The rube is at it Again

At the July 8, 2009, Budget and Finance Meeting of the City Council, the little rube jumped up on a soap box and demanded SDCERS provide "Raw Data" (Go to 6:30 of Video) so he can determine if DROP is cost neutral. His ranting lasts for about 2 minutes and then Marti Emerald fires back challenging the little rube's assertion SDCERS has refused to provide data as requested. It appears this issue was discussed in closed session and the others on the committee were reluctant to discuss this in the open. This even got the attention of the Reader where you can find an article titled; "DROP It Like It's Hot". The little rube is under some assumption he has subpoena powers now. Lord; help us all!!!!

This is becoming somewhat of a theme with the little rube. He has been caught spinning, twisting and falsely stating facts since he hit town. A little research tells a lot about a person who believes his importance is more than reality. To bolster his importance in the world of politics he likes to tell people he has advised the likes of George W. Bush, President of the United States and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California in the area of finance and government spending. When pressed about his connections to the White House and President Bush, the little rube back peddles and said he was on a "White House Advisory Panel." Dig deeper and you will learn he was one of a couple hundred government contractors who participated in panels to discuss budgets and government contracts. His actual participation is suspect. An extensive search of the documents prepared from these meetings, do not show his name anywhere.

The little rube touts his "Performance Institute" and the great work he has done with Law Enforcement. He proclaims expertise in so many areas it is almost laughable. But, I did some detailed investigation of my own to see just how much this little rube knows about law enforcement. Come to find out he knows nothing; does that surprise any of you? He, like his buddy the mayor, have surrounded themselves with people who know (in most cases think they know) what they are talking about. The little rube told the SDPOA he was going to make the San Diego Police Department into a "World Class Police Department." OK, so what are we now?

One of the little rube's mantras are to reduce wages and benefits that he believes are excessive and out of line with "Industry Standards." I guess he does not read the material his own company puts out. In a 2008, quarterly journal for law enforcement and first responders; Answering the Call, presented by the Performance Institute and the Police Policy Studies Council; there is an article on "Recruitment and Retention" of police officers. The first two paragraphs of the article say it all; Recruitment and retention in the law enforcement field has becoming increasingly difficult in the past few years. The "baby boomer" generation is now retiring or utilizing social security benefits at a rapid rate. With this group making up nearly 30% of the adult population, the job force is feeling pressure to fill these vacancies and establish solid succession plans. The need for quality personnel has continued to rise while the applicant pool has shown a steady decline in quality potential candidates.

Traditional populations of applicants have become more difficult to attract because of increasing societal changes. More than ever before private industry and security firms are luring qualified applicants with large paychecks and signing bonuses. Many agencies are also losing some of their best employees to other positions or jobs that offer a more attractive benefits package. The young adults of Generation X and Y are infiltrating the workforce at high volumes, while they typically have strayed away from the structural environment law enforcement jobs provide.

The article details the many methods of attracting new recruits and talks of the need to provide wages and benefits; Benefits are a great way to attract law enforcement professionals to your department. Advertisements, marketing literature or recruitment website should clearly state sick/personal holidays, paid holidays and vacation, tuition reimbursement, training programs and competitive base salaries with potential bonuses to reward performance. As everyone knows, benefits are expensive.

So maybe the little rube needs to read his own material; put out as a way to hire and retain police officers. Maybe he does not know his own research institute is telling communities and government what it takes to attract and keep qualified police officers? He has ranted about excessive vacation days being provided to employees in San Diego; never acknowledging the fact we have a combined bank of sick and vacation time and in most cases have fewer days than other cities. He rants about having excessive paid Holidays; yet we have the same or in some cases fewer holidays than other cities. Salaries; don't get me started with the idiocy I have heard from this rube about our "Excessive" wages. What is his plan for "Potential bonuses to reward performance?" I almost wet myself laughing at this one. The article even acknowledges what we all know; benefits are expensive. Maybe the little rube missed this edition of "Answering the Call?"

In the Winter 2008 issue of the "Answering the Call" there is a letter from the editor talking about the economic crisis in the United States. Apparently the little rube missed this one too. The editor, Stephanie Donaldson, VP of Education Services for the Law Enforcement Development Center of The Performance Institute wrote; "Over the past few months, the US and global financial crisis has worsened, dramatically affecting many state and local municipalities. In an economic downturn, too often agencies make reactive decisions to satisfy an immediate need or to balance the budget, only to compromise public safety in the long-term. With the large percentage of budget cuts around the country, departments are wondering how they will maintain public safety with less money and are looking for innovative ideas to ride out these economic hardships." Someone tell the little rube, the cuts he is demanding from the SDPOA and its members, IS COMPROMISING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE LONG TERM!!!!

When you see the little rube and have an opportunity to ask him a question, use these analyses from his OWN "Think Tank" or "Government Efficiency" institute. Take these articles with you and share them with those in attendance at whatever gathering he is preaching to. People believe this rube and think he is all knowing and the answer to the economic problems facing San Diego. He is a blow bag and full of hot air. He espouses theory and rhetoric as fact and cannot back up with substance anything he preaches.

mayor goes to Hollywood

Today the mayor and Kevin Faulconer went to Hollywood today to drum up business for San Diego. The story went something like this; "The mayor traveled to Los Angeles Friday to meet with entertainment industry executives in an attempt to lure more film and television productions to San Diego. The mayor was scheduled to meet with representatives from DreamWorks, Walt Disney Pictures, Universal Pictures and 20th Century Fox Television, according to the mayor's office. According to San Diego Film Commission statistics provided by the mayor's office, the entertainment industry supports 5,000 jobs in San Diego and had a $42 million economic impact on the region's economy last year."

No one can argue the need for jobs and revenue for San Diego. Questions need to be answered before the mayor signs on to entice the film and television productions to San Diego; who is paying for the back scene support? The police department is called upon to provide security for these ventures. In years past the city was reimbursed at a paltry rate for these police services and yet the city charged the police department for the cost of providing this security. When is the city going to start charging private business for the services they receive such as this? The Padres, Chargers, Rock 'n' Roll Marathon, Pride Parade, Street Scene and the many other private groups who put on events in this city pay a small portion of the costs for city services necessary to hold the event. The cost of overtime to police these events is charged to the Police Department at full cost. Who is footing the bill for this? You the taxpayer!!!

Tell the mayor you are not interested in paying for these events. Tell him to demand from these groups they pay the costs to put on their events or go somewhere else. If he is unwilling to require private industry to pay for the services they receive then we must demand the city council act as a council and demand it.

On another note; the little rube, city council member for district 5, is bouncing from district to district holding meetings and yet has not found it necessary to hold meetings within his own district for some time. Well, appears someone got his attention and he has scheduled his "State of District 5" meeting in Scripps Ranch. The announcement went something like this:

Join Councilmember DeMaio as he reports to his constituents on the "State of District 5" and updates the entire city on efforts to reform city government. The program will provide San Diegans with a compelling road map for making government work again in our communities.

July 21st - 7:00 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Middle School
9700 Avenue of Nations
San Diego, CA 92131
Space is limited, RSVP is suggested
Phone (619) 236-6655
A small reception will be held at the conclusion of the program

www.CleanUpCityHall.com

If you want to know the thinking of the little rube, check out his web site above "CleanUpCityHall." This was supposed to be a site for him and Donna Frye, but the little rube just can't share the spot light. The information on this site will surely give cause for concern.

These are the types of public events we need to involve ourselves in and ask questions of these elected officials. The little rube told the SDPOA he wanted to ensure San Diego had a "World Class Police Department" and yet is hell bent on cutting wages and benefits and eliminating the DROP. Is he speaking with a forked tongue or just picking words to make him appear more palatable to the unknowing voter? Professionally challenging him in front of voters with hard questions is the beginning of vetting who and what the rube is really all about so the voter gets a more realistic view of who he is. I plan on attending and would encourage others to do the same.

The last few retirement parties are being held as we move into a new era for the San Diego Police Department. Last night the "Three Amigos" called it a career. Detectives Linda Tibbets and Ernie Encinas and Detective Pete Morales enjoyed laughs, drink, food and music at the old rock house at the San Diego Police Pistol Range. Hundreds came to say good-bye and thank them for their combined 90 years of service. Tonight Detective John Minto is celebrating his retirement at the SDPOA Meeting Hall and Detective Jim McGhee is doing the same at the old rock house. All of these dedicated members of the department will be missed. They gave the best part of their lives to the citizens of San Diego and can now enjoy a relaxing and healthy life of leisure. Good luck and be well…..

Lastly an old retired guy asked me about starting a site for hikers. There are a number of active and retired members who enjoy hiking the local trails and mountains in and around San Diego as well as faraway places. We will be talking about this over the weekend. If there is anyone out there interested and has a suggestion of how and what to highlight; drop me a note. We will see where this goes.

