Bill “Schepp” Nemec Retires

The "Immediate Past President" of the San Diego Police Officer's Association; Detective Sergeant Bill "Schepp" Nemec has called it a career. Bill started his career with the San Diego Police Department as an intern. Some of you may remember your first encounter with the little guy as a court car driver; taking officers and detectives to and from 801 W Market Street and the Court House. Bill entered the academy and began a long and distinguished career fighting crime and serving the citizens of San Diego. Bill worked at Central; Southeast; Mid-City; Street Narcotics; Robbery; Sex Crimes; Domestic Violence; SWAT. He worked patrol and investigations and was promoted to the rank of Sergeant.

Bill was known as a hard charging, detail orientated officer who was always the first to cover others and offer to help out. Bill joined the SWAT team and was well respected for his abilities and a calm, easy going demeanor. Bill's hard work paid off and he was promoted to Detective and quickly landed in Street Narcotics. Bill soon became an expert in Under the Influence arrests; sales cases and with his long locks of curly hair could buy any kind of narcotics from the most seasoned dealer. Bill was a great actor and could convince Eskimos to buy ice in the dead of winter.

His SWAT experience paid off in Point Loma one Friday afternoon while serving a Search Warrant. Street Narcotics was serving a warrant on Sunset Cliffs Boulevard at a small apartment across the street from the Jack in the Box at Voltaire and Sunset Cliffs. Detective John Fung was the first one through the door; followed closely by Detective Nemec. Just as Fung entered the door, the suspect began to fire a 45 cal semi automatic handgun. The first round struck Detective Fung dead center in the chest. The shock of the round hitting Fung in the chest knocked him backwards into Nemec, who was charging into the apartment. Bill grabbed hold of Fung, pushed him to the right and began to return fire as the suspect continued to fire in the direction of the front door. The suspect ran down a short hall toward a room as he fired. Bill continued to fire at the suspect; providing cover for Fung and the other officers who were stacked at the door. The suspect made it to the room and shut the door. More shots rang out from the room. Cover fire was provided as Fung was removed from the apartment and the scene secured for SWAT. John Fung was saved by the raid jacket; receiving a large bruise to the center of his chest. The suspect had been struck by Bill's rounds and died on the floor in the room he had run into.

I joined Bill in Street Narcotics a couple years later, during the wildest of times for Narcotics in department history. The unit went from two teams to five in February of 1986. Rock cocaine and PCP sales and use was increasing and San Diego was classified as the "Meth Capital" of America. We would serve 25 search warrants a week and before we were done with the paperwork on the sellers we had taken off the street, a new dealer would set up shop to take over for the crook we put behind bars. We would do weekly sweeps making arrests for crooks that were under the influence. Bill's expertise helped guide the unit and provided the training and mentoring for those of us who were new to the unit. He was a true leader who always provided the calm and reason to the wildest of scenes. His humor kept things light and allowed us to channel our energy.

Bill moved to Robbery Investigations where he again excelled. Long tedious surveillances; detailed reports; interview after interview; a tenacious, dedicated investigator who never gave in or gave up, in the pursuit of justice. Sex Crimes was short a couple of the detectives and were seeking volunteers to assist with mounting cases. Bill volunteered and soon made a name for himself with his ability to put cases together and get suspects to confess. His stint in Sex Crimes was short lived (He could not wait to get back to Robbery, truth be told) and was quickly back in the saddle chasing the worst of the worst.

Bill was promoted to Sergeant and headed back to patrol. Mid-City was in the cards. We again worked together on the same shift along with Terry Degelder, Bill Frew, and Andrew Hoffman. Wild times again and some great police work. Bill was the calming force at critical incidents and the silent leader. Bill would always downplay his involvement and force praise on others. He was always uncomfortable with praise and being in the spot light.

Bill moved back to Investigations; Domestic Violence was his calling. He led a team of detectives handling a mountain of un-ending cases. He was soon the person to be called for help by patrol sergeants needing guidance and advice. Bill sought election to the SDPOA Board of Directors. He was elected in a land slide; conformation of his popularity and the respect he had from officers of all ranks. In 2005 Bill was elected President of the SDPOA Board. Tough times and negotiations that ended with an imposed contract of take aways, made for a rough first year. In August of that year the SDPOA began a series of law suits aimed at stopping the actions of the City related to FLSA violations and the imposed take aways from officers. Bill was the leader who stood in front of an angry, frustrated and defeated membership; trying to make sense of the City's actions and what actions the SDPOA would take in response. Bill remained positive and was always the "Peace Maker" in meetings and negotiations settings. While directors vented to department brass or politicians, pissing people off and knocking tables over, Bill would be the calming voice of reason helping to maintain these relationships.

Bill's tenure as President was challenging and humbling. He survived one of the hardest times in history due to the economic downturn and a political mess within the City of San Diego that saw the Mayor resign; a lunatic elected to City Attorney and a new mayor (ex-chief of police) elected who quickly showed he was no friend of police officers. To add to the struggles; the City was wrestling with a 1 ½ Billion dollar unfunded liability for its Employee Retirement System. During all this; Bill maintained his professionalism, integrity; compassion and sense of humor.

Bill was recognized tonight by hundreds of well wishers, colleagues, friends and family. He was joined by Sergeant Alan Hayward who also called it quits after 29 ½ years. Bill will be missed but not forgotten. His sense of humor, integrity, professionalism and experience will be missed. While the mayor is happy to exchange this experience for enthusiasm; he should take a closer look at those like Bill Nemec who have the vast experience necessary to lead a competent police department who have more enthusiasm after 30+ years of service than many of the new officers being hired.

Enjoy the good life Bill; you have earned it. Stay healthy and enjoy the next chapter in your life. It was an honor and pleasure to have served with you. You are one of the good guys who made a difference in the lives of many. Thank you and good luck my friend!!!

The mayor and his VVM’S

Who among you remembers when the mayor was chief and put together a committee to develop the department's VVM'S? Who remembers what "VVM" stands for? Gold frames; pretty card stock with bright blue lettering and a gold badge as the background. I'm sure there are many with a smile on their face right now; some sitting here with a smirk; others nodding their heads thinking to themselves, "Yes, I remember that." Some of you pictured the gold, 8 ½ X 11 frame in your mind and the words contained under the glass. I am sure many of you have deliberately erased this image and thought from your minds.

The San Diego Police Department's "Vision, Values and Mission" were one of the many pet projects of then chief, now mayor of San Diego. One of his numerous committees (he had a committee for EVERYTHING) to come up with another set of one liners, to give the perception to the community, he was a caring, thoughtful, connected chief of police who valued them and was committed to their safety.

The VVM'S start with his "VISION" for the department; "We are committed to working together, within the Department, in a problem solving partnership with communities, government agencies, private groups and individuals to fight crime and improve the quality of life for the people of San Diego."

Next came his "VALUES" or principles as he liked to say, upon which "we" base our policing; HUMAN LIFE; The protection of human life is our highest priority. ETHICS; We will demonstrate integrity and honor in all our actions. CRIME FIGHTING; Our efforts to address neighborhood problems will be based on a Partnership with the community. VALUING PEOPLE; We will treat each other with dignity and respect, protecting the rights and well-being of all individuals. LOYALTY; We will be loyal to the community, to the Department and its members, and to the standards of our profession. OPEN COMMUNICATION; We will listen to one another's opinions and concerns. FAIRNESS; Our decisions will be based on common sense, and will be balanced, moral, legal and without personal favoritism. DIVERSITY; We appreciate one another's differences and recognize that our unique skills, knowledge, abilities and backgrounds bring strength and caring to our organization.

