movie, written during the height of the U.S. Gold Standard monetary system, which in the end failed miserably and harmed everyone, depicted various players of that time in history. I liken the movie to the goings on in San Diego and the players who control the strings. Written in 1939, The Wizard of Oz is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago. The cast of Oz is interchangeable with the cast of so called leaders in San Diego. Pick the leader/politician and assign him/her a character from the movie and cringe at the reality of today.

Today seemed to bring more light related to the budget deficit we are facing next year. The mayor initially listed the deficit at $179 million and of late was attempting to persuade people that things were not as bad as first thought and with the growth of the Stock Market a smaller payment necessary to the Retirement System. I still have that land for sale. At the City Council today, it became apparent the mayor and staff are stone walling. Council member Frye got into an exchange with Nader Tirandazi, Financial Director for the mayor. During the exchange, Tirandazi let it slip revenue projections were off by $10 million which puts the deficit at closer to $190 million. The IBA put the deficit at $200 million some time ago and if history repeats, she will be closer to reality than the mayor.

So what does this all mean to us? In my estimation, anyone still saying things are not as bad as first thought are living in fantasy land (Emerald City) and doing a disservice to the people they impart this baloney. Things will not turn around until everyone acknowledges the depth of the problem we are staring down and begins to openly and honestly discuss them. Cheerleading from the sidelines and trying to get the crowd into the game will not put points on the board. A game plan, with a leader willing to risk, and players who know the play are what is required to move the ball and put points on the board. Cheering from the sidelines and telling the players on the bench things are getting better and not to worry is in no way productive nor helpful.

Someone needs to pull the curtain back and expose the wizard. Unlike Dorothy clicking her heals three times while saying "There's no place like home" to get back to Kansas, no amount of clicking heals while saying "Things are not as bad as thought" will not get us through this economic crisis. The words to "Over the Rainbow" are perfect for the dreamers in San Diego; "Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high. There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby. Somewhere, over the rainbow, skies are blue and the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true. Someday I'll wish upon a star and wake up where the clouds are far behind me. Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops. That's where you'll find me. Somewhere, over the rainbow, bluebirds fly. Birds fly over the rainbow, why then - oh, why can't I? If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why, oh, why can't I?

The Wizard of Oz is alive and well in Emerald City, or is it San Diego?

Message from Anonymous

2009-11-16T22:49:00.001-08:00

The tenor of the comments to my latest BLOG posts seems to have taken on a much different tone of late. Frustration, anger, disgust and a bit of fear have begun to dominate. The focus of these words seems to be the chief officers occupying the 7^th floor. I have deliberately stayed away from bashing or joining in the discussions when it moves in that direction. I walk a fine line as I write at times between the protections afforded under the First Amendment to the Constitution and violating department policy. Taking on the department brass in a public forum has proven to be an unprotected right and has in the past subjected individuals to discipline.

I have had several discussions with various members of the 7^th Floor (for non members of the San Diego Police Department the 7^th floor is where the offices of the Chief's are situated) and have observed visible anger as they would discuss a particular BLOG post and the "Anonymous" poster. The common theme among them is their view of those persons who post comments as "Anonymous" they are "cowards; trouble makers; idiots; not to be taken serious; and meaningless" and they (chief officers) reject out of hand what is posted by those using this label.

To some degree I agree with this view; and again I said to some degree. I would prefer people select a user name when posting comments and stick with it. This accomplishes several things in my mind; allows for dialogue back and forth with me and others; provides a name, albeit a pseudo name for others to identify with; and brings the writer of the comments more respect. BUT, I completely understand why people chose to remain "Anonymous" and not provide any hint or glimmer of their identity. I will hold myself up as the poster child for why it is better at times to remain anonymous when writing things that are not politically correct or may offend the target of the rant.