Have a great weekend and enjoy the beautiful San Diego weather. Over the Line is beginning tomorrow for those looking for a reason to leave east-county and head to the beach. Don't forget the sun screen…

Transparency in City Government?

Surely you jest? In San Diego; with this mayor? I have to laugh every time I read an article from a political reporter, pundit or editor lauding the mayor for his lack of "Transparency." If you have kept up with the fight the Voice of San Diego has had for the last three and one half months with the mayor's office over a "Public Records Request" (PRR) it has been somewhat amusing. The VOSD was seeking information on a plan to cut water use employed by an orange county city. The Director of the City's Water Department had made some statements shown to be false (I wouldn't lie to you) and the VOSD was looking for information as to why he lied and what was being hidden about this plan that the mayor's office did not want to see the light of day.

The mayor's office is also, at the same time, in a struggle with the Union Tribune (Like anyone cares) over similar issues. In an editorial today, the Union Tribune complains of the tactics of the mayor in refusing PRR's. The editorial said in part; "It often appears when requested documents are more likely to embarrass the mayor, the tougher it is to get them. Explanations of why certain information is withheld is inconsistent – sometimes draft e-mails are mysteriously held to be privileged communication, sometimes not. Reporter's messages requesting access to public records are sometimes simply ignored." Why this comes as a surprise is a mystery to me. I can only assume, the Union Tribune thought, by endorsing the mayor, they somehow are owed better treatment from the mayor. Gosh, how could that be? I was always under the assumption the Union Tribune despised politicians who plied favor to supporters or those who supported politicians from receiving some perceived favor? I must have been mistaken or maybe it just applies to unions, city employees or lobbyists'; not the Union Tribune.

I have to laugh at the absurd ranting of the Union Tribune about the mayor's lack of "Transparency." Where have these people been during his reign as chief or head of the Red Cross or United Way? The Union Tribune is wrong on this account. The mayor IS as "Transparent" as they come. If you can't see through him, you are either blind or looking in the wrong direction.

In the coming months we will see a vote put forth by the mayor asking SDCERS members to vote to change the entry age for DROP. How he is going to pull this one off is going to be one hell of a show. He has contracts with Fire, MEA and City Attorney's. They agreed to leave the age entry alone for this period of time. This will be a fun show to watch as the mayor and city attorney spin this move. When this fails; the mayor will ask for an initiative to have taxpayers (voters) to remove the part of Charter Section 143.1 that requires a vote of the members of SDCERS to make these types of changes. The mayor is hell bent on eliminating DROP and reducing benefits as much as possible. He will not stop until this is done. This roller coaster is not finished; it has many more runs left.

While the mayor continues his assault on employee wages and benefits, he is planning and plotting the expansion of the Convention Center to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS. He is not stopping there; he is planning and plotting a new "Taj Mahal City Hall" that will cost another ONE
BILLION DOLLARS. Then there is the Downtown Library or "Schoolbrary" that the city council and mayor are trying to pass off as a joint venture with the San Diego City School District. Where is this money coming from? I thought the city was broke?

The mayor is as transparent as a window missing its glass. If it makes him look good find a way to do it no matter what it takes (Break the law? Sure). On the other hand if it makes him look bad; hide it; lie about it; stonewall; or deny, deny, deny. Then there is the "Ignore" buttons on the phones in the mayor's office. If the reporter, labor leader, citizen, taxpayer or whomever is seeking answers to questions; if it might cause the mayor to look bad; put them on hold and go out for coffee. "Transparency in Government" is alive and well in the mayor's office. It is just the mayor who is transparent.

Where are the Leaders, Coaches and Mentors?

We are facing a critical time on the San Diego Police Department. With the exodus of some of the most talented, experienced and senior leaders of the department comes a loss of leadership, knowledge, skills and experience. Some of you can think back to a time in our department's history when we faced similar circumstance. I am hopeful history does not repeat itself and we can learn from our past. To ensure this does not happen, it will require strong leadership from our senior officers, detectives and supervisors. It will require each of us to hold the other accountable and to adhere to the safety practices we have all been trained to use.

The other night in Mid-City there was an incident where a Sergeant in patrol called for cover when he came under attack. He was being pelted with rocks and asked for cover. A short distance from this incident was a group of officers participating in a 10-17 (Meeting to sign reports). It has been reported these officers did not break to cover the Sergeant who was asking for help. This incident has been reported and discussed on the SDPOA Forum at length and the Sergeant who asked for the cover has confirmed the incident and acknowledged the rapid response by members of the Gang Suppression Team. This is not acceptable in any realm of thinking and we must take responsibility for each other's safety and well being. We cannot allow outside influences to dictate how we treat and protect one another.

A clear example of the leadership I am talking about was shown by the Field Lieutenant that night and members of the uniformed Gang Suppression Team who responded in a rapid and coordinated manner to this sergeants call for help. Lieutenant David Nisleit immediately addressed the lack of response by those at the 10-17. The GST members took the initiative to immediately help a fellow officer. Lieutenant Nisleit showed the courage and leadership to confront a behavior that was not appropriate and should not and cannot be tolerated or accepted. The GST members responded quickly, decisively and professionally to a critical incident that could have turned out much different if they had hesitated to perform their duties in an appropriate manner.

It is incumbent upon all of us to step up and provide leadership, mentoring and coaching of our young, energetic and enthusiastic officers. When we came on we had that old guy who took us under wing and guided us through our learning. We were allowed to stumble and bumble and make our fair share of mistakes; but our mentors had our backs and kept us safe. You did not dare make a traffic stop when responding to a cover call; you threw your paper in the passenger floorboard to respond to assist an officer simply making a traffic or pedestrian stop; you pitched that new cup of coffee out the window and drove like a bat out of hell to cover that officer whose voice did not sound right when he asked for a cover unit; you did not think twice of dropping your code-7 when an officer went out on a traffic stop in an area we all knew was not the most cop friendly of areas; many citizens got off with a "verbal" warning as you dropped a citation to cover an officer who needed help; when at a 10-17 and an officer requested cover it was managed chaos as the cars fled the lot to cover a fellow officer, sergeant, detective or an officer of an allied agency. All of this was drummed into you by that senior officer who led by example and refused to accept anything less.

Sergeants were the calm in any situation. When a Sergeant spoke you better be listening and you better heed his/her word. They were the "Quarterback" of any situation. They called all the shots and gave direction to coordinate scenes and critical incidents. You looked up to and in some cases feared them; but always respected them. They commanded respect through their competent and decisive decisions. Good Sergeants always made decisions when needed and then stood by their decisions. They took care of their people and did not allow others to interfere. How did they do this? They mentored and coached; if you were tired from working all night and being in court all day, would make sure you worked with another officer; if you needed a training class to move to a different or preferred assignment, they pulled strings to make it happen; they helped coordinate the exchange of days off to meet every ones needs (BUT you better not be that person who took advantage); they bought the first beer for everyone at shift change; they held BBQ's for their squads to build a cohesive team; they pointed out when you messed up and praised you when you did good; they demanded a hard day's work and that you be on time for work and not leave early; they paid attention to your journals, but also knew who was working and who was not; they knew more about your beat than you did and expected you to address those quality of life problems as well as the dope dealer, car thief, burglar, trouble maker who refused to go along with societies rules.

Lieutenants were feared and respected. They gave the marching orders to Sergeants who carried this message to the troops. Lieutenants seldom minced words and if you were in their office it was usually not for something good. Lieutenants were the "Head Coach" of the team. If you screwed up and needed more than a verbal lashing or written warning the Lieutenants were the one you had to sit before. They had for the most part all been there before and knew what and how you were feeling and without minimizing the behavior they did it in a humane manner that allowed you to accept the hit and move on. The good Lieutenants always had a smile for the troops. They would peek into line-up but seldom participate. They would show up at the most critical of scenes and ensure things were being handled appropriately. They seldom took charge of a scene but were always "In-Charge" by their mere presence. When they offered suggestions for getting something done you listened and followed his guidance. They knew the job and always shared that knowledge.