Finishing up his VVM'S was the MISSION; Our mission is to maintain peace and order though the provision of Police services that are of the highest quality and responsive to the needs of the community. We will contribute to the safety and security of the community by apprehending those who commit criminal acts, by developing partnerships to prevent, reduce or eliminate neighborhood problems, and by providing police services that are fair, unbiased, judicious, and respectful of the dignity of all individuals.

Bring back memories for you? How many of you were called upon to work on this committee and formulate these words? I have not a clue how much money was spent producing the VVM'S, but it had to be six figures. You could not go into any room within the department and not see the 8 ½ X 11 gold frame on a wall. There were small pocket versions that every member of the department was given and you were held accountable to them. Many a speech contained references to the VVM'S to suit the audience and or event. The politically driven; upwardly mobile; Jerry's Kids crowd; ALL had them on their desks, in their pockets and visible on or in their notebooks for the chief to see. It became a badge to show allegiance to the chief and show him you were "on board" as the train began to move.

How times have changed. The chief left the department after twenty six years; six long years as chief. The stresses of the job had taken their toll and he left two years shy of retirement age. The VVM'S were another in a long string of political projects done to promote him. Committee after committee worked on project after project; all focused on making the chief appear to care about the community. Where did employees fit into his agenda? Only those who fit the above categories were provided for and taken care of. Did you graduate from San Diego State? You had a leg up on everyone else if you did.

The mayor has moved on from the police department. He has long forgotten the VVM'S. His actions and words are clear; the VVM'S were never a part of who he was or who he has become. His self serving; loathsome manner, have clearly set him aside from Police Officers and all those who work for the citizens of San Diego.

ETHICS; have clearly been absent in the person who has become mayor of San Diego (I'm not convinced he ever had an ethical quality to his life). "Demonstrate integrity and honor in all our actions" applies to everyone but the mayor or his staff (unless he needs to protect himself or blame someone). The mayor and members of his staff have repeatedly provided false statements and information regarding the benefits of the City's employees. The mayor has been less than truthful with the public when confronted with the facts of negotiations and his actions related to the pending law suit aimed at eliminating DROP. He has lost the trust of ALL City Employees who know the truth.

VALUING PEOPLE; This is a biggie and a total failure on the mayor's part; "will treat each other with dignity and respect, protecting the rights and well-being of all individuals." The mayor has gone out of his way to strip the dignity from City Employees by his words and actions. The mayor has flippantly scoffed at the exodus of the most senior and experienced employees. The mayor smiles and gleefully boasts; "We will be exchanging experience for enthusiasm" when talking about the 125 sworn, senior, experienced officers of the San Diego Police Department who are retiring from the City to preserve benefits the mayor has eliminated effective July 1. The mayor's actions and words clearly confirm the belief held by employees; the mayor has NO RESPECT for their experience, dedication or vigilance. The mayor has lost the respect of ALL City Employees.

LOYALTY; The mayor has shown he is loyal to himself; the Republican, Downtown Power Brokers; his daughter and little else. His mantra; "It's political" seems to be his excuse for ethical lapses; stripping the dignity and respect of employees and creating a city ripe for out of control crime. The mayor who once wore the badge of a police officer and swore to protect the safety of citizens has turned his back on those who protect and serve. The mayor's actions have shown he is no longer worthy to carry the badge of a police officer. His words and actions have shown he is not one of us and not welcome among us.

FAIRNESS; "decisions will be based on common sense, and will be balanced, moral, legal and without personal favoritism." NOTHING the mayor has done could be considered "FAIR." The decisions he has coordinated and carried out against police officers of the City of San Diego bears no resemblance to "common sense." The vindictive manner the mayor has gone about singling out police officers for the reductions to wages and benefits; followed by the filing of a law suit in an attempt to eliminate an earned and vested benefit (DROP) and not the other workers in the City, shows his true lack of morals. His actions have been shown to be ILLEGAL and will soon be shown to be nothing short of a political maneuver to garner favoritism with the Republican, Downtown, Power, Broker Establishment. The employees of the city do not believe the mayor possesses the moral character to provide common sense, balanced leadership that is legal and without favoritism.

OPEN COMMUNICATION; The mayor is not open to listening to anyone's opinion, suggestions, concerns or ideas. The mayor is loathsome to those who speak out against his policies or ideas. "If you are not on the train when it leaves the station; you will be left behind" is a favorite saying of the mayor. His way of saying; you either get on board and agree with him or go to hell. The mayor is not one to be challenged and will go out of his way to shut down anyone who has the mitigated gall to oppose his ideas or actions. The mayor has failed in his willingness to listen to alternatives, suggestions and ideas for change and solutions to the many ills facing the City of San Diego. The mayor has an agenda and the train has left the station. The mayor has lost the ear of the City's employees, as we have all tired of the disrespectful manner and tone he has used since elected.

HUMAN LIFE; The mayor has single handedly destroyed a great police department. His demands and actions toward members of the police department, in all ranks, have shown his lack of concern for the safety of citizens. His caustic comment; "We are replacing experience with enthusiasm" has clearly shown the protection of human life is NOT his highest priority. The mayor has intentionally created the exodus of the most experienced officers to further his agenda and paint himself as a "reform" mayor who has taken on and defeated the "all mighty" unions. The mayor has placed the citizens and every police officer in jeopardy with his destructive and illegal actions, all in the name of balancing the city's budget. The cuts to police officers far outpace those of other employees of the City. The mayor is seeking to exact punishment for the refusal to get on the train. The mayor has made his actions against police officers personal and has shown he lacks concern for human life. Who will be the first to die as a result of the mayor's inexcusable actions?

These VVM'S are no longer in place. The mayor has created a new set of VVM'S that are to be used by ALL departments within the City. The mayor has also demanded the letter head be made the same throughout the city. The ego required he place his name on every correspondence sent from within the City. When the Chief of Police replies to a citizen, he uses the letter head of the mayor. When the Director of Parks replies to a vendor or sister agency, the mayor's letter head is used. His top down dictatorial leadership style has destroyed fairness, loyalty, open communication, and the valuing of people. His lack of ethics and complete disregard for human life, have caused employees to dismiss his value as mayor. The ability of ALL employees to function and provide excellent customer service has been hampered if not completely eliminated by the actions of the mayor.

Where there is no VISION; the ability to complete the MISSION is diminished or attenuated regardless the strength of VALUES. Lacking VALUES to overcome a lack of VISION, the MISSION does not matter; it is impossible to accomplish. The mayor has seen to this by his total disregard for the men and women who provide for the safety and service to the citizens of San Diego.

San Diego Needs a Change in Leadership

Yesterdays release by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith of his "Memorandum of Law" (MOL) opining on Charter Section 143.1 and the validity of DROP, has proved to be a black eye for everyone involved in touting this "work." It did not take a legal scholar to see through the writings of Goldsmith et al. (Consider the authors of the MOL; Jan Goldsmith and two attorneys who worked on Mike Aguirre's Pensions Task Force, one who has 4.5 years of municipal law experience and the other who passed the bar in December.) A ray of sunlight, often hidden by clouds in June, shone through today when David Wesco of SDCERS sent a letter to the City Attorney that addressed (or dressed down) Goldsmith and the flawed MOL penned and published for all to see.

Mr. Wesco addressed the many contradictions in law, policy, and practice set by opinions of past City Attorneys. In 1996, then City Attorney John Witt wrote an opinion, directly contradicting that of Goldsmith and distinctly absent in Goldsmith's research and MOL. I wondered out loud last night why the votes of the three elections held by SDCERS and used in support of Goldsmith's MOL were missing from the documentation. I think we all know why now. The standard used for elections in the City of San Diego and SDCERS, related to Charter Section 143.1, is, was and should be; "A 'majority vote' means a majority of the actual votes cast."