This BLOG started out "Anonymous" and my intention was to keep it that way. I had not thought through the name I assigned to the BLOG and a couple of people called me out. They did this innocently and not with any malice to injure or create problems. After about 2 weeks I came out from behind the monitor and identified myself and took ownership of the contents of this BLOG. It was not long after I became known as the author I started hearing certain people (management) were upset with me. I was careful not to rant about the department or its members and stayed clear of the dialogue about the perceptions many people voiced about the members of the 7^th floor.

I have on several occasions been challenged for the content of my posts to this BLOG by members of management. These same individuals have expressed the perception my comments about the mayor, council and others in some way creates a climate that somehow makes their job more difficult. I was asked by three of those on the 7^th floor how the chief could promote me to lieutenant with my BLOG being so negative toward the mayor and council. I believed then and still believe my BLOG and the content of my posts should have had no part of the discussion relative to my abilities and qualification for promotion. I am also not so naive as to believe my BLOG would not become a topic during these discussions.

Back to my initial topic; "Message from Anonymous" and the implications of being identified or worse, ignored. Sometimes we reject out of hand a message from someone we do not like; have a low opinion of; or have a poor relationship with. We take the position, "consider the source" and close our minds to what it is this person may say or write. We all do this, some of us more often than others and some of us are not even discreet about the manner we take when rejecting the information. The problem is we miss important information by doing this.

I am aware the people on the 7^th floor are regular readers of this BLOG. I am also aware these same people take issue with the comments posted by "Anonymous." I believe the messages being put out by "Anonymous" are being missed and not being taken serious. The frustration with a perceived lack of support from the chief officers is a common theme among posters. The frustration is growing by the day and incidents mounting giving cause to the frustration turning to anger and disgust. Officers, detectives, sergeants and others grumble openly about their perception no one is willing to stand up and support them. They watch with anger and frustration press conferences where the public is told crime is down and all is well in San Diego with the police officers and the department. They see interviews where the lack of staffing is downplayed and the mayor discusses further reductions to wages, benefits and personnel. They speak out at the perception no one is standing up for them. They point north to Los Angeles PD and the chief standing on the steps of city hall challenging the council to provide additional personnel. They grumble about the perceived lack of communication from management and have grown weary of hearing bad news in the press when the belief is the information should be provided from within. Many feel they are being lied to and would prefer open, honest discussion from management about the budget and other issues facing them.

The frustration, anger, disgust and fear coming through the comments on my BLOG cannot be ignored or discounted because the person posting them wishes to remain anonymous. The messages need, at the least, to be viewed and discussed by the management of the police department. Individuals who may be the focus of the comments must take the comments in and determine if there is a cornel of truth and act accordingly. "Anonymous" has a message that must be taken seriously. Discount if you must the messenger, but take heed of the message and make this a better place tomorrow than it is today.

OneSD or Not; Just Volunteer?

2009-11-15T20:21:00.001-08:00

So I have to wonder what the future holds for OneSD and the City of San Diego. Currently the program is being rolled out city wide; bills take forever to get paid (if at all) and the next roll out is to take on payroll. If you have not heard, Tom Flemming, the head of SDDPC has resigned and the owners of the program being used by OneSD have sued the City and SDDPC for breach of contract. The company Axon, has demanded the software and supporting documentation be returned and has asked for an injunction preventing the City from continuing to use the program. In a suit filed in US District Court, Axon is seeking $5.6 million for breach of contract.

I wrote about this debacle a while back in a post titled, "OneSD Joke is on YOU" where I talked about the cost over runs and the management of this program. The initial project coordinator, Rick Reynolds was fired and filed a law suit claiming wrongful termination. This entire program has been a joke from the beginning and with every turn more problems than a college calculus math book. There is no end in sight for the incompetence in leadership when it comes to the City of San Diego.