Today we have young officers looking for leaders and mentors to help guide them through these times. We have young, inexperienced Sergeants looking to the senior, more experienced Sergeants and Lieutenants for guidance and leadership. We will soon have a brand new group of trainees coming out of phase training; a new group of recruits hitting the field for phase training; and a brand new group of Lieutenants, "Baby" Sergeants, Detectives; and summer in full swing. It is time for those of us who have been around for a while to step up to the plate and lead, coach and mentor. It is time we get out of our comfort zones and take on some of the less glamorous jobs to mentor, coach and teach our younger counterparts. Our senior, experienced Field Sergeants are the leaders we need to rely on to set the tone for patrol. Starting at line-ups; keeping the focus and attention on the job at hand; not allowing the outside distractions of politics to control or dictate behaviors and actions; keeping a positive outlook for the future that seems bleak but is sure to turn around; supporting your squad members and their families; giving officers time off to refresh and recharge; share your experiences and knowledge; be a leader, mentor, coach and most of all be their strongest and loudest cheerleader. If you smile in the face of despair, the pain and anguish is less likely to become contagious. If you keep a positive attitude when all else around is crumbling; those around you will begin to follow your lead. Be involved with your people; but do not do their jobs. Allow them to learn and make mistakes; but watch their backs and keep them safe. Remember two blind men walking along a cliff are more likely to fall than one; lead by a person with sight. Two young, energetic, enthusiastic officers with little experience in the same car are more likely to get hurt or hurt someone else than they would if paired with a more senior, experienced officer who can provide that mentoring, coaching and guidance.

We owe it to ourselves, each other and the organization to keep each other safe and out of trouble. We owe it to our families and friends and the taxpayer to remain safe and do our jobs in a fair and professional manner. This means covering each other; following your training and not responding to priority calls alone; broadcasting your stops, day and night; listening up for squad members making stops and start that way even if there is no request for cover (you are already on the way and in the area if something goes wrong); take time off to refresh your mind and body; confront unsafe actions; and above all else remember why you became a police officer.

The City Council today refused to discuss or make changes to the latest contract imposed upon us six days ago. It is time to think to the future and put this chapter behind us. Allow others to fight the political fights; you need only focus on police work. Concern yourself with safety and doing what is right. Be professional and be proud. Hundreds of people take the test to become a police officer every month and few make it through the process to enter the academy. The few who enter the academy; it is the exceptional man and woman who complete the training and become Police Officers. You are one of the few and you earned it. Do not allow politics to take that from you. Most of all do not allow the politics of San Diego to become the reason to become lax; not follow your training and allow one of us to be seriously hurt or killed. Be safe!!!

City Employee Cancels Union Tribune Subscription

A recently retired City Employee sent the below letter to the Union Tribune and Ms. Winner, Editor. It is one of the best commentaries on reality and the state of our battle with the lies, misstatements and half truths pummeled upon the unknowing reader/taxpayer of San Diego by the Union Tribune. I waited until I had her permission before putting it on here. I secured that today.

CITY LIBRARY EMPLOYEE CANCELS U-T SUBSCRIPTION!!!!!
June 30, 2009

Ms. Winner,

I just canceled my 15+ year subscription to the Union-Tribune. I asked to speak to a supervisor who would convey my reason for doing so to the appropriate individuals within the company.  The reason I gave to Hector was the U-T's recent decision to publish all City employee names and salary information on signonsandiego.com. 

I would like to amplify the reason for that decision with you, the editor who ultimately exercised that choice.  And let there be no question about my motivations-my decision is based upon 26 years of service as a City employee at the Central Library.

The U-T has presented a special three part Watchdog Report about the City's payroll obligation.  I have spent close to three decades in my public service position answering questions and informing the public.  If someone were to ask me how to find information on this topic I would refer that individual to annual budgets, IBA reports, and labor agreements on line or in our document section.  I would also provide context for that search- that the City operates on a fiscal year beginning July 1; there is a general fund budget which includes departments that undergo annual public review and city council approval; there are quasi-independent authorities and  recovery departments that are not subject to the same policies, restrictions and review as the general fund departments; there are unclassified and represented employees; and there are four unions with different negotiated contracts.  In short, I would inform the individual that a thorough understanding of the topic would take into account these general distinctions.  Unlike the U-T, we respect and do not underestimate the intelligence of our customers.

What I wouldn't do, and again, I am speaking strictly as a professional, is refer that individual to your "Watchdog" series on the very ground that it did not provide necessary context, despite your claims otherwise, nor data consistent with the City's fiscal year reporting process.  Therefore your information was inaccurate and as a source you are unreliable.  Ms. Winner, the U-T does not achieve the most basic library information standard of accuracy and reliability.  If you also consider yourself a professional you should be very concerned about that.  I would appreciate a response to this, as one professional to another.

Despite its abysmal failings, the Watchdog Report was not the reason I canceled my subscription.  The bias against unions and the City workforce is pretty much quotidian.  Your decision to publish City employee names and salary information however is beyond the journalistic pale.

Ms. Winner, how much time did you REALLY spend weighing the public's right to information against individual privacy concerns?  And how much thought did you REALLY give to the fact that "Individual pay for each year can be affected by promotions, partial years of employment, leave taken, vacation payouts and other issues that can cause wide fluctuations."?  Or to the fact that the 2008 surge was a one time occurrence due to multiple factors?   It is evident that the answer is "Not much."

I talked with co-workers at the library this morning about your choice.  They were appalled.  Concerned.  Fearful.  Angry.  Every one of us felt that salary information by job classification, with low, high, median and average salaries would serve the public's right to information.  We felt that making that information available by department served the public's right to information.  But by name? The women among us felt violated.  Think about that Karin.  We are not elected officials.  Even our name badges don't provide our last names if we don't feel comfortable revealing that information. Whom and what purpose are you serving, Ms. Winner?  And please, we are not stupid.  We know you can legally provide this information.  The question is why should you provide this information?

Your note about the wide fluctuations of salaries was reason enough to choose not to reveal specific names.  You did not make that choice.  Here's my very personal response to your phenomenally bad judgment, to your utterly unprofessional judgment.  I owe you absolutely nothing, but the truth should always be served.

This is five years worth of my salary history, although why it is shown by calendar year is absolutely mystifying.  The City operates on a July-June fiscal year.

*    Please note the pay levels in 2006 and 2007.  Was there a whopping "pay increase" from $23 to $28k?  How about if I told you that I took leave without pay in 2006 to be with my baby sister in Tampa while she died a slow terrible death?  I didn't qualify for Family Medical Leave as a part time employee.  Nor did I get the bereavement pay that was passed more recently.  What do you have to say about that "fluctuation" Ms. Winner and what has the public truly gained from seeing the disparity between those two years?

*    As a general note, I have worked additional hours to bolster my leave fund.  I received straight compensatory time on Saturdays and Sundays. The Library continues to struggle to staff public service desks during open hours.

*    I have received tuition reimbursement for Spanish classes at UCSD.  I have been taking Spanish classes for ten years.  My private classes are not reimbursable and constitute a couple thousand dollars of out of pocket expenses.  I have absorbed that cost because I want to be as professional in Spanish as I am in English with the population that I serve. 

*    Tuition reimbursements and comp time are included in a number of these years.  These are not particularly foreign concepts in the public or private sector.

*    The jump between 2007 and 2008 reflects the settlement to labor disputes that resulted in the City returning money to employees that they contributed to the City in previous years.     I don't intend to do your homework on this one Ms. Winner.

2003    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$26,133.01
2004    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$27,283.47
2005    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$26,797.49
2006    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$23,811.62
2007    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$28,757.39
2008    ANNA G DANIELS   LIBRARY ASSISTANT
$31,365.92

I have worked in the Information sector for many years and understand the wrenching changes occurring within the print media.  How the print media will serve the public, remain relevant and sell the news is very much the story of the hour. 

Shame on you Karin.  Shame on you Ms. Winner.  Shame on you "Editor."  In your decision to sell the news you sold out.

 And you certainly did not sell the news to me.

Anna Daniels

Cc: San Diego City Council
       Mayor of San Diego

This is a letter you are sure NEVER to see in print as the Union Tribune would never allow this type of dressing down to appear in their paper. It is a shame this letter could not be front and center for EVERY citizen / taxpayer to read. I am proud to post it here for people to see.

The “DEMISE” of Law Enforcement in America’s “CHEAPEST” City – San Diego

"Never have so few given so much, for so little" is an appropriate history for our police department. Continually understaffed, inadequately equipped, grossly underpaid; we still continue to do an outstanding job. Year after year, we have asked, demanded, pleaded and even begged with City Hall for relief; only to be told "We can't afford it." The two questions might well be asked; how have we endured as long as we have; and how much longer can we hope to survive?

The reason we have endured to this point has been due almost entirely to the individual dedication of our personnel and our own qualified police administration. But there is a limit, or breaking point, in every organization and, when it is reached, avoiding chaos and disaster is a monumental task. A government is only as good as the employees who provide service to the people the government serves. Government has a genuine need to first satisfy its own employees if it expects to adequately serve its constituents.

How does the government of California's 2^nd largest city treat its employees – particularly police officers?

• They ignore all factual data on comparable police salaries and fringe benefits paid by progressive police agencies in the state.
  