Mr. Wesco urged Goldsmith to withdraw his MOL because of the many flaws contained within the document. Mr. John Kaheny (Highly respected City Attorney - retired) also urged Goldsmith to withdraw the MOL for similar reasons. Mr. Kaheny attempted to persuade Goldsmith to; "pull the document and re issue it after curing the defects noted and improving its analysis as well as providing your client (City of San Diego) with a legal document that you (Goldsmith) and your staff (City Attorney Staff) can be proud of producing." Goldsmith pooh-poohed this advice and said the issue would be litigated in court soon, when the case goes to trial with the SDPOA.

The turmoil created by such reckless actions can no longer be allowed to continue. The elected officials of this City are as incompetent as any in America. They have continually and consistently placed blame on others for their failings and incompetence. The time has come for the entire lot to resign, leave their offices and allow honest, intelligent, persons of integrity to assume leadership and control of the City. As the mayor so eloquently spoke recently; "replacing experience with enthusiasm" will serve this City and its taxpayers, employees and visitors much more effectively and efficiently than those currently occupying elected positions. Even the mayor agrees enthusiasm is far more important than experience and anyone can learn to do the job. A person with no experience in politics would not be corrupted by the system and more willing to do what is right and honorable.

The reckless actions of the mayor, city attorney, and city council have exacted its toll on the employees who serve the citizens who live, work and visit San Diego. The constant turmoil created by those elected and the complete disrespect shown toward a dedicated work force, is unconscionable and uncalled for.

The mayor's complete disregard for the law during negotiations and his demands for elimination of earned, vested benefits and complete and total lack of ethics demand he resign his position. He has lost the faith, trust and respect of those he is responsible for leading. He has shown through actions and words, those who have given their hearts and soul for this city, do not matter to him. The men and women employed by the City of San Diego deserve better. On a side note; the mayor recently demanded additional street lights be installed near his residence. The lights were quickly installed and the mayor did not like the color of the lights and demanded they be re-done to "fit in with the surrounding" lights in the area. Who among you thinks you would get a light repaired, let alone installed in your neighborhood today? The abuse of his authority and power is appalling and another clear example of his arrogance.

The City Attorney has followed the mayor's lead and has shown a complete disregard for the men and women for whom he serves. Jan Goldsmith is the "City's Attorney" as such represents the men and women who work for this city. His reckless MOL has again created unnecessary angst and fear among the rank and file who have been attacked without reason by their own attorney. When MOU'S are prepared and codified, we rely upon the integrity, experience and thoroughness of the City Attorney. The men and women, who should have faith and trust in the City Attorney, have lost ALL faith in his ability to provide the necessary legal advice to ensure a stable life. The trust he will fulfill his obligations in a completely competent manner has been destroyed. We endured four long years of similar incompetence and can ill afford another four.

The City Council has shown they are not leaders and have lost the trust of their employees. Collectively, they have sat silent, as the mayor, City Attorney and press tormented, disrespected and assailed their dedication to the citizens of San Diego. The City Council has allowed the mayor to destroy decades old promises and decimate the public's safety. Their effectiveness as a governing body has proven to be extinct. It is time they collectively resign their positions and allow a new and enthusiastic Council to be seated who bears the integrity, honesty and compassion to guide this City and its employees through this difficult time.

The economic struggles of America are real and clearly understood by every employee working for the City of San Diego. We all understand the need to sacrifice and share in the pain of cuts. We understand and acknowledge the need to make adjustments to wages and benefits. We do not understand nor accept the dictatorial manner in which the City has exacted its cuts to wages and benefits. The throwing of the baby out with the bath water attitude of the mayor toward employee benefits will not be tolerated nor accepted. A shared solution involving stakeholders at every level is necessary to accomplish a fair and equitable solution to the City's problems. Until persons are elected, who are of the mind to be inclusive of stakeholders in seeking solutions; instead of playing politics and making unreasonable demands of only employees; continued strife and unrest will prevail.

San Diego needs a change in leadership.

DROP Opinion June 1, 2009

I'm not sure if I like Twitter or hate it at this point. This morning, around 11:14, I am sitting at my desk trying to wade through telephone messages, e-mails and the "stuff" in my mail slot, when my telephone announces a new Twitter message. I pick up my telephone and ring up the message; "AndrewDonohue: City attorney: Remember that bombshell I dropped on the mayor last week? Well, forget about it: http://bit.ly/liTOG" Being the inquisitive dolt that I am I clicked on the link and up popped the Voice of San Diego and an article titled: "Goldsmith: Bombshell Averted". I began to read the article and if anyone was looking at me I am sure they would have thought I was completely confused and deep in thought or maybe even having a seizure.

I clicked open the link for the "Opinion" the City Attorney was providing and began to read. I first noted the document was 116 pages in length and titled, "Memorandum of Law" dated June 1, 2009. The memorandum was addressed to the mayor and City Council and the subject stated, "DROP and Charter Section 143.1." I started skimming the words and as they filled the screen of my Blackberry. The City Attorney was now providing an opinion that in short said; the vote of members that occurred in 1997 to accept DROP did not meet the requirements of Charter Section 143.1; and DROP was an illegal benefit; the Municipal Code providing for this benefit was in error; and thus DROP could be eliminated without a vote of the membership.

I read this rather quickly as I had a meeting to get to and work to do. I slipped the phone in its holder and headed out to get some work done. As I drove the freeway heading north I thought to myself; last week the mayor and City Attorney are pointing fingers at each other, blaming one another for political posturing or incompetence; the mayor saying the City Attorney dropped a bombshell when one of his employees agreed with SDCERS that a vote was needed to make any changes; the City Attorney indicating to the contrary; then the mayor's minion changes his story and says the outside attorneys hired for labor negotiations talked to SDCERS who told them no vote was required; when David Wesco contradicts this statement saying SDCERS never talked to the outside firm nor discussed this issue. ALL of this is going through my head as I process the quick read of the City Attorney's "Memorandum of Law." Quick thought; when was this researched and written?

I start getting text messages, e-mails and my phone rings five times in the next 40 minutes as I get to my meeting. Five messages left in voice mail; all of them almost yelling into the phone; "Have you seen the opinion of the City Attorney? You need to read it."

Remember, I am not an attorney and like most of you rely on the words written by the attorney's to try and make head or tails out of their convoluted thoughts and ramblings. This particular document is no different. I make it home, flip on the stereo and sit down to re-read the City Attorney's opinion. The actual writings of; Jan Goldsmith, Walter Chung and M. Travis Phelps, is fourteen (14) pages. The remaining 112 pagers are attachments used to support their "legal theory" or "opinion" as you will. Now, keep in mind we all have an "opinion" and we all know what opinions are and what they smell like. Now "legal theory" is a little different but as Wikipedia defines the word THEORY; "The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. I especially like "fanciful or speculative" after reading the City Attorney's work.

I read the document once; twice; then a third time. I move back and forth from the various attachments to the memorandum and I am struck first by the timing of the memorandum and then the content. The basis of the opinion is there were only 3,269 votes tallied from an eligible membership of 9,206. Of the 3,269 votes tallied; 88 voted "no" with the remaining voting "yes." The opinion put forth is the 3,171 "yes" votes comprised 35.51% of "eligible members" and did not meet the requirements of Charter Section 143.1.

Let's read further and review the attachments used to support this opinion. In Exhibit F; an October 2, 2002 Memorandum addresses Charter Section 143.1. On page 3, the last sentence; "In any event, there is no legislative history on the meaning of the phrase "approval of a majority vote of the members of said system," so we are left with the language of the statute."

In Exhibit H; an August 27, 1993 Memorandum from the City Attorney to Larry Grissom, SDCERS Retirement Administrator, addresses "Benefits Elections." The City Attorney writes; "In my quest to discover the true purpose and meaning of Charter Section 143.1, I could find no case law or attorney opinions shedding light on the subject. However, in the dusty archives, I did find three Special Benefit Election Reports (Reports) issued by the Board of Administration (Board) between the years of 1965 and 1970. Each of these reports was issued at a time when major benefit changes were proposed."