Is it any wonder the city is facing a deficit of between $179 and $200 million? There was another article in the Voice of San Diego talking about the proposed cut of 800 "vacant" positions within the city. The article, titled "Emptying the Notebook: City Vacancies" talks about the many "provisional employees" and the fact they are not on the books and do not show up anywhere. Just another example of the City cooking the books and playing games all the while cutting positions. Why do people come back to do this for less money than they were making when working? They do it because in most cases they were not prepared to leave when they did; need additional money because their retirement is NOT what all the pundits and naysayers put out; or they just are not ready to let go. The problem is a full time employee faces layoff because the city can show the layoff, save the benefit costs (including retirement costs), pay less salary and get the job done, thus giving the appearance to the taxpayer all is well and they see and feel no adverse affect.

There is virtually no way of tracking these positions and how many there are city wide. There are even those who are "volunteering" their services out of miss placed loyalty and a feeling of dedication to the public to make sure the job they once did is still being done. Police officers are violating their training every day answering calls alone when they should not; cutting corners when completing investigations; talking victims out of reporting crimes and not taking the time to arrest misdemeanor criminals or issuing traffic citations to remain clear for priority calls. There is virtually no pro-active police work being done today due to a lack of experience and adequate staffing. Responding to radio calls for service is the norm today and not much else. The telephone report unit takes at times two to three days or more to call victims back to take a report. In many instances the victims decline to follow through due to the delay in call back and or do not call back when asked to do so. Is it any wonder crime shows down?

There is word out that the city's financial condition is improving due to an uptick in the Stock Market. Officers are being promised there will be no cuts to wages or personnel. To all those who believe this poppycock I have some land I need to sell. I can show you the land any evening where the moon is hidden and the tide is low. It's a great piece of waterfront property where you could easily build a retirement home for not a lot of money.

Anyone saying there will be no further cuts to wages and benefits is either smoking wacky tabacky or has lost touch with the reality of life in San Diego. The stock market surge will have little if any affect on the budget for next year. The failure of housing prices to rebound; sales tax revenue is still at an all time low; the state is raising income tax by 10% further reducing spendable income; and revenue is still lagging behind projections; all of this means things are about as bad as they can be. The deficit is on the low side $179 million and on the high side over $200 million. The projections are for the deficits to be at or over $100 million for the next 5-7 years. The only way to cut these deficits is to reduce expenses and increase revenue. The mayor has steadfastly refused to discuss increases to revenue by way of increased fees or taxes. That leaves his idiocy of simply cutting. My projection is he will be gone before people realize what a joke he and his policies were and how much damage he truly has done.

The city continues to spend as if there is no problem. The city council told the mayor they were not going to reduce their office staff or spending. In an article in Sunday's Union Tribune, "Council ignoring mayor on cutbacks" Ben Hueso is quoted as saying, "The current structure reflects essential staff. Any reduction of personnel would make it nearly impossible to conduct effective committee ad council meetings." So if I understand Mr. Hueso correctly the city council believes they are operating with minimum staffing right now. Can someone get a call to these people on the city council and share with them the REAL numbers of police officers and clue them in the police department is and have been operating with WELL BELOW MINIMUM STAFFING for some time now? Let them know we need help; no matter what they have been told; we are in dire need of help and someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed if they do not do something NOW!

Welfare Queen; GED Uneducated Dolts; Cadillac Benefits

2009-11-13T00:01:00.001-08:00

These are descriptors of you if you are a city employee; past or present. Do those words cause any reaction? Whose words are these? He goes on, "Well it seems the chickens have come home to roost. All your bitching and whining will do nothing but prove to the taxpayers you're are overpaid crybabies. With a $200M shortfall, you trough feeders will soon be earning what GED uneducated dolts ought to be paid." These words have been written many times by this same individual. He has a bent toward police officers and public employees.

"You only have yourselves to blame...that gold plated cadillac pension program has bankrupted the city. Retiring at age 50 is not sustainable and being gifts of more than you supposed earned for retirement is just another example of government workers sucking the life out of the those of us who have real jobs." The words are crude; written at a mostly 5^th grade level and sadly believed by a large, miss-informed public.