• They fail to provide a workable employee-employer relations police and grievance procedure with third party arbitration.
  
• They spend in excess of $20,000 in dues to the League of California Cities to lobby against ALL police related and PORAC sponsored legislation.
  
• They use the outstanding record of the Police Department to further their own political ambitions, while totally ignoring our record in terms of fair compensation.
  
• They change the rules and procedures at will to satisfy their goals and fortify their own position.
  

And all this they do in the name of good government by maintaining one of the lowest tax rates and per capita costs of any major city in the state! What have WE been doing for our city? Taking it where it hurts!!!

• We have taken one-man car operations as a way of life so that the city can show more officers on the street – the safety of the officer is a remote consideration when more police officers cost money.
  
• We have built a Police Reserve force to fill in the gaps in service at little or no cost to the city.
  
• We have continually improved the level of education within our department through P.O.S.T. financial assistance to the city.
  
• We continue to work many hours of overtime, due to inadequate staffing, to answer all the demands placed upon is.
  
• We maintain one of the highest crime cancellation rates in the nation due to the individual efforts of our officers – not because the city provides sufficient manpower or incentive.
  
• We provide a considerable number of services that other cities have long since dropped, such as investigating minor traffic accidents; a benefit to our citizens which, coupled with good traffic enforcement, has helped to keep insurance rates well below that of other major cities.
  
• We have provided store front offices; school task force officers; school safety patrol; and the list goes on and on; and the city government says, "We have a fine police department."
  

"A fine police department" grossly understates the facts; but apparently only we can fully appreciate our worth. The city certainly does not. There is an old saying. "When you're second, you try harder," and it's true in San Diego for an entirely different reasons; we try harder because there are less of us to do the job, and maybe that's where we have been making our biggest mistake.

If the city continues its present posture toward police, the time is rapidly approaching; if it is not here already; when they will get only the quality and service they pay for, and it will be far less than it is today. We will not attract or retain the high quality of officer we have and need; now will we have the quality and desire to maintain our present high level of service.

If high quality law enforcement ever dies in America's "Cheapest City," it will not be the fault of our present dedicated employees; but the total responsibility will be with the non-responsive group called "City Government."

I wish I could say I wrote the above words. Some of you older readers may have read this before. In June 1973, John R. Lewis, a Director of the San Diego Police Officer's Association, wrote this for the "Fall In" the official publication of the SDPOA. Thirty-six years of the same old story. Seems tradition; good or bad is hard to change. Carried in the same edition of the "Fall In" is an editorial (BELOW) that again hits home, even today (Author unknown).

GIVE A DAMN ? ? ?

For many years, the San Diego Police Department has been forced to operate with the fewest number of officers of any major city in the nation. It has consistently remained at or near the top of the list in effectiveness and efficiency. This outstanding record can be traced to one source; the men and women of the department. Although continually hampered by inadequate manpower and equipment, the San Diego Police Department has been successful, due only to the selfless dedication to duty adhered to by its members. Their initiative and tireless devotion to duty have been the lone resources by which the rising tide of crime in this city has been slowed over the years. But now the saturation point has been reached. The City Administration has consistently failed to provide additional manpower and equipment as requested by the Police Department, and while crime nationally decreased 3%, it rose 10% in San Diego last year.

Though continuing to work at a frantic pace, and reducing some services previously provided, the Police Department is no longer able to keep pace with the demands made upon it; hence, the crime rate is increasing.

What is the City Government doing to correct this trend? The answer is NOTHING. Again, the Police Department budget requests have been trimmed to the bone; equipment and manpower increases are next to non-existent. In addition, the "City Fathers" have taken action to destroy the only positive tool the Police Department posses; the dedication of its employees. The action to which I refer is the recent establishment of a new salary policy for city employees. Historically, San Diego Police Officers have received pay and benefits far below other major departments in the state, although the city's own salary police dictated; "…they be paid among the best in the state." In recent years, the equity gap has widened even more, while the city has carried on a charade of negotiations through "meet-and-confer" sessions with the SDPOA. Historically, disputes and impasses have been submitted to the Civil Service Commission for fact finding and recommendation, a procedure which the present city administration has seen fit to eliminate. In addition, a new salary setting policy has been adopted, which deletes the words, "among the best paid in the state" as it refers to city employee salaries. The city administration by this action has gone on record as being totally unconcerned with the needs of the city employee, and no longer intends to promote a façade of reflecting fairness in its dealings with the employees. The city administration obviously does not care that the salaries and benefits given to its police officers and other employees are not comparative even to that of San Diego County employees, let alone those throughout the state.

If the City doesn't care, how can it expect its police officers to care? When a Sheriff's Deputy, with pay and benefits makes more than a San Diego Police Officer, while performing the same work, how can the city expect to retain the dedication and concern of its employees? The answer, of course, is that it cannot!!!

These consequences are what can be expected;

• Increased turnover in experienced personnel
  
• Increased sick leave and injury leave
  
• Decreased work performance
  
• Decreased efficiency
  
• Decreased effectiveness in recruiting qualified personnel
  
• Increased cannibalizing of our personnel by other agencies giving better pay and benefits.
  

Mr. Mayor and Council:
IF YOU DON'T GIVE A DAMN, THEN WE DON'T EITHER!!!

Within a few years of these articles, the San Diego Police Department began losing officers to other agencies and then a series of tragedies where 12 officers were killed in the line of duty. The homicide rate in San Diego climbed to record levels. We are at that place again today with the loss of over 250 senior, experienced officers and lack of qualified candidates seeking to fill the 300+ vacant positions. We have a mayor and council who's first priority is NOT Public Safety. We have a city government who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the crisis they have created in the ranks of the San Diego Police Department.

If history repeats itself and it is surely to do so given the circumstances we face today; crime will grow exponentially and we will soon see officers killed in the line of duty. This circumstance we find ourselves in, again, is preventable and avoidable. The mayor will blame the economy, state government and the employees and their benefits; he will refuse to accept any responsibility. The real cause is failed leadership and the refusal to stand above it all and do the right thing. Shame on you mayor; city council and taxpayer. Each of you shares responsibility in the demise of a once proud and experienced police department; which is now a struggling, young department teetering on the edge of disaster.

Safety Alert!!!

This is an open letter to the mayor of San Diego. We are now 4 days into the new fiscal year and with this come serious concerns that are being ignored by the mayor and council. The citizens are oblivious to the crisis facing law enforcement and the dangers they now face. Who is going to stand up and demand something be done? What will it take for people to get involved and refuse to accept this as OK? Let me first provide the background information from which I draw my beliefs to make the statements about Public Safety.

The City of San Diego is now the 9^th largest city in America. We are 600 people shy of the 8^th largest city; Dallas, Texas. The Dallas Police Department is staffed with 2,977 sworn officers and 556 civilian support staff (Does not include Communication Staff). The San Diego Police Department is staffed with 1,852 sworn officers (163 unavailable due to injury leave, military leave or other reasons) and 650 civilian support staff (Included Communication Staff). This leaves the San Diego Police Department with 1,689 sworn officers available for service. Of this number, 59 are managers (Lieutenants, Captains, and Chiefs) and not answering radio calls or investigating crime; 50 are recruits and still in training; with an additional 51 still in the academy; this leaves 1,529 sworn police officers, detectives, sergeants and detective sergeants to handle police related calls for service and investigations. If you delete the 80 detective sergeants and 280 detectives from this number, you have 1,169 uniformed officers to patrol the streets of San Diego, from San Ysidro to the Wild Animal Park. The Police Department has a budgeted strength of 2,127 sworn officers. At the current rate of attrition and the inability to certify candidates for the academy; the police department will never meet full staffing.

The San Diego Police Department has lost 252 sworn members of the department in the past 12 months. We have lost 2 Assistant Chiefs, 2 Captains, 7 Lieutenants, 27 Detective Sergeants, 24 Patrol Sergeants, 3 Agents, 49 Detectives, 79 Police Officer II's, 34 Police Officer I's, and 25 Recruits. This equates to approximately 21 officers per month leaving for various reasons. The combined police experience lost exceeds 4,000 years service to the Citizens of San Diego. There are currently 51 recruits in the Police Academy with an additional 41 (Budgeted for 50 recruits, but unable to find the additional 9 qualified candidates) starting on the 20^th of July. (The original post indicated the October Academy was cancelled. Chief Kanaski corrected this item and said the department is working to fill the October class with 50 recruits)

The taxpaying citizens, visitors, and workers of this community have a right to know the reality of Public Safety in this City. They have a right to know the state of their police department and how we got to the point we are at. They have a right to know we will soon be incapable of meeting their requests for service. They have a right to know the level of REAL staffing on the streets of San Diego during the nighttime hours after midnight. They have a right to know we are doing everything humanly possible to meet the calls for service; but the days of "doing more with less" have reached the breaking point.