Let's now look at the "Reports" to which the City Attorney refers. The first; dated April 15, 1965, titled, "CHANGES IN RETIREMENT BENEFITS A SPECIAL REPORT from The Retirement Board of Administration, the fifth paragraph addresses Charter Section 143.1; "In summary, a yes vote by the majority of all the members of the System will mean improved benefits and the employer and employees will contribute a greater amount. A lack of a majority of yes votes will result in no improvement in benefits and a small reduction in present employee contributions to the Retirement System. It is therefore important that every member votes."

The next report is dated March 17, 1967, and bears the same title and the third paragraph addresses Charter Section 143.1; "In summary, a majority of yes votes on these proposed changes will mean higher future pension benefits and a slight increase in contribution requirements. Less than a majority of yes votes will mean no change in pension benefits and a slight reduction in contribution requirements."

The final report presented is dated February 27, 1970, and again bears the same title and in the "Summary" addresses Charter Section 143.1; "A majority of yes votes by the employees will permit the council to adopt an ordinance to accomplish six changes described on the following pages, which will result in higher future pension benefits and an average increase of approximately 30% in the employee contributions. Less than a majority of yes votes will mean no change in pension benefits, an average reduction of about 16% in employee contributions and no obligation for the City to pay for improved benefits."

My un-educated reading of the three reports used to support the opinion of the City Attorney's legal theory; in 1965 SDCERS used the exact language of the charter section. The next two reports talk only of a "majority of yes votes" to pass the changes being proposed. What is curiously missing in all three is the actual votes cast versus members and the percentage of yes votes. Want to venture a guess why this part of the equation is missing?

Go back to Exhibit F and the comment, "In any event, there is no legislative history on the meaning of the phrase "approval of a majority vote of the members of said system," so we are left with the language of the statute." The courts will obviously decide this issue. I do though find it curious two of the three examples appear to suggest a majority "yes" vote met the requirements of Charter Section 143.1 in those years. It would also appear the vote in 1997 was also interpreted to have met the requirements as the City Attorney at the time and City Council, as well as SDCERS, all relied on this vote to make the changes to enact DROP.

I recently read an article where Jan Goldsmith said the problems in San Diego with Labor and the relationship with the City was one of repeated litigation and his desire to move away from litigation between the two parties. Taking from Jan's own words; "Estoppel is an equitable principle that may apply where a party relies upon a promise." So the promises made and the belief for the past 12 years that DROP was approved, mean nothing? He is pouring jet fuel on a smoldering fire and like the mayor more eager to cross swords and go to war than work on fixing the problems of past; discovered today. What does this say about the state of Government in San Diego? Maybe it's the sun? Too much in the way of ultra violet rays; hair pieces that do not fit properly, thinning hair on a large head and a propensity to place blame rather than correct a mistake? When will intelligent; honest; professional people step forward; leave their egos at home and do what is right? When will politics take a back seat to honesty, fairness and doing what is right? It appears that time is not in the very near future based on the actions of the City Attorney and mayor of San Diego.

Back from Yosemite in One Piece

Well, I am back. It appears things got a little testy while I was gone. I see there were a couple of informative articles about the Mayor and City Attorney pointing fingers at one another over who knew what when and who was telling the truth. I notice the mayor and his daughter got themselves on CNN and some other news show to talk about next steps for Prop 8 and what to do about the Appeals Court Decision. I also understand he travelled to San Francisco, also related to Prop 8. Who is footing the bill for all of this? Why are taxpayers paying the mayor of San Diego to gallivant around with his daughter, engaging in a political debate of this nature, when things are going to hell in a hand basket financially in San Diego? Besides his salary, who is footing the bill for expenses? Do not get me wrong; I am not diminishing the fight or argument related to Prop 8, and do not want to get into a debate about this issue. I am of the opinion the mayor has overstepped his position and it is time he allow his daughter to carry this fight and he need get back to the issues at hand. I am not willing to pay for his personal political agenda trips, to garner face time with the media and public, in an attempt to appear to have a heart or care about anyone but himself. He was ardently opposed to this issue until his chief of staff and daughter tugged at his ear. His change of heart and his full of tears flip flop, was as phony as the Bill Clinton three dollar bill.

I see Chief Jarman is retiring to preserve her DROP and Medical Benefits. I also read with piquancy the article in Sunday's UT by Michael Stetz; again a UT writer makes a Civil Servant out to be a thieving, greedy, jackal, only in it for the money. In Stetz's article he writes; "Here seemed yet another case of a public employee chancing a hernia from lugging all that cash out the door, while my meager retirement savings go, well, up in flames." The change of ownership did little if anything to improve the ethics or reliability of the reporting coming out of this rag. If Stetz or any of the other so called writers for this pathetic excuse for a "news paper" want a secured retirement and are willing to put their lives on the line every day; I would suggest a job in Law Enforcement or Fire Fighting. I would NOT suggest it be for the City of San Diego; there is NOTHING secure about our retirements or benefits. Go to any other City and sign up; if you can cut the mustard; make it through the back ground process; graduate the academy; complete phase training; and then finish probation; you are on your way to a hard earned retirement, that if all goes well you may get to enjoy for 12 years after you retire. You won't be around much longer than that unless you are one of the lucky ones to beat the odds and survive past that. If you are not willing to do that; get off your damned high horses and shut the hell up. You get what you earn in life. No one is handing police officers or fire fighters anything; we earn every penny of our salary and retirement benefits in more ways than time permits to explain and we are not apologizing for it. We are the ones running toward that crazed man shooting people as you all run in the other direction trying to hide; firefighters are the ones driving into the flames to stop the destruction of property as you all flee as fast as your feet or car will take you.

The numbers of police, fire and civilian personnel leaving in the next thirty days is astounding. The institutional knowledge and experience of those who are participating in this exodus will take years to recover from. Life will go on; the City will not shut down; fires will be put out, crooks will go to jail; BUT crime will rise; people WILL die; lives will be ruined and the taxpayer will pay dearly for the short sighted actions of a tyrannical mayor who cares nothing for what he has created. He will place blame at the feet of everyone else and not once will he stand and accept blame for anything. He will feed the Stetz's of the media world with fuel to deceive; continuing to contribute to the destruction of a workforce once proud to serve the taxpayer of San Diego. The mayor will sit back and downplay the seriousness of today and use fog, smoke and mirrors to assure the public all is well. He will smile and claim victory over the greedy public worker all the while taking his Retiree medical benefits, salary AND retirement checks to the bank. Replacing experience with enthusiasm is the biggest joke in America's Finest City; that is until your son, daughter, mother or father is killed because the police or fire departments could not respond in a timely manner and decisions to act took a minute too long.

To the curious; I made it to within a few hundred feet of the top of the mountain at Yosemite. I did not make it to the top of the rock. I am walking funny still and feel the pain of being overweight, out of shape and over fifty. This hike is not for the faint of heart or those like me who fit the before mentioned group. It was a way to ponder next steps and take in the beauty of the mountains. I will share the pictures in the coming days and write more about the experience. Doug Cohee made it to the top of Half Dome; Terry McClain made it to the base of the rock as did Bill and Andrea Halligan. The trip to the top and back took a little over ten hours to travel the 16.4 miles total, up and back. All in all it was a great trip filled with laughs and lots of fun. Be safe and enjoy the day.

Headed to Yosemite to Hike Half Dome

I'm finishing up my packing and putting things in order to head off early tomorrow morning (4 a.m.) for Yosemite. The plan is to climb Half Dome on Friday and return to San Diego on Sunday. I have this extreme fear of heights, so getting to the top of that rock may be a feat all to itself. Getting back down??? If you never see another post on here you will know why.