Many of our friends, neighbors and even family members have read the lies, twisting and gross exaggerations related to our retirement. The twisting of the General Retirement and Safety Retirement leads most people to believe we are all retiring millionaires at age 50 and never paid a dime as we earned our retirement. "Government workers feeding at the trough at the higher levels is a given but in San Diego its an art. Combine those reductins with a 12 percent pay cut then contribute 50% of the costs of your own retiree medical is whats fair to the taxpayrs who pay your bloated salary and cadillac benefits. Change the retirement age to 60 like the rest of us and get rid of the DB. You loose creditibilty when you want to raise taxes. Welfare queens always want more taxing more is not the answer. Taxpayer have been raped over the years by govment workers now all of you must come back to reality like the rest of us. These changes would reduce the unfunded retirement deficit substantially. But BK is the solution where we can take it all back and bring wages and benefits to a more reasonable rate."

The above written in red (copied exactly as he wrote it) was written by arguably the number one hater of public employees in San Diego; BILLY BOB HENRY. Who is Billy Bob Henry (BBH) and why does he hate city employees? BBH is the pseudo name he uses as he hides behind his computer and bashes employees; chides and harangues those who attempt to correct his inaccurate writings and refuses to identify himself. He purports to be an attorney. One of the many lies he has told. "You loose creditibilty" is not the writing of an individual who obtained a Juris Doctorate.

Over the years BBH has been a prolific poster to various BLOGS on the internet. He was a regular on the Voice of San Diego, always supporting Michael Aguirre and writing caustic, misleading and outright false diatribes about city workers and retirement benefits. BBH often used the pseudo name "Johnny Vegas" when positing on SignonSanDiego. Many theories as to who this coward is have floated here and there. He has said in the past he is a police academy graduate. He has said he does not have a POST certificate (Not even a Basic certificate) but insists he graduated from "a police academy in San Diego." OK, so he graduated but either failed or quit before he completed probation.

He claims to have earned a Juris Doctorate and is a practicing attorney. I will let you be the judge of this claim. The writings above are EXACTLY as he wrote them. I understand sometimes we write faster than we can type and mistakes happen. But the dribble above is so bad in structure, spelling and word use it cannot be explained away as typos or being in a hurry. Maybe a little too much alcohol on board; but the first one was posted on the 11^th at 0823 hours and the second on the 12^th at 0659 hours. Knowing his past posts, it is possible alcohol was in play, but I actually think he is just a "GED Uneducated Dolt" whose writing in phase training was so poor he failed out and had to go to work for Wackenhut.

I could go on about this poor excuse for a human, but you all get the picture. I want to ask you all to ignore his posts and not pay him any mind. The more attention he gets the worse he gets. I have made it a policy not to delete any posts from others and do not want to start now. He relishes in the attention and this will be the last time I will spend any space here talking about him. Please do the same.

This morning I was talking to another sergeant who told me of an incident yesterday at the Veteran's Day Parade the mayor attended. As the mayor rode along the parade route, a citizen yelled out to him, "Save the Chargers" to which the mayor yelled back, "I'm trying." A lady then yelled out, "Give the police officers a raise" to which the mayor gave a look of disgust, shook his head no and looked away. Priorities, priorities, priorities mayor; you need to get a clue. Convention Center Expansion; Downtown Library; City Hall Taj Mahal are all three high priority items for the mayor. The police department and its employees are not part of the mayor's priorities.

Yesterday the mayor held an impromptu press conference regarding the budget deficit and allowed the few reporters who attended to ask questions. During this exchange the mayor tipped his hand as to the numbers of layoffs to be expected. In a Voice of San Diego article, "Deficit Busting by Attrition" by Liam Dillon, he addressed the mayors comments, although cryptic (as usual) very telling. If eliminating 800 vacant positions is saving only $20 million dollars, what will it take to close the estimated $179 to $200 dollar deficit?

There is ALWAYS Hope; or is there?