Mr. mayor; would you please share with the taxpaying citizen your reasons for decimating a once great police department and forcing its most experienced, senior police officers and leaders to leave; many before they were ready or wanting to? Would you share your reasons for imposing an unacceptable contract upon the police officers of this City that included reductions and cuts to wages and benefits NONE of the other workers of this City were subjected to? Would you explain to the taxpayers why you have eliminated the funding for the next academy class of recruits? Would you explain the difference between your receiving your Retirement payments from SDCERS and salary and benefits as mayor and those officers who are participants of the DROP program?

The San Diego Police Department will prioritize all calls for service from citizens as they are received. With the lack of staffing, the Police Department will be forced to STOP responding to the "Quality of Life" issues citizens call seeking help with; trespassing; panhandling; illegal lodging; drunks on the sidewalk, in parks and buildings; loud music; barking dog; illegal parking; juvenile neighborhood problems; loud party; vandalism; graffiti; urinating in public and similar types of requests. What do you say to these people mayor, who want to know why we are not meeting their requests to provide safe, secure and livable neighborhoods?

When you were Chief of this police department, you boasted of the "Community Orientated Policing" and "Problem Orientated Policing" programs you put in place, to better serve the community. You increased the supervisor ranks to almost double what it was before you took over; to have what you called, "Closer Supervision" of officers and reduce the "Span of Control" for supervisors. What is different today and why is "Community Orientated Policing" and "Problem Orientated Policing" not important? Please do not insult us and the community and tell us these programs are still important and will continue. Who is going to do these tasks and when? Answering priority calls for service will be our only option due to staffing levels created by you and your policies.

Mr. mayor; please tell us what you will say to the family of that energetic new rookie officer killed in the line of duty because he lacked experienced mentors and supervisors to guide him in his learning process? What will you say to the family of the Detective killed in the line of duty; working excessive hours; did not have a cover unit to assist him; when confronted by an armed, repeat offender? Please tell us what you will say to the family of the child killed in the park because officers could not respond to their calls for help in a timely manner?

You have created a crisis never before seen in ANY American City. It is time mayor, you stop playing a game you know nothing about; POLITICS. It is time you start acting in the best interest of this City; its citizens; visitors and workers; employees and retirees alike. It is time you set priorities that make sense. Public Safety is the number one priority of every citizen and it should be yours. STOP PLAYING POLITICS and sit down with the City Council and formulate a plan to add 500 police officers in the next 36 months. Do not tell us you can't. CAN'T means you are not willing. You, like any of us, can do anything we set our minds to. Set aside the money necessary to hire and retain these officers NOW. It can be done and must be done now. To wait one day will further place citizens and officers in jeopardy unnecessarily. Start double sessions or double or triple sections in the Academy with 75-100 recruits per class. It has been done before and it MUST be done NOW.

If you are a citizen in the community and were not aware of this crisis; it is real and it is now. This is not a scare tactic or ploy for additional money. FREEZE my salary for the next two years; BUT we must hire and train 500 additional officers if we are going to provide the public safety services you want and need. To do anything less will leave you and the police officers who provide for your safety in danger.

It’s Politics

It appears I may have inadvertently ruffled some feathers with a comment I made in my last BLOG post. I think the comment that struck some nerves was this; "Below is my reply and argument against the ideals of the Republican, Far Right, agenda driven political machine and their attempts at destroying the will of the Civil Servant." It appears "Republican" friends who consider themselves "Conservative" took exception to my rant. Let's talk about; Republican, Democrat; Far Right; Far Left; and the differences and what a "RHINO" and "DINO" is. I may belay some of the ruffled feathers and may not. I am not going to apologize for my thoughts, words or beliefs as I have lived them and participate in them.

Have you ever thought about your party affiliation and why you chose the party you did; Democrat or Republican, maybe Libertarian or Independent? I know there are other parties involved in politics; but for this discussion I will stick with two; Republican and Democrat. I will no doubt spark interesting conversation and disagreement with the following observations and comments. I have been involved to some degree or another in the political arena since 1985. I was an elected Director for the SDPOA in 1986 and left the Board 1991. I was the SDPOA Vice President and representative at PORAC (State Organization) and NAPO (National Organization). I then moved on and in 1994 entered the local political arena; running for and getting elected to the Poway Unified School District's Board of Education. I was re-elected two times, serving 12 years as a Trustee on the Poway School Board. I worked with the California School Boards Association and the National School Boards Association. I made another run at the SDPOA and was elected in 2004; served three years as Vice President and left the Board at the end of 2006.

My travels in politics were an eye opening and very educational experience. I learned quickly how to maneuver the halls of ANY political house. I spent time at City Hall; the State Capital; the House and Senate in Washington DC. I spent time with other elected representatives from every level of government. Many were honest, hard working and dedicated people. There were others I would not give you two cents for. I learned to speak without saying anything. I learned to parry questions and change the subject when debating new legislation or seeking increases in funding for various programs; the all too natural "Political Double Speak."

When I began my run for School Board I learned early the need for endorsements. Seeking the endorsement of local individuals; followed by various local business organizations (both very important endorsements to pocket) before you moved to the larger, named individuals and groups was mandatory. To garner an endorsement from another elected official was golden and also hard to accomplish without someone speaking for you. Next was seeking the biggest and sometimes most important endorsement; that of your political party; in my case; the Republican Party. You had better know and support your party's line and agenda (Party Platform) if you expect their support. I learned how to do this and garnered the Republican Endorsement. I was the only candidate in three straight elections for School Board to also obtain the Democratic endorsement. Being a "Union Representative" gave me the edge I needed with them.

Officers in Law Enforcement tend to be conservative in their views, thoughts and personal lives. A large population of those in Law Enforcement find themselves supporting a more right leaning agenda (Christian) and Republican politics. These demographics are changing rapidly in 2009. If you have ever had the pleasure of attending a Republican Party meeting, you would re-think your party affiliation if you are the Republican "Labor Leader" of an organization like the SDPOA. Bill Nemec and I attended a Republican Party meeting during the first election of the mayor to replace Mayor Murphy. We stood along the wall at the side of the room and listened to speaker after speaker bash unions, workers and anyone suggesting new revenue sources or taxes. We heard speaker after speaker talk of the need to "Reel in, out of control wages and benefits." Talk about uncomfortable? We left the meeting asking ourselves why we were both registered Republicans.

If you are still reading this diatribe, you are most likely asking yourself, "Where the hell is he going with this?" The rub we in law enforcement face as we involve ourselves in politics; we are mostly right leaning; but left needing. What do I mean by this? If we expect the right or Republican candidate to support our needs, wants, or desires; we are surly kidding ourselves. If we expect to garner support for our needs, wants and desires for wages, benefits and working conditions it will come from a Democrat. So, for those who represent police officers, they find it difficult at times to navigate the endorsement waters.

Each party puts together their goals for the upcoming elections by way of a "Platform." If you have never taken the time to review your party's platform, as well as their legislative goals you might be a bit surprised to see what it contains. Historically, the Democratic Party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. Historically, the Republican Party is seen as a Christian valued, traditionally pro-business party and it garners major support from a wide variety of industries from the financial sector to small businesses. This may relate to the fact that Republicans are about 50 percent more likely to be self-employed; more likely to work in the area of management and have higher educational degrees. These platforms are reflective of each party's agenda and history.

In San Diego we are faced with a VERY conservative Republican Party that is further right than the party fathers envisioned. The San Diego Republican Party is lead, run and influenced by the "Downtown Power." The Lincoln Club is a group of wealthy Republican's (Downtown - Power - Money) who maneuver behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the many politicians holding elected office. Add to this equation the fact San Diego is home to ONE newspaper, whose views and opinions are slanted far right. Over the past eight years, legislation involving labor has been mostly negative or regressive. During the Bush era, labor lost in almost every area.

I said in a prior post there was a recent meeting of California City Managers. The topic of discussion was how to spin budgets to secure public support for cuts and elimination of employee wages and benefits. The majority of City Managers are Republican. The "Agenda driven political machine" I talked about is in full swing right here in San Diego. The agenda is to portray unions and public workers as greedy and receiving inflated wages and benefits at taxpayer expense. The playbook was provided by the National Republican Party to municipalities governed by Republicans. The ultimate goal is to reduce the workforce; reduce wages, eliminate unions; eliminate the "Defined Benefit Retirement" and replace it with a 401(k)-style plan; and to reduce taxes. To accomplish this agenda, the power of the press is necessary. Have any of you seen this of late?