In the last few days the e-mails and telephone calls with questions have increased and I will try to capture the essence of the concerns most have had. I would suggest the questions you have related to DROP, Retiree Medical, DROP Interest, and the current contract; call a Board Member for the SDPOA. I do not have the answers to most of your questions. The answers I have offered come from my understanding of the Charter, MMBA and what I have gleaned from the information put out as of today by the SDPOA Board. I am still confused, as it appears many of you are what changes if any came from discussions on Thursday, May 21, 2009, between the SDPOA and City.

The message coming from Board Members seems to be very clear. Those Board members who have discussed the Retiree Medical have all said there is little hope anything will change in the foreseeable future and if you are in DROP and concerned with the loss of the COLA for your medical, you need to speak to your financial advisor NOW and make a decision based on your specific needs and desires. You need to do what is right for you!!!! The pre-1986 people who have no Medicare; there is also little if any hope the City is going to make accommodations or changes to the LBFO and we are "SOL" as they say.

Mike Conger is working on preparing litigation to address the DROP issues; 55 age entry; DROP interest and elimination of the benefit from Chiefs and Captains. He is also working on researching the Retiree Medical issues. The word from those Board members who are speaking is this is a tough issue and will take longer to work through. So if you are waiting for something to come of this litigation, you may be standing at the door waiting for a while. Do not gamble with your future if you do not have Medicare or some other form of insurance to sustain you through your golden years.

The good news is the Voice of San Diego has picked up on the shenanigans of the mayor and his negotiations team. They are asking the right questions and pointing out the underhanded, unethical and illegal manner the mayor and his henchmen have comported themselves. There is more to come and we can all hope this will in some way put the mayor in check and force him to pay attention to the law and stop with his illegal behavior (Don't hold your breath; but we can all hope). As this all plays out you will see a lot of finger pointing and shifting of blame in the mayor's office. Someone's head is going to roll; any bets on who will be first? Lunch on me at the "Green Fly" for the person who identifies who in the mayor's circle will be first to lose their job as the mayor throws his patsy under the bus.

To all of you who are still on the fence and trying to make a decision; you need to get your paperwork together if you are going to roll your annual leave over. The cut-off date for this to happen is, June 12^th. Contact payroll NOW to get the specifics of what you need to do and by when. Do not get caught holding a large bag of cash only to have to give it over to the IRS because you procrastinated and could not take advantage of this option. Call SDCERS and get down there and figure out what it means if you stay and if you go. Get ALL the information you can to make an educated and intelligent decision based on what is best for YOU. Time is ticking folks!!!!

I just received a message from the mayor via Twitter; "CASupremeCt decided some can take away certain rights from others. Neither justice nor equality were on the court's agenda today #prop8" (I love following the mayor) without getting into a discussion either way related to this issue; does anyone see the contradiction here? If Lisa were a police officer, would the mayor be as eager to violate the law and eliminate, reduce or otherwise change vested benefits she would stand to receive as part of her employment? Another raw example of the mayor's penchant for picking and choosing what law is acceptable or important. His attitude is clear and his actions speak to his ethical digressions. It is the little things.

I will be checking in, off and on, but will not post to this BLOG again until Sunday, May 31, 2009. I will be lounging under the large pines and oaks in Yosemite, reading, listening to music and sipping cold beverages. I hope to hike daily, do some writing and photography; then the climb of Half Dome. I am looking forward to this much needed break and will finalize my decision; do I stay or do I go? We shall see. Until Sunday; Keep the faith, be safe and enjoy family and friends.

Memorial Day Muse

A day to remember those who have given their lives for our freedom.... Thank You!!!!

If you have not heard; the mayor is going to Sacramento on Tuesday (May 26, 2009), on what is being called a "high-profile lobbying trip" to "protest" the possibility the Governor will divert 8% of revenue from the City, to the State. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle, black? This guy is unbelievable!!! He thinks nothing of taking 6% from his employees; eliminating and cutting benefits; at the same time he begins taking his full salary as well as his retirement payment. He is going to Sacramento to "protest possible confiscation of local government money." I wish him well. Hope he has better luck challenging the take away than we did!!!

Did you hear about the inaugural "Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast" held at the Holiday Inn at the Bay, the other day? The event was co-chaired by Robert Gleason and Nicole Ramirez. Nicole is a very active member of the Gay and Lesbian community and well known for his (yes, his) hair, makeup and fabulous gowns. Catch Nicole in most settings and he will be wearing a suit and tie. The mayor was the emcee for the event and was heard making what can only be described as an "Unbelievable" and "Completely Inappropriate" comment to Nicole Ramirez. The mayor is standing on the stage with his daughter, Lisa. The mayor makes the following statement; "I know this makes her nervous. She doesn't know if I'll cry, crack an inappropriate joke or throw the F-bomb out there." Then he says this to Nicole Ramirez; "I think this is the first time I've shared a stage with Nicole; but I believe we did share a patrol car once, when I was a cop. I was the chauffeur. Nicole was in the back seat wearing silver bracelets." Think there might be hell to pay for anyone else who may make such a comment? I'm no prude, but what on earth was he thinking? That was a rhetorical question; the mayor seldom thinks about his actions or the consequences. Why should he; there are no consequences as evidenced by the multitude of ethical and illegal actions he and his staff has been involved in of late.

The Padres won again today in 10 innings. They beat the Diamondbacks 9-7, for their 10^th win in a row. Go Padres!!!

MORE LIES FROM THE mayor’s OFFICE

I love Twitter!!! I am sitting on the couch switching between basketball playoffs and the Sunday Night Baseball game, when my Blackberry pings a message from Twitter. I look at the message that says, "VoiceofSanDiego: Bombshell Dropped on Labor Plan, Putting Savings in Peril: Changes to DROP." I'm thinking to myself, what now? I click on the link and start to read the article when I can feel my blood pressure start to spike. I am thinking all types of things that I can't write in these pages as I read the words of Jay Goldstone. I have had to edit and then re-edit this post to remove the profane language and extremely caustic manner I used to address the latest lies to come out of the mayor's office by way of Goldstone. If you have not had an opportunity to read the article by Rani Gupta in the Voice of San Diego; "Bombshell Dropped on Labor Plan, Putting Savings in Peril" it is a must read. It has taken a while, but it appears Voice of San Diego and Gupta have finally started seeing what we all know; if the mayor or one of his minion's are speaking; they are NOT TELLING YOU THE TRUTH!!!!

Case in point; the latest round of labor negotiations and the mayor's actions related to the changes to DROP and the blatant lies before, during and now after the fact. The mayor and his henchmen entered negotiations with a set of demands they expected from the five labor groups and NOTHING, including the law was going to get in their way. From the start, the City violated the Myers, Milias, Brown Act (MMBA) which governs collective bargaining. The City was participating in unfair labor practices by the manner they conducted themselves during these negotiations. AFSME Local 127 has filed an "Unfair Labor Practice" complaint with the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) for the actions of the City during their negotiations. The SDPOA does not have the protections afforded AFSME and is not protected by PERB.

Half way through negotiations, the City's Negotiators (The mayor hired the firm
"Burke, Williams & Sorenson" to provide legal services and lead negotiations with the five labor groups in the City. Attorneys William Kay and Timothy Davis of "Burke, Williams & Sorenson" lead separate teams for the City during the negotiations with the five labor groups) served the SDPOA notice of the City's intent to sue the SDPOA regarding DROP. An act clearly indented to shut down negotiations and allow the mayor to impose a contract he knew would fuel an exodus of the most senior, experienced and knowledgeable of the Police Department. The mayor's intent was to rid the City of as many officers as possible who had more than 25 years service. This would further increase the savings the mayor and wrecking crew were seeking.