2009-11-11T21:25:00.001-08:00

There are those who view life as a glass half full and there are those who view the same glass as half empty. Whose right and which view is most realistic? We have been through some very trying times over the last few years. Hundreds of senior and experienced officers were forced to retire; some before they had planned, to preserved benefits earned over many years. Repeated attacks to benefits and reductions to wages and benefits, have taken their toll. Today we face down the possibility of further reductions to wages and benefits and an even more real possibility of losing officers and support staff to layoffs.

The question of if we will lose officers is really more of how many we will lose. The question of how much more the city will take is also looming in the minds of officers. The mayor has repeatedly said police and fire will not escape the cuts facing workers in the city. The deficit is closing in on $200 million and projected to be as much the following year. Simple math dictates serious and deep cuts will be necessary to close such a huge deficit. The portion being attributed to the police department is $74 million. The mayor is graciously giving the department a $24 million dollar credit for the 300 plus vacant positions currently on the books. The down side is these positions will be eliminated permanently from the budget, thus again decreasing our ability to effectively provide for the public's safety.

The proposals floating around the department of eliminating various units (Horse Patrol, Harbor Unit, Division Narcotics Teams & others) does nothing to eliminate spending and close the deficit. The only way to make up $50 million will be to eliminate positions (people) from the payroll and cut spending. The elimination of overtime, holidays, take home cars, training, equipment and maintenance will help some. But when 70+% of your budget are personnel costs, the only effective way to close such a large deficit is huge cuts in this area.

When will someone stand up and demand the mayor and council take a step back and first decide where their priorities are? The taxpayers have consistently listed public safety as the number one priority of their government. While I am a fan of the Arts, Libraries, Park and Recreation, after school programs, senior and homeless outreach and many of the other social programs provided by government, I am a firm believer these programs are not priorities. I am not advocating the elimination of any of these programs either. But I do believe the programs need to be self sufficient and sustained by those who use them.

The mayor and councils refusal to seek increases to income is not a sustainable or realistic position today. They need to suggest and then support increases to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), a sales tax increase to support public safety and develop a ballot initiative to begin charging for refuse collection in the city. The fees for use of park and recreation facilities need to be more in line with the cost of the use as well as after school programs and the Arts. More assistance needs to be sought for adult/senior and homeless programs. Federal dollars need to be sought out and a more collaborative effort with the county and state. This is ONLY a beginning and will do little to close this year's deficit.

The department needs to re-structure from the top down. The department is top heavy with redundant responsibilities being shared and duplicated. The elimination of two chief's positions, the legal advisor, four captains, ten lieutenants and as many as thirty sergeants are possible. The department also needs to determine priorities. Taking a page from the taxpayers; what is important to them? What is it they expect of us? What are their true priorities? I am a firm believer if the right questions are asked of the right people we will understand the priorities of the people we serve. I do not mean listening to the loudest yellers or the agenda driven small groups of people who seem to push their way into the spotlight.

I am sure to have pissed off some chief's, captains, lieutenants and sergeants, not to mention the chief's legal advisor. In an effort to step out of the box and make changes that are meaningful and have the least impact on providing the services we do, I have thrown some things out to begin a process of changing the way we think. Do we really need six chiefs? Do we really need a captain for every division? Do we honestly need two and three lieutenants in divisions? If we re-structured our field units and teams could we not eliminate a number of sergeant positions? The trade off is the responsibility for leading this department is driven lower and closer to where the work is actually done. Lieutenants would take on many of the responsibilities of the Captain and the sergeants would take on many of the responsibilities of the lieutenants and some of the political activities we have become involve in will have to be eliminated. Getting back to the basics of police work and leaving the social work and politics of seals and other issues to others is a good first start.