I am what is called a "RHINO" or "Republican in Name Only." I am conservative in most of my views and ideals. But I find myself agreeing more with Democratic legislation when discussing labor or work related issues. I support the right to bear arms; oppose legislation to prevent a woman choice; I support raising taxes to pay for the services provided by city's and the government; I oppose "Faith Based" initiatives; I support Stem Cell research; I think you get my point.

It is the Republican, "Far Right" that is in play when talking about the politics of San Diego. It is the agenda of this rich political machine, that is feeding off the print and talk media; gutting the wages and benefits of public workers; all in the name of "Balancing the budget; reigning in out of control, excessive wages and benefits; holding the line on taxes and fees; and reducing government." I am a Republican and am conservative; I am also a government employee and feel I am under attack from that same Republican run government in San Diego. I believe the agenda; playbook; views of the Republican party are out of sync with reality and what is going on in 2009. They seem to refuse to toss it aside and change course. The analogy I used the other day to describe this bent, is a Navy Carrier moving in the bay needing to make a u-turn. Anyone who knows anything about an Aircraft Carrier knows the decision to make a u-turn and pulling it off, need to be planned for, NOW. The execution may take miles and hours to accomplish. To continue on this path is only taking us further into deeper water, farther from where we need to be to accomplish our goal.

So in closing, when I rant about the "Republican; Far Right; Downtown Power," I rant against a party that is out of touch with 2009 and doing more to protect their money and power, than the people they have been elected to serve. I do not rant against Republican's or those people who are conservative in their views and thoughts. But I would suggest you share your thoughts with those Republican Elected Members of Government that are carrying out this agenda against "Public Service Workers" and you who are retired.

Union Tribune Challenge from Chris Reed

Chris Reed of the Union Tribune sent an open challenge; to prove high pay and benefits are crucial to retain public employees. His belief is provided as; "The truth that's waiting to be discovered is that public employees pay in nearly every category could be frozen for years, with new hires given standard 401(k)-style private sector benefits, with no disruptions for local and state governments."

Chris Reed threw the gauntlet down; but as with anything the Union Tribune does he added qualifiers to his challenge so as to prevent any real, open and honest exchange. Chris wrote this; "But if anyone can present any actual empirical evidence for the retention argument, send it my way and I will post it immediately."

"Empirical Evidence" does not exist and hopefully never will for the sake of the taxpayer and the "Private" sector community. The belief of Republican's and far right aligned individuals would have taxpayers believe "anyone" can and will seek out these "Public" service jobs without the security of adequate benefits or compensation commensurate for the job, locale of work, cost of living and ability to provide for the future of their family. In an ideal world this would not work, let alone the one we currently inhabit. Below is my reply and argument against the ideals of the Republican, Far Right, agenda driven political machine and their attempts at destroying the will of the Civil Servant.

Chris,

Notwithstanding the practical difficulties of making this argument, I believe this debate is more ideological rather than empirical, since it is not possible to determine one job over the other in the "Public" versus "Private" sector through case studies, which can only be selective in nature but I will take a stab at it.

"Public" employment jobs are in place to provide for the public good. "Private" employment jobs are in place to provide investors with a profit of their investment. In the "Public" sector, the jobs and services provided are done, so that the "Public" benefits. If you seek completely "empirical" evidence you need look no further than San Diego. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

You seek to have someone refute your claim that local governments would not miss a beat if they froze wages and provided only a 401(k)-style retirement. I am a police officer and have been for the past 30 years, here in San Diego. I have also served as a Trustee for the Poway Unified School District's Board of Education. In my 30 years with the San Diego Police Department I also served two separate stints as a Board Member for the Police Officer's Association. While serving as Trustee for the PUSD I was a member of Management's negotiations team. I believe my "Real World" experience allows my observations and experience to opine to this challenge.

You appear to acquiesce to the idea that the ability of the City to hire and retain police officers would be greatly hampered if the described changes were to be implemented (401(k)-style retirement and pay freeze for years). I believe we are currently seeing the impact of the pay and benefit cuts (NOT simply a wage freeze) already implemented for police officers. While the list of candidates taking the test to become police officers has been similar to past experiences, the quality of those candidates has fallen. Candidates who compare wages; benefits; and stability of the community they are seeking to serve, have chosen to go elsewhere. Some have accepted job offers, but soon after completing training have left for agencies offering better wages and benefits.

Recent studies have shown, when asked what matters most when seeking career placement; respondents placed "benefits" above wages, 70% of the time. Medical, vision and dental insurance; followed by retirement benefits; then wages, were listed in order of importance. Wages was only considered first, when other benefits offered were not adequate to satisfy a family. It was also noted, when comparing similar jobs in the "Private" versus "Public" sector; candidates placed a higher value on the "Defined Benefit Retirement" offering than they did the wages offered. Conversely when both the private and public job offers had a 401(k) style retirement; the employer who offered a higher wage won out in almost all cases. A factor that played a large part of employees willing to seek employment in the "Public" sector was the reputation of the agency or city (I could end my argument at this point speaking of San Diego as the employer).

The longevity of employees in "Public" sector jobs is greatly a result of the "Defined Benefit Retirement" and the security it provides. When a 401(k)-style retirement is offered, the carrot is removed for the employee to remain with the "Public" employer, when a "Private" employer is now offering a better wage and chance for bonuses and promotion for the same job. The portability of the 401(k) retirement plan does not require an employee to remain faithful, nor connected to the employer, when wages are frozen. The employee is now free to seek employment in the "Private" sector where wages are increasing.

In the many case studies completed by various non-profits and institutions of higher learning (Michigan State, Harvard's John F Kennedy School of Government, University of Findlay, University of Alabama, WorldatWork) the more qualified candidate seeking employment would chose "Private" sector employment over the "Public" sector in "the majority" of cases. Those candidates choosing "Private" sector work did so because they had better financial incentives and opportunities for performance bonuses. These same candidates viewed promotional opportunities to be more readily available for exceptional performance which provided more job satisfaction.

Your idea or suggestion that by freezing public employee pay for years, and providing a standard 401(k)-style retirement benefit would result in no disruptions to local and state governments is most likely true. There would be no disruptions; for a very short period of time. Then employees would begin moving back and forth between "Public" and "Private" jobs, chasing the almighty dollar. We saw this trend in the late 70's in Law Enforcement here in San Diego, when retirement and medical benefits were similar among agencies, but wages fluctuated from year to year. Officers changed agencies as often as they changed shoes. This created a drain of experience, knowledge and stability.

The adage; "You get what you pay for" could not be more appropriate for this argument. If the goal is to "Dumb Down" the workforce of the City of San Diego by paying less and reducing benefits to merely appease the deeper underlying resentment of taxpayers toward the "Defined Benefit Retirement," you could easily do that in today's economy. As the economy improves those workers willing to take on those jobs available in the "Public" arena, will soon flee to the "Private" sector for better pay and similar benefits; again providing for a void of experience and a workforce not capable of providing the services expected and demanded by the taxpayer. The recent exodus of over 500 City employees will provide your "Empirical" data as the City tries to fill the vacant positions of upper level management; technical and skilled positions.

It is crucial to provide "Competitive" wages and benefits to provide a competent workforce. When the benefits (Retirement and Medical) are enhanced or better than those of the "Private" sector, the wages need not be "as" competitive as those of the "Private" sector. When all things are equal, as you are suggesting; the "Private" sector wins out over the "Public" sector in almost all areas.

Union Tribune Takes More Hits

The mayor came out swinging today (NOT my words) with a "Letter to the Editor" in the Union Tribune. The mayor has, like many of us, taken exception with the "Watchdog Team's" three part series; "Digging into San Diego's finances" and fired off a tersely worded letter than like so many of our letters was edited to soften the blow toward the Union Tribune. At Headquarters today the mayor's letter was a hot topic. So many people were singing high praises for the mayor and his letter I was beginning to think they had all gone down to 202 C Street and drank the cool-aide for breakfast.

Lest we all forget how and why we are in the position we find ourselves; let me remind you. The mayor fired off his letter to dispute the spin of the article because it made HIM look bad. Yes, the article painted an unfair and incorrect picture of the wages and earnings of City employees; but remember what the mayor's agenda is related to employee wages and benefits. The article disputed the cuts and savings the mayor has long spouted. Those of us who have experienced the cuts can back him up when he writes "wages of City employees is DOWN." The mayor has in fact cut wages, reduced benefits and charged us more for those benefits that remain. The mayor has single handedly taken more money from the pockets of City employees than any other mayor in City history. He has cut and reduced medical benefits so drastically it caused the exodus of almost 200 police employees. He has eliminated promised and vested retiree medical benefits for anyone retiring after tomorrow (July 1, 2009). He has demanded furlough days for non-safety personnel and has reduced the workforce to such an extent it will soon be difficult to provide BASIC services. He did this all to City employees and did virtually NOTHING to share the pain as he said by way of increased fees or taxes.