During negotiations the SDPOA Board of Directors held fast and refused to engage the City in negotiations related to DROP. The SDPOA rightly asserted DROP was a vested benefit and could not be bargained away and thus refused every attempt by the City's negotiations team to engage in discussions to remove, alter, or in any other manner change DROP. The City in prior negotiations made similar attempts at bringing DROP into the discussions during negotiations and were quickly rebuffed. Then comes revelations from SDCERS that they would not follow the mayor's lead in violating the Charter and law, related to DROP and the changes the mayor was demanding. Not a word from the mayor or his office for well over a week. Maybe someone finally got tired of the silence and started pushing some buttons?

Rani Gupta wrote an article in Sundays Voice of San Diego about "a much-ballyhooed set of compensations cuts to address the city's financial woes, changes to the city's controversial deferred retirement program were a major part of the mix." Gupta outlined clearly the issues surrounding the mayor's efforts to change, alter and eliminate DROP. She then talked to Jay Goldstone and asked about SDCERS actions and what impact their refusal to implement those changes proposed in the latest contracts would have on the budget. Goldstone told Gupta it was news to the mayor changes to DROP would require a vote of the members of SDCERS (LIE NUMBER ONE). Gupta writes; "It was a bombshell that was dropped after the fact," Goldstone said. "I'm not necessarily suggesting we would have taken a different position, but we would have known going in that the imposition was only step one of a two-step process."

If for a second there is anyone in San Diego who believes this ignorant attempt at playing dumb, I want to pay for your psychological help. This was a "bombshell" that was "dropped after the fact?" What flavor of kool-aid is the mayor giving his people?

Gupta goes on to write; Goldstone said it "would have been nice" if Goldsmith's office had told city officials about the requirement beforehand. He added, "I will tell you candidly, they will claim they told us and told our lawyers at least, our negotiators, but we (in the Mayor's Office) were not aware up here." (LIE NUMBER TWO)

This is where my blood pressure began to rise significantly and I could feel the blood boiling in my veins. Words (I can use here) escape me as I try to formulate a response to this bold faced, totally and completely false statement. The arrogance and complete disregard for the truth is appalling and a clear window into the thought processes of the mayor and his people. The mayor knew; his people knew, Bill Kay knows; Joan Dawson (City Attorney) knows; Timothy Davis should know; Scott Chadwick knows and others in the City Attorney's Office know changes to DROP or anything to do with Retirement Benefits are protected by the Charter and cannot be unilaterally changed as demanded by the mayor.

Then things get even worse. Goldstone can't help himself. He does after all work for the mayor and as the saying goes monkey see, monkey do. Goldstone calls Gupta back and she recounts the next chapter of lies. Gupta writes; "Several hours later, after a reporter called for comment from the city attorney, Goldstone called back to offer a different version of events, saying a conversation with the city attorney had refreshed his memory about the situation. Goldstone said that the city's outside attorneys from the firm Burke Williams & Sorensen had talked to SDCERS officials during negotiations and, based on those conversations, had advised that the city had a "very strong argument" that the provision of the city charter requiring a vote didn't apply to the changes the city was seeking to make to DROP. The City Attorney's Office, Goldstone said, never told city officials or even strongly suggested that changing DROP required an employee vote." (LIE NUMBER THREE)

Several hours after trying to cover the mayor's large behind, damage control and shifting of blame (A common theme of the mayor) to someone else is beginning in earnest. Now Goldstone is shifting blame from the City Attorney, to Bill Kay and Timothy Davis of Burke Williams & Sorenson. Does Goldstone think no one is going to follow up on what he is spewing? Does he think everyone is going to roll over and allow him to scratch their bellies, while he lays blame on the easy patsy? It does not stop here!!!

Gupta continues; "Goldsmith wouldn't comment on whether his office weighed in on the issue and wouldn't say what Burke Williams & Sorensen -- which is also handling the city's DROP lawsuit -- said about the issue. Bill Kay, an attorney with the firm, said he couldn't comment on what advice his firm gave the city because of attorney-client confidentiality.

But SDCERS' administrator and CEO, David Wescoe, said his staff never talked to the city or its outside attorneys about the issue during the bargaining process. "We never advised them or gave them any advice during meet and confer at all," he said." So who do we believe? Goldsmith won't comment and neither will Bill Kay. The collective covering of asses is now starting to get out of hand. The attorney's are all hiding behind, "Attorney-Client" privilege. Goldstone is not an attorney but should hide behind his bosses behind and keep his mouth shut. He should let the mayor do the talking and let him be the one who lies to the press, taxpayer and then have to repeat these lies in court when he takes the stand to tell what he knows and when he knew it. The paper trail is long and detailed.

The paper trail I am referring to is spelled out by Gupta in the following; "Retirement system officials say they gave fair warning to city officials about the city charter provision back in 2006, when Wescoe sent a letter to the mayor saying SDCERS couldn't implement the results of the 2005 bargaining process without an employee vote." There is much more in the way of written documentation related to this issue that clearly shows the mayor and his staff was well aware of the Charter requirements and its applicability to DROP. Gupta follows with; "City officials said they knew about that requirement but didn't believe it applied to DROP because they considered DROP workers to be retirees, not active employees. (LIE NUMBER FOUR)

Wescoe pointed out that the municipal code makes clear that DROP employees are considered active employees. In any case, the recently approved changes apply to employees who haven't entered DROP. "It's crystal clear," Wescoe said, "which is why I'm surprised that they're surprised." The retirement system's general counsel recently sent a letter to Deputy City Attorney Joan Dawson indicating that Dawson agreed with the conclusion that the DROP changes require a vote. Dawson declined to comment."

Did anyone catch that; "City officials said they knew about that requirement but didn't believe it applied to DROP because they considered DROP workers to be retirees, not active employees." Come again? What City official said this? Goldstone? The mayor? Who? This is another example of the ignorance and arrogance of "City officials" working in the mayor's office.

In the last passage it is clear Joan Dawson in the City Attorney's Office was aware or made aware of the requirements of Charter Section 143.1. There is clear documentation the City Attorney's Office was aware of the requirements of the Charter and shared the information with the mayor's office. What is also clear is the mayor did not like the answer and shopped for an attorney who would provide him the answer he needed to make the political changes to employee's benefits he was and is hell bent on eliminating. It is after all part of the "Master Plan" of the Downtown Establishment; Republican Contingent; Union Tribune and Republican Mayors across America.

This is but the start of the collapse of the house of cards the mayor built. He will not be able to sustain the lies and deceit as the papers start to surface and the truth is known. The blame game has started and there will be no end to it, if history repeats itself; knowing how the mayor works. His tyrannical methods will soon cause his downfall and ouster from City Hall. It cannot come soon enough. The City is facing an astronomical deficit and the mayor's posturing has done nothing to help address the problem. Politics have no place in the realities of the critical issues created by incompetence and arrogance. It is time the mayor cease the destruction of this City and hand the keys to someone who cares about the City and the employees.

Confusion is Everywhere

Just when you think you think you know what you think they mean when they imposed their "Last, Best and Final" offer for a contract and you have made life changing decision based on what you thought you understood you find out that what you thought was not what they meant or what they said. Did you get that? I'm confused too. I was reading the SDPOA Blog this afternoon and caught a post from a member who was obviously upset about this same thing.

The post starts; "I hope I am not the only one but I find this whole issue of Retiree Medical Benefits very confusing. On one hand we are told our future medical benefits are capped at $740. Many of us have had to make life changing decisions based on this. Now we are being told the COLA alone is being frozen for two years." I pulled out the papers I received when we all met at the SDPOA to hear the news of what the mayor was going to cram down our throat. The papers I have clearly indicate the COLA for Retiree Medical was going to be frozen at $740. I believe it was stated on more than one occasion and by more than one person, this is NOT a temporary freeze, but a permanent freeze. This was re-enforced by the analysis offered by Mark Sullivan showing what the freeze to this COLA would mean to the member over years.