To reach $50 million in savings/cuts there is going to be pain. I said in a prior post we are going to be made the bad guy when we refuse to accept additional wage cuts and fight further reductions to benefits. The threats of large layoffs will loom and the department will have to make some tough decisions. There will be coveted assignments eliminated and people moved to priority positions. Before any of this takes place we first need to know what the priorities are from the taxpaying public. I am a taxpayer and am tired of listening to a mayor and council tell me what my priorities are. We as a department are not in a position to tell those we serve what their priority should be. Politics needs to be removed from the equation and honest assessments of crime and trends need to be presented. That does not mean we use the flawed FBI statistics to paint a picture of everything is great and crime is down. We all know better and are tired of hearing this.

There is always hope things will get better and we will come out of this unscathed. I am the type of person who looks at the glass as still having something to offer and yet room for more. I am the type of person who would rather be told honestly of the perils of the future than listen to someone blow smoke. What is going on today demands honest, frank discussion and leaders willing to confront misinformation and publicly support their employees. To do otherwise is a failure and disservice to those who count on this leadership and support. The reality of today is the outlook for the future is bleak and hope for a turnaround anytime soon is not good.

Changing Values

2009-11-11T00:27:00.001-08:00

Lou Holtz who once coached Notre Dame used the acronym, "W.I.N." or "What's Important Now" to motivate his players and keep their focus on winning. Holtz wanted his players to ask themselves "What's Important Now" at least 35 times a day. When we first joined the police department we each had a set of values and an idea of what was important to us at that time. Ask yourself; "What's Important Now."

While you think of the thoughts that popped into your mind to this short but very important phrase; has the answer changed since you first put on that badge? Family; compassion; friends; honesty; integrity; doing what is right; getting promoted; securing a special assignment; your partner. Many of us came into law enforcement with the idea and desire of helping people. We developed a level of integrity and honesty as we matured and became adults. Our values were shaped and what was important in life reflected our values. What's Important Now?

We became police officers and began to see a different world. We experienced the human race at its extreme and our values began to change. The changes for some were drastic and not always for the better. Some of us maintained our core values; and what was important when we became police officers, changed very little. Why did some of our values change more than others? Why is it that what was important when we joined the world of law enforcement, for some, was no longer on the radar of importance? Could it be the "What's Important Now" changed?

As we gained experience and begin to shape our careers, we either maintained our values or we began to compromise them to meet our desire for advancement or "What's Important Now." We began to do and say things that reflected "What's Important Now;" and this in some cases began to challenge the values once held. Some failed to conform and challenged the changing values of others. These individuals became known as "trouble makers" or "malcontents" or "disgruntled" for challenging the status quo of those whose values changed. So the question remains, "What's Important Now?"

The higher the level of decision maker, the less that decision over time, appeared to be value based. The further removed from the decision makers rank or position one stood, the more he or she seemed to question or challenge these decisions. Compromising ones values came easy for some and never occurred to others. "What's Important Now" seemed to change the values of some and not for the better. Getting promoted began to be the, "What's Important Now."

The process has begun anew for the next round of promotions. The values of those participating will be tested as the process plays itself out. I challenge each of the candidates to ask yourself "What's Important Now" as you move through the process. I challenge you to first evaluate your values and rank them in importance. Write them down and keep them fresh in mind as you start playing the game. Changing or compromising ones values so you can grab that carrot held just out of reach is not what success is about.

We need great leaders whose decisions are driven by solid values. In today's climate, honesty, integrity and compassion are the values most important for a leader to possess. If a leader can act and make decisions that are driven by honesty and integrity and be compassionate in doing so, he or she has succeeded. We have enough leaders whose decisions are not value based. Your challenge will be to challenge the status quo and maintain your values as you ask yourself, "What's Important Now."

YOU are going to be the BAD GUY

2009-11-09T21:59:00.001-08:00

In the next few days the mayor will announce proposed cuts in city services to close a $179 to $200 million deficit. The mayor will also tout new indicators of lower crime and a safe city. Various chief officers are doing all they can by spreading the news there is hope in the air. The stock market has rebounded and the mayor is telling everyone the payment to SDCERS is going to be less than expected. The joy in their voices is unmistakable and the glee in their eyes is akin to a young child coming around the corner Christmas morning to see a new bike under the tree. In the next couple of weeks the city and SDPOA will begin the process of "negotiations" for a new contract. History does not offer even a glimmer of hope of being treated fairly by this mayor. Yet there are those who want all of us to believe otherwise. I have a few predictions.