So remind me again why people are singing the praise of the mayor for his letter that simply defended HIM? This is a case similar to the classic batterer in a Domestic Violence incident. The batterer beats you up; splits your lip, blackens an eye, bruises the cheek and arms and kicks you several times as you lay curled in a fetal position. An hour later he returns with flowers and an ice pack; tells you he is sorry and you allow him to kiss your cheek; you cheerfully bound into the kitchen to fix dinner. The mayor has beat us half to death and kicked us while we are down and he fires off a letter to defend himself and people fawn all over him. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! He was protecting HIM not YOU!!!

In yesterdays Union Tribune article; "City workers' pay goes beyond base salary" the writers attempt to paint a picture of employees who are getting rich off the "specialty pays" or "add-ons" contained "hidden" in union contracts. The spin, twist and poorly played examples in this article do nothing but inflame the reader and again portray employees and their unions as sinister, greedy people. The facts are; the Police Department has nineteen (19) "Add-on" pays contained in Article 63 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City and SDPOA. There is "Shift Differential" for those working second and third watch hours, which is contained in Article 62 of the SDPOA MOU. "Educational Incentives" are contained in Article 15 of the SDPOA MOU for those officers who obtain an "Intermediate" and "Advanced" POST certificate. The "Watchdog Team" would have the reader believe officers are getting rich and in some way stealing money from taxpayers with these add-on incentives.

The fact is; of the 19 "Add-on" classifications there are limited numbers of officers who are eligible for these pays. The shift differential pay for 2^nd and 3^rd watch covers again a select number of officers at any given time. Educational Incentive is earned by an officer who participates in educational studies to better him or herself to better serve the citizens. These are the "hidden"; "secret"; "buried deep in union contracts"; "payouts" talked about in the article. The "Watchdog Team" again spins and provides mistruths and only shares a portion of the story. The example used in the first paragraph; Jaime Fitzpatrick, a police officer whom the "Watchdog Team" stated increased her salary 47% from the prior year. To put this in perspective which the Union Tribune fails to do; Fitzpatrick went from $57,591 as a POI to $84,528 as a POII with four years service, educational incentive pay for an Advanced POST due to her college degree and four years as a police officer and shift differentials, overtime and the pay raise. The pay schedule is set up and governed by the Civil Service Commission and while the actual salary is negotiated, the schedule of advancements and tiers are set by Civil Service and very difficult to change.

The "Add-on" pay classifications require ample documentation to justify and maintain. The number of employees receiving these specialty pays is a consideration when negotiating pay increases. These pays were changed from a dollar value to percentage of salary to eliminate the need to constantly re-visit these classifications during negotiations. This enables negotiations to focus on the WHOLE unit rather small groups of individuals or specialties. It also allowed the City to determine costs based on the number of employees receiving specific "Add-on" pay. Each classification has a specific number of employees who can receive the pay. Once this number is reached no other employee will be considered for the pay until there is a vacancy.

The 3^rd and final article in this series; "City payroll sees big gains in high-income earners" is the FINAL piece (Thankfully!!) to this pathetic piece of "journalism" done by the "Watchdog Team" for the Union Tribune. This final diatribe could be summed up in two paragraphs;

"Compensation experts say the trend reflects intense competition for young recruits to replace the public sector's aging work force. The new employees, experts say, are asking for pay and perks that match what they could earn in the private-sector jobs." (DID YOU GET THAT?)

"In order to get the best talent – the thought leaders and producers – the public sector is getting more competitive," said Jason Kovac of World at Work, a nonprofit educational association that trains people about compensation practices. "The compensation is starting to increase, and there's not necessarily been a drop in benefits."

The rest of the article did nothing but fill column inches for the paper. The spin employed by the writers of these articles, either through ignorance of the subject matter or design was pathetic even by Union Tribune standards. If this is what we can expect from this so called "Watchdog Team" of reporters and analyst; we should all move to the cheap seats (it's all we can afford these days anyway) and watch the party. The summer is going to be long and filled with teeth gnashing and volley after volley of point-counter-point correcting the inaccuracies and lies plied in the pages of the Union Tribune. Constant vigilance and holding those responsible for accurate information responsible for the lies will no doubt be a constant battle. To think those like myself who are San Diego natives thought the sale of the Union Tribune would bring positive changes. We can all hope the stories are true the new owner only bought the paper for the land under the building.

Union Tribune Article Blasted

This may be a POST better left for another day. In keeping with my promise NOT to use profane or caustic language I have had to walk 6 miles today instead of the usual 3. I commented on yesterday's Union Tribune article in my BLOG by beginning my critique; "There is no stopping the ignorant, twisting, inflammatory, spin the Union Tribune will employ in their quest to carry out their hell bent agenda; hand in hand with the Republican Money in San Diego; to destroy Unions and their employees." When I woke this morning I noted a comment from one Ricky Young. I have to tell you when I finished reading what Ricky had to say my visceral response was a two word, seven letter retort.

Ricky Young posted the following comment:

Steve, you've posted on our blog, so I'll post on yours. Many of the omissions you accuse the U-T of are simply not true. We did, in fact, mention every factor you discuss. We mentioned that some of the raises were due to promotions. In fact, the word "promotion" appears six times in the story, and one "promotee" is quoted (Pam Hightower). We also talk about people taking on more responsibility, including quoting one employee talking about the gray hair it has given him (David Monroe). We also mention the OT as a factor. "Overtime" is mentioned six times in the story, including the fact that it contributed to $6.5 million of the increase in 2008. In terms of Officer Chione, you act as if we concealed his disability leave and asserted that he simply got a 115 percent raise. Untrue. We mentioned his disability as an example of limitations in the data, which we felt we needed to note. You also mention the council members who have not put in for their "share the pain" reductions, without crediting our other story. You go on to list the council member e-mail addresses, which our story did as well. And you invite people to copy the U-T on the e-mails -- an invitation we extended, as well. We look forward to, and appreciate, feedback on both stories.

June 28, 2009 10:31 PM

To familiarize readers with Ricky L. Young; he is the "Government Editor" of the Union Tribune; born in Rhode Island; raised in Colorado; went to college in Illinois; worked as a reporter in Orange County, California (Orange County Register); Denver (Denver Post, Transportation Writer); Nashville (The Tennessean, City Editor); and now the San Diego Union Tribune; married with four (4) children as well as two cats; professes to ride a beach cruiser spray painted orange; lives in the beach area (Zabasearch.com); writes his one BLOG titled, "ricky-why" which is also on blogspot.com; has two (2) Twitter accounts at "RickyWhy" and "sdnewsfeed" where Rickey posts notices for CERTAIN breaking news (I will come back to this point later in the BLOG).

It appears I was not the only person who took exception to the article in the Union Tribune attributed to what is being called the "Watchdog Team." The mayor's office took exception and fired off a nine (9) page response to the misrepresentations, gross distortions, and flat out lies printed in the article. It appears from the nine pages of detailed summary (I only have a hard copy) that the mayor took exception to almost every line in the article. The letter stated in part; "An honest and accurate summary of the information analyzed by the Watchdog Team would be: Due to an unusual confluence of events that is unlikely ever to be repeated, City payroll costs rose in calendar year 2008 after three years of negative growth. Payroll costs are projected to return to their former levels this year and next year as the result of cost-cutting measures initiated by Mayor Jerry Sander and approves by the City Council. The increase in 2008 was an aberration die to multiple factors: pay raises to public-safety officers, which Sanders endorsed to end attrition in the Police and Fire-Rescue department; pay raises to other unionized employees that were negotiated under a previous administration; a spike in overtime, primarily among Fire-Rescue personnel summoned to an unusually high number of out-of-city disasters and whose pay for those events will be reimbursed to the City under mutual aid pacts; and settlements of labor disputes that resulted in the City's returning money to employees that they contributed to the City in previous years. It's not exciting, but it's the truth. And the Watchdog Team knows it. The information was provided to the Watchdog Team during the reporting process and then codified in a memo from our Comptroller's Office to the reporter. The premise of this story would crumble quickly if readers were given the full context, including the fact City workers had gone without pay raises for two full calendar years and that City payroll had decreased markedly in 2007 and 2006 after rising less than 1 percent in 2005."

The letter goes on to state; "The Union Tribune makes a false and misleading comparison when it compares permanent reductions in payroll with one-time increases, as well as when it erroneously refers to those one-time increases as "growth in payroll," a term that is commonly understood to refer to permanent salary increases that will be sustained year over year."