I re-read what Jeff Jordon posted regarding the meeting the SDPOA Board had with the City on Thursday. Jeff said the meeting; "primarily addressed our new litigation involving DROP age at 55 and the interest rate change, along with potential litigation over retiree medical if the City moves forward with the changes in their Last Best and Final Offer." Jeff went on to explain discussion regarding Retiree Medical. Jeff wrote; "They also made it very clear that it is unlikely that changes will be made to the retiree health care language already contained in their LBFO.  Per the City, they are arguing that nobody is harmed by this agreement, because they could choose to stay and that the automatic COLA on retiree health is only "suspended" for the next two years.  This suspension could be lifted and they would not be harmed if agreements are reached on this issue in the future.  It is only until the COLA is actually eliminated that they will be harmed and able to litigate per the City." I would argue the moment I did not receive a COLA for my Retiree Medical I have been harmed. I don't think I need to wait two years of harm to know I was harmed. But that's just me.

OK, so I thought I understood what the "Last, Best and Final" offer for a contract was when presented to us. I thought it was clear to everyone present; this was a permanent freeze of the amount of money ($740) the City was going to provide Retirees. It now appears this is not correct. Could it be Jeff just miss-spoke when he wrote this short synopsis of the meeting with the City? Could it be the City back-peddling in an attempt to cover its ass? Could it be they are just confused? Maybe I am confused!

The post I was first talking about goes on; "WTF!!! Why were we not informed of this language? Was this in the original impasse imposition or is this something that was just now changed? I am tired of being F(*&(&(&(K'd with! WHAT IS GOING ON?? It appears to me the wonderful city we all work for is doing their best, and doing a wonderful job of it too, to cause as much confusion, hatred, and discontent with our employment so we decide to abandon ship. Was this all just a strategy worked up by our Mayor? It would seem so. Somebody clear this up for me."

I have fielded a dozen calls about this change and honestly do not have an answer for you. I am as confused as the person who posted in the SDPOA Blog. The confusion is creating anger, frustration and more lost hope. People are angry because they do not believe they have all the information necessary to make the life changing decisions many are struggling still to make. People are frustrated because they can't seem to get straight answers to their questions. People are losing hope because the cut-off date to make their decision is fast approaching and there is no sign of honest answers.

The last line of Jeff's post may be the most telling of all. Jeff closes with the following; "People that are looking to preserve their retiree health care as it exists now, should continue to meet with their financial advisors and their families to determine what is right for them." Maybe it's not as confusing as we are making it out to be. The mayor has clearly shown his hand and is hell bent on TAKING. He is not going to give anything back to us and as the economy continues to swirl in the toilet, the sign of anything good coming of retiree medical is not good. Thanks mayor for the caring, honest, support you have shown over the years.
 

Opportunity Ahead

June 30, 2009, is fast approaching. With this date, comes a new chapter for the San Diego Police Department and law enforcement as a whole in San Diego. Whatever the numbers turn out to be of those who retire; you can be assured it will be painful for the Department. When any organization looses over ten percent (10%) of its most talented, dedicated and experienced members in such a short period of time, that loss is devastating. The timing of those leaving makes it difficult if not impossible to plan, prepare and train replacements to step in and continue the level of productivity of those before them. Examples abound, but take the Lieutenant and two Sergeants leaving a highly specialized investigative unit; the Sergeant and one Detective of the Cold Team; ten (10) people at every level in Communications; Traffic Division loosing supervisors, investigators and motors; ten (10) people, including a Lieutenant, Sergeant, Agent, Detective, four (4) Patrol Officers, a PSO, and the Senior Clerk, all from Northeastern Division; to highlight some of what is about to occur. This will no doubt have an impact on the ability to provide for the safety of citizens. The mayor can ply the public with his political two step of replacing experience with enthusiasm all he likes. The reality is the replacements are years away and the crisis is here today.

If you are one of those staying to continue the tradition of "America's Finest" and fulfill the oath you took when you first pinned on your badge; opportunities are in front of you for the taking. Promotions, transfers, openings in specialized assignments, and the ability to move throughout the department will present themselves in the coming weeks, months and years. You are well situated to help lead and re-build this department and improve on the great reputation earned by those retiring. The officer, detective, supervisor and manager who wish to advance or move will have opportunities never before seen. The positive influences of change can bring satisfaction and a new desire to excel.

Take advantage of this time and talk to those heading for the beach and retirement. Pick their brain and ask for advice; discuss their jobs; ask what skills or training are necessary to fill their shoes; soak up their knowledge and advice; get their contact numbers and e-mail addresses for future questions and consultation. Little things like this may mean the difference in solving a crime or finding a contact to help locate a missing child in another jurisdiction.

The attitude you take forward will determine the success you have when taking advantage of these new opportunities. Make the best of this time and try your level best to stay above the water line. The worst may still be ahead in terms of budget cuts and the ability to attract new, enthusiastic people to this profession. That in no way should dissuade you from taking a leadership role and stepping up to take on these new challenges.

Remember why we all joined this profession; focus on the fun; the excitement; the challenge; and look at the opportunities ahead. Take on new challenges and find your niche. Don't be afraid of new challenges and most of all do not be afraid to fail. If you do not make a mistake here and there, you are not taking risks and most likely are not doing your job to your fullest potential. Be professional and compassionate but above all be safe. Look at the challenges ahead as a new beginning for a proud department and make the best of it. You owe it to yourself and your brothers and sisters in blue.

To those heading off to retirement; leave with those behind the wisdom and experience you have gained through the years. Allow them to pick your brain and make yourself accessible during transition. Withholding contacts and not sharing the little nuances of the job will not get back at the mayor; it will only make it harder for your replacement to learn the job and maintain the reputation you spent years to build. We owe it to those who are picking up the torch to keep the flame lit so they can see their way during this difficult time. Leave with the dignity and professionalism you have earned; hold your head high, shoulders back and a smile on your face. You have earned that right. You have given your all and now it is time to allow those remaining to take up where you left off.

Padres win again… 7^th straight…. Padres 4 Cubs 0

Retirement Parties Abound

I will try and keep up with the many Retirement Parties in the coming weeks.

June 5, 2009, 5:00 PM

The Brick House at the Police Pistol Range

Sergeants Bill Nemec and Alan Hayward

June 10, 2009, 1100 – 1300

The SDPOA Meeting Hall

Lt. Tom Orden
Sergeant Mike Volberg
Agent Mark Annis
Detective Lee Orsino
Officers Dave Kersch, Craig Myrom, Paul Lennon and Alphonso Williams
PSO Tuan Nguyen
Sr. Clerk Pat Sexton

June 12, 2009 5:00 PM

The Brick House at the Police Pistol Range

Sergeant Andes "Andy" Rios

June 18, 2009, 5:00 PM

The Brick House at the Police Pistol Range

Detective Steve Sloan

June 19, 2009, 4:30 PM

The Brick House at the Police Pistol Range

Detective John Tefft

June 20, 2009, 3:30 PM

The SDPOA Meeting Hall

Sergeant Joe Wood

June 25, 2009, 5:30 PM

The Balboa Park Club

Chief Cheryl Meyers

July 10, 2009, 5:00 PM

The Brick House at the Police Pistol Range

Detective James McGhee

Retiree Medical Questions

I said I would address the issue of most importance to many sitting on the fence trying to decide between retiring to preserve medical benefits or staying and rolling the dice in hopes things change, before your DROP period is up. Well, I have got to tell you, I have more questions than I have answers. I spent the better part of this evening reading the brief prepared by Jeffrey Sloan, for the City. Keeping in mind the brief was answering the question posed by the City; is retiree medical a vested benefit? I have relied on another brief written by Sloan related to DROP, where he opined he believed case law indicated DROP was a vested benefit. So if I am to follow suit and rely on an attorney hired by the City to provide them a legal opinion, I do not think I can pick and choose which brief I believe or rely upon to talk about this issue.