CUTS are in your future for sure! There will be reductions in benefits and cuts to wages. The mayor will seek to reduce overtime by demanding the elimination of holidays from our contract. There will be other demands made by the mayor in an attempt to reduce the overtime paid to police officers. The mayor will continue his push to reduce or eliminate retirement benefits and further the divide between police officers of this city and citizens. The mayor has an agenda and he could give a damn about fairness, equity or the men and women who protect and serve.

The chief officers are doing all they can to rally the troops and provide a measure of hope. The chief, always the cheerleader, continues to lead the cheer section as the rest of us watch time tick down on the clock. The score is so lopsided it would take a miracle to even get a tie at this point. But let's take a look at reality for a few minutes and recognize what we are up against. Before I do this, I want to share a sentiment I hear every day from officers and supervisors alike throughout the department. I innocently asked a detective if they were studying for the sergeant's test. The initial reply from this detective, "Trying, but not nearly as much as I want; no freaking time. I probably won't even take it, what's the point?" The frustration is clear and the drive obviously gone from an employee who has always had a very positive and upbeat attitude.

I pried a bit more and offered encouragement and talked about the positives of good people moving to the supervisor ranks. His reply was one that struck me as a systemic disease killing this once great organization from within. "I know. But honestly I really don't care because the drive has been lost during the last 5 years. You have to believe in the system, believe in the company, believe in what you are selling, and I don't believe anymore. The 7th floor could absolutely care less about their officer's and their people. If they did they would come out publicly and challenge the wrongs that are being said, challenge the city council, challenge the 'mayor' and essentially publicly back their officers. I, we, haven't heard a peep out of these people. I see it everyday around here and it's sickening to watch a once great department whittled down to a shell. Bitter? Maybe, but mostly I'm just disgusted."

The comments by this detective are reflective of what I have heard for the past several years from officers and supervisors alike. These sentiments seem to be getting stronger and deeper in the organization and have created a cadre of employees whose mantra seems to be "fuck-it; who cares." The ability to keep a happy face; positive attitude; and not allow reality to get in the way of the cheering from above has all but come to an end. People are fed up with the politics of smoke and mirrors and listening to a mayor and chief tell the public crime is down and all is well. They are tired of being made to feel as if they are the reason for the ills of the city and the constant haranguing in the press with no support from the leaders of this department. Loyalty is not a one way street and it appears many have reached the end of the pavement and are no longer willing to travel the bumpy road ahead.

The title of this rant is "You are going to be the BAD GUY" for a reason. The views in this rant are mine alone and developed while standing on the sidewalk, watching the masses chase the carrot of hope. As negotiations begin with the city, the tables have been set and cards dealt from a stacked deck long ago. Facing a deficit of $179 to $200 million dollars will require reductions across the board. The mayor is telling the chief; who is telling employees; the deficit will be less than expected because the stock market has rebounded. I will concede the stock market has made some upward movement. The cuts are going to be deep and to say otherwise is not facing reality. As with everything the mayor has done during his years in office; it is all in how it is presented.

The reductions necessary to close the deficit will require, as I said above, wage and benefit cuts and the elimination of employees. The catch will be how many employees need to be eliminated to meet the demands of the mayor to close the deficit. Where we become the "BAD GUY" is the "either / or" public demands the mayor will employ as negotiations stall. The mayor will publicly demand these wage and benefit cuts, "OR" he will have to lay off a large number of officers. So, you and I become the "BAD GUY" if we say NO. But before that happens, you can count on a heavy campaign, at the mayor's direction, from the 7^th floor for all of us to accept the wage and benefit cuts so the department does not lose another officer.