The spin used in the article as I stated yesterday was ignorant, twisting and inflammatory. The mayor's office pointed out the inaccuracies with; "The City only considered 286 (out of 1,000 stated in the article) of them to be pay raises because the accepted definition for a pay raise is an increase in pay for doing the same job. When someone receives a promotion, they are not doing the same job. When someone receives a settlement resulting from a union grievance, they are not receiving a raise. When someone receives pay-in-lieu for vacation time they did not take, they are not receiving a raise. When someone is injured in one year, and so receives less money than he or she did the year he or she was returned, the employee did not receive a raise."

The letter from the mayor is summed up in the final six sentences of the nine page letter; "In conclusion, the Watchdog Team was given unprecedented access to City records and personnel as they reported on this issue. Yet, the result of their work is a terribly flawed story. It is easy to conclude that the Watchdog Team, having devoted as much as four months time to this analysis felt obligated to engineer a story that justified the resources put into it. Unfortunately, through a series of errors, omissions and an overall lack of perspective, the article did a grave disservice to the readers of the Union Tribune and City employees alike."

I do not have time to dissect line by line the article at this point. But those who have read the pathetic piece of so called "journalism" can make their own judgments. Today's article; "City workers' pay goes beyond base salary" is but ANOTHER ignorant, twisting, inflammatory article that spins the facts to such an extent you would think EVERY City employee is making a mountain of money from specialty pay. AGAIN the lack of articulate, detailed and specific information leaves the reader thinking this is some sinister, back room, sneaky agreement to allow employees to fleece the taxpayer. I go back to my two word seven letter retort and this time add several exclamation marks at the end. I will do a more detailed rant tomorrow on the article today and the FINAL diatribe tomorrow night when I have more time.

I find it interesting Ricky L Young would post to Twitter he commented on my BLOG. What is even more interesting is Ricky's announcing my new BLOG POSTS on Twitter using his "sdnewsfeed" BUT ONLY when I am ranting about the mayor or one of the City Council members. When I rant about the Union Tribune there is no mention of my new post or announcement via his Twitter account. Wonder why that is? I am flattered that Ricky L Young is reading my BLOG and is not afraid to post comments. I have thick skin and can handle any criticism he has to offer. Ricky is after all a "professional journalist" (he gets paid for writing; wonder how much?) and college educated and by all rights has a lot to offer. But, I would suggest just one thing when doing so; know what you are talking about; use facts not opinion and be able to provide the documents used when making your comments to support your views. That means provide ALL of the FACTS when making a point regarding pay, benefits, DROP and any other wage or benefit you opine on. You're twisting, spinning and proving less than ALL the facts will not wash on this BLOG and you will be called on them each and every time.

I have been at this for over 25 years as an employee representative for both labor and management and can provide extensive help to you in the area of wages; benefits; Memorandum of Understandings (contracts) of the SDPOA; DROP; SDCERS; add on pays; and most anything to do with the manner Police Officers are compensated by the City of San Diego. If you need assistance in learning what you are trying to write about, feel free to drop me a note and we can meet for several days and I can explain it so you can accurately report it. You would do your employer a great service by doing so and an even greater service to the readers of your paper by taking me up on this offer, so you can provide accurate, informative and FACTUAL information. I can school you on DROP so you could attempt for the first time in recent memory to print a FACT BASED article on this benefit so your readers could actually be provided a semblance of truth regarding this benefit.

Thank you for reading.

Union Tribune Spin Job

Here we go again!!! Remember my rant; "Institutional Knowledge" and the dangers of not having any? This applies to people attempting to write "NEWS" articles on issues they have little or no knowledge about. The San Diego Union Tribune makes a glaring case in support of my ranting with an article by; Eleanor Yang Su and Craig Gustafson, Staff Writers, and Agustin Armendariz, Staff Data Specialist, Titled; "Watchdog Report / Digging into San Diego's Finances / City's payroll surged in '08."

There is no stopping the ignorant, twisting, inflammatory, spin the Union Tribune will employ in their quest to carry out their hell bent agenda; hand in hand with the Republican Money in San Diego; to destroy Unions and their employees. At a recent City Manager's training seminar, the topic of discussion was how to "spin" employee costs to garner taxpayer support for reductions in wages and benefits. The discussion centered on "taking the union/employee arguments away" by "spinning the costs and ability to pay" for benefits granted over the years. Three days of plotting, planning and training on how to accomplish this goal. Is it any wonder we are in this fight? (A majority of City Managers in this country are Republican) The Union Tribune has had this agenda for the better part of 10 years now.

The latest article takes out of context the salary of employees and those who "gained" from the prior year. The article conveniently leaves out major parts of the equation when reporting on this purported "increase" of salary for selected employees. They fail to mention how those employees they lambast for increases, came to receive these increases. They do not mention the fact many of these employees were promoted into supervisor or management positions; were probationary employees who became permanent employees and received step increases; had increased hours of overtime due to the lack of employees necessary to provide the services taxpayers demand; or the fact employees have taken on additional responsibilities requiring overtime where once two employees performed these duties. The article singled out by name; Officer Jeff Chione as someone who had a significant increase of salary from the prior year. Jeff had surgery on his neck and was off work and received disability from the state at a much reduced rate of pay; he returned to work and began receiving his normal salary. The Union Tribune reports his "increase" as 115% over his salary from the prior year. They include in this equation Jeff selling leave time which increased his "salary" which clearly does not tell the truth of Jeff's specific case as sited as a glaring example to make their point. The Union Tribune's use of Jeff to bolster their inflammatory, ignorant attempt to paint a picture of city employees receiving exorbitant increases in salary is a clear example of sensational journalism; NOT news.

The Union Tribune did not stop there. If you read this article on SignonSanDiego via the internet (I refuse to pay for this rag; I don't have a bird) you will see they listed a link to allow anyone to type in a city employee name and view the salary of that employee for the past six (6) years. Karin Winner, Editor of the Union Tribune makes her case for their providing this link. Winner writes; "We at The San Diego Union-Tribune thought long and hard about whether to publish all employees' names and salaries in a searchable form. A major part of our responsibility is to weigh the public's right to information against individual privacy concerns. Employee compensation is a significant cost to the city of San Diego, and plays prominently in the city's strategy for cutting the budget. In our three-day series, the Union-Tribune offers its readers the context for the city's payroll information. Here we can provide you with the valuable details. In the end, the decision to post this data was driven by our belief that you deserve to know how your tax dollars are being spent." So tell us all again Karen how long and hard you thought about the decision to post this link? I know; I know; you have a responsibility to weigh the public's right to know against individual privacy. Don't you also have a responsibility to "ACCURATELY" report ALL RELEVANT information about whatever it is you are reporting on? Trying to keep to my pledge of keeping my rants free of offensive and profane language, I will stop right here; you get my point. Want more on why and how they came up with the information in the initial article just read; "Behind the Stories." It boggles the mind how pathetic the repeated attacks have become and to what lengths the Union Tribune will go to justify a story.

Did you all also see where five (5) of the City Council members have yet to furnish the necessary paperwork to reduce by 6% their salary and the salary of their employees? The excuses and pathetic games these people are employing in an attempt to stave off this reduction is another example of the lack of ethics and honor of elected officials in San Diego. The first excuse is they gave up the $9,600 car allowance (that will end July 1, 2009 anyway) as a reduction to their "compensation" already. Hey bone-heads; take home vehicles and car allowances have been eliminated or reduced for ALL city employees and departments; what makes you special? They say they hired new employees who were hired at lower salaries than those before them. So tell me; what about those new police officers who are new hires who have less pay and benefits than those before them; can they forgo the 6% reduction also? The "Do as I say; not as I do" mentality of elected officials is pathetic. If this angers you as much as it angers me; here are the e-mail addresses of the City Council members;

SHERRI LIGHTNER sherrilightner@sandiego.gov ;

KEVIN FAULCONER kevinfaulconer@sandiego.gov ;

TODD GLORIA toddgloria@sandiego.gov ;

TONY YOUNG anthonyyoung@sandiego.gov ;

CARL DEMAIO carldemaio@sandiego.gov ;

DONNA FRYE donnafrye@sandiego.gov ;

MARTI EMERALD martiemerald@sandiego.gov ;

BEN HUESO benhueso@sandiego.gov

Send them your thoughts and demand they take the SAME cuts SDPOA members are taking. Accept NOTHING less from them and do not accept their excuses or justification for refusal to accept the same cuts to wages and benefits we have all been forced to accept. This is your opportunity to share your frustration and anger at the lack of honor shown by them. Send a CC to the Union Tribune and see if they print any of them.

I can't wait for the next two parts of the Union Tribune's article on city finances, wages and benefits of employees in the coming days. I am sure more spin, lies and inflammatory examples taken out of context will grace the column inches needed to further push an agenda of destruction, directed at the San Diego City Employee. Until then; enjoy your Sunday and be safe.