The carrot is being dangled in front of those who want to promote. The carrot is already being held in front of those who took Saturday's promotional exams. The sixty or so sergeants who took the lieutenants test will all be competing for maybe 2 or 3 spots? The carrot is the promotion; the fact it will always be held just out of reach will not matter to those who hold out hope for a small bite. The one hundred and fifty or so who took the sergeant's test will chase the same carrot. That carrot keeps over 200 employees volunteering for special assignments and doing more for less in hopes of getting hold of that cherished carrot. The sad part; all this is a complete and total waste of money, to keep people "hoping" they will be the one who gets the carrot.

The next five years will see exponential increases in crime; officer injuries; civil lawsuits against officers and the city; officers facing bankruptcy and foreclosures; and citizen complaints. The department will struggle to hire and retain officers and we will be made the "BAD GUY."

The mayor’s “Legacy”

2009-10-27T21:03:00.001-07:00

The doors are closed, the blinds turned down, music plays softly inside to muffle the sounds of deals being worked out behind those locked and secured doors. "Fiscal sustainability; water reliability; economic development; and community legacy projects" are but a few of topics being discussed outside of the eyes and ears of the taxpayer/voter. The list of "civic" leaders, movers and shakers and connected downtown money elite, grace the hidden "Action Teams" the mayor has secretly put together. To those of us who have lived through years of "decision by committee" where nothing ever got done when the mayor was pretending to be chief, it is now becoming obvious why the city is in such disarray.

The "Mayor's Civic Leadership 2009-2012" reads like the high society list of San Diego's rich and famous. The list is stacked with the well connected, downtown elite of who's who. Now I know I don't read every council agenda since leaving the SDPOA Board but I do stay up on the goings on and pay close enough attention I would have seen the approval of these individuals to the various committees enacted by the mayor. The question begs to be asked, "Was proper vetting done of the individuals and various committees put in place by the mayor?"

"Fiscal Sustainability"
"Water Reliability"
"Economic Development"
"Community Legacy Projects"
1. Convention Center Expansion
2. Civic Center Project
3. Airport Expansion
4. New Central Library
5. Regional Charger Stadium
6. Charter Reform

These are but a few of the topics being discussed and planned behind closed doors at the mayor's bequest. This "Kitchen Cabinet" as it has been referred, was first discovered back in August. John R. Lamb of The City Beat wrote an article, "A Sanders kitchen cabinet? An insider's dream team is forming to advise the mayor" back on August 25. In the article Bill Geppert, Cox cable honcho and Chairman of the Economic Development Corporation, said of the Civic Leadership Team; "I think the idea is to try to identify and organize people who are absolutely passionate about a particular project or area." "Then, in some cases, these people can bring their expertise and be credible supporters when they speak to the City Council or the community."

The mayor's Civic Leadership Team sprang into action when the City Council's "Land Use and Housing Committee" was taking up discussion related to a new policy to require the City Council to sign off on major downtown hotel projects. The members of the committee came to the mayor's aid after Geppert sent an e-mail out to members asking them to attend a meeting or get a message to the Committee members to help "rebuff an ill-advised ploy by organized labor." At the end of the article Geppert is boasting in the e-mail, "Our team had a great success last week with the Civic Center vote."

Is it a wonder why the priorities of the mayor are clearly focused on his legacy and helping out his financial supporters? The picture is becoming more and more clearer every day, as the film curls from around the edges of the glass and glimpses of the inner workings of a man possessed are exposed. The pattern of "Decision by Committee" is ever present and being kept from public view. The arena the mayor occupies does not allow for such back room discussion and deal making. The public's business is required to be conducted in public. The public's right to know is being trounced upon by the unscrupulous actions of a self centered egotist.

Where is the ethics commission and why is this being allowed in San Diego? Why have the actions of the mayor been ignored and others simply accepting of his politics? The city is headed to ruin and no one seems to care. Wake up San Diego and demand the priorities of the mayor reflect YOUR PRIORITIES.