I have had discussions with various attorneys whose practice centers around collective bargaining and employee benefits. Without exception, the reply was the same when asked if Retiree Medical is a vested benefit; "as a general rule, no." I added the fact employees hired prior to 1986 gave up; at the City's request, Social Security with the promise of 100% retiree medical. The answer shifted to what could only be described as a "wobbler." Most said there is little case law to support medical insurance as being a vested benefit, even with the knowledge of not participating in Social Security.

During discussions related to Retiree Medical, I kept coming back to a belief I had when the change was made and we opted out of Social Security; the City would pay 100% of the premium for my medical insurance when I retired. The SDCERS Retirement Handbook explains the medical insurance and what employees are entitled to receive upon retirement. The Handbook states in part; "You may participate in a City-sponsored health insurance plan, a union-sponsored plan, or any other insurance plan of your choice. The Retirement System will pay or reimburse the applicable Medicare-eligible or non-Medicare eligible retiree-only premium up to but not to exceed the cost of the retiree-only premiums for the highest cost HMO plan sponsored by the City that is made available to Health Eligible Retirees. If you chose to select a private health insurance plan, the City will reimburse the actual premium cost incurred up to the maximums stated above, provided that you meet the criteria established by the Board." There was little if any thought given to this NOT being a vested benefit as it was part and parcel to our vested Retirement Plan.

It is now apparent the City has been plotting since at least 2003, to reduce or eliminate Retiree Medical for employees. In 2005, the SDPOA attempted to enter agreement with the City to begin a "Medical Trust" for "New Hires" to provide for a means to fund Retiree Medical Insurance; knowing the changes caused by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Rule 45, would create a political issue for the City. GASB 45, requires municipalities to show on their financials, the "future" debt related to retiree medical payments. The City of San Diego is a "pay as you go" plan sponsor and has never put money aside for "future" benefit payments. The SDPOA, trying to look ahead at what could happen, began to negotiate a way to protect our members from a City who was not well known for future planning or paying its bills.

Now the discussion turned to those employees participating in DROP. The mayor makes unilateral changes to DROP and Retiree Medical. Those of us who signed up for DROP were ALL told our benefits were frozen. We each had to initial twenty-four (24) items on the election to participate in DROP and agreement to terminate employment agreement. On page one of four, the following statement appears; "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." Then on page two of four, there is the following admonition; "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."

I'm no attorney but it appears to me, once I enter DROP, my benefits are frozen. I cannot derive any increase to my benefits, nor can I lose any; or so I thought. The Retirement System views me as a "Retired Member" and thus my benefits frozen. The City views me as a "active employee" and subject to any and all changes in contract and working conditions. The attorneys I have discussed this with, cannot answer the question; can the City change, alter, or eliminate my Retiree Medical once I enter DROP? I am not sure we are going to get a straight answer to this question until we put it before a judge. This will not be done anytime soon. So, those of us who are on the fence and cannot decide if the change made by the mayor to this promised benefit; will have to make our decisions without the help of a definitive answer.

I want to believe a judge would side with those of us who are participating in the DROP and find we entered into a contract that secured our benefits and the mayor's unilateral changes are illegal. Will this happen? Not in time to be a deciding factor in making a life changing decision, forced upon us by a system that lacks credibility. I wish there were more to provide, but I do not have any answers.

The SDPOA met today (5/21/2009) with the City and there has been no word of what occurred or what was discussed. I will not speculate and neither should you. Contact one of the Directors and see if there was movement on this issue, for the positive. If not, make your decision based on what is best for you, your family and the circumstance most likely to present itself in the future. Do not gamble with your future.

Six Days and Counting

Six days ago SDCERS told the mayor and all that would listen they would not follow the mayors lead and violate the law by implementing the changes proposed for DROP. SDCERS followed the Charter and the law when they told the mayor the changes to DROP could not be done without a vote of the membership of SDCERS. This decision was made public on Friday morning and as of Thursday morning, has anyone heard or seen the mayor? The mayor's staff appeared at the City Council meetings on Monday and Tuesday. They took a beating for failing to provide the financials for the mid-year budget changes. The mayor was noticeably absent and the Council was not pleased. Not a peep from the mayor. The questions are beginning to mount.

I spent time reading a Confidential Memorandum addressed to Mike Rivo of the San Diego City Attorney's Office from Jeffrey Sloan of the Law Firm Curiale, Dellaverson, Hirschfeld, Kraemer and Sloan. The memo was dated September 23, 2003, and was in response to questions asked by the City regarding DROP. The City asked, "If and how it may lawfully lower, or mandate SDCERS lower the 8% interest rate currently paid on DROP accounts. The City requested advice regarding four (4) groups; New Hires; Current Employees who have not yet entered DROP; Current DROP participants; and Retired who have DROPPED and are currently receiving non-lump sum distributions. In addition the memo addressed; Employees/retirees currently or at the time of their retirement represented by the SDPOA or Local 145 Fire."

The short answers provided said, "Under the current Municipal Code, discretion over the interest rate for DROP participation accounts lies with the Retirement Board. The City's influence is essentially limited to the votes of City appointed Board members. The City can re-negotiate the DROP benefits of future hires at any time; Current employees who have not yet elected to participate in the DROP probably have an interest, vested on their first day of employment, in being eligible to participate in a DROP program under the terms offered. Those terms may be modified, but only if necessary to ensure the survival of the overall system, in a manner related to the theory of the pension system and if any disadvantage created is balanced by a new contravening advantage." Plain language; DROP is a vested benefit!!!

"It is almost certain that current DROP participants have a vested interest in the current provisions related to interest rate, such that the current rules set forth in the Municipal Code provisions may only be re-negotiated on an individual basis." Plain language; the mayor cannot change the interest rate for DROP accounts nor can SDCERS chose some arbitrary manner to determine the rate.

"In the case of police and fire employees, MOU language arguable controls over Municipal Code to give such employees a vested right to receive DROP participation account interest at the same rate as that assumed for employee accounts under the City retirement plan." Plain language; The MOU for SDPOA members spells out again the manner DROP interest will be paid and cannot be changed by the mayor or SDCERS without the members approval.

Jeffrey Sloan went on to say; "It is almost certainly within the City's authority to terminate the program entirely as to new hires." He continues later, "The availability and terms of a DROP may be viewed as either a term and condition of employment or a retirement right comparable to a pension. If the DROP is a term and condition of employment, it is subject to negotiation consistent with the bargaining requirements imposed by the MMBA. However, if it is analogous to a pension benefit then it is a form of deferred compensation and a right to receive the benefit on the terms offered vests on the very first day of employment. Such rights are not subject to forfeiture." Plain language; DROP is a vested benefit and cannot be taken away from current employees.

"City Charter Section 143.1 putatively allows changes to the vested defined rights of retirees if approved by a majority of such retirees." Sloan went on to say, "We would note that vested rights are personal in nature and we do not believe they may be waived by majority vote." Plain language; ANY changes to the vested benefits must be approved by the person who holds the benefit.

"Lastly, current and retired members of the bargaining units represented by the SDPOA and Local 145 Fire have language in their MOU'S that probably limits the Board's (SDCERS Board) discretion. Those MOU'S have consistently stated since July 1, 1998, that interest will be credited to the members DROP account in the same manner and at the same rate as that interest is credited to employee CERS accounts." Plain language; PD and Fire employees will be paid interest on their DROP accounts based on the accrued rate set by the actuary; currently 7.75%. The City is on the hook for anything less than this.

So what does all of this mean? The SDPOA is headed to court to litigate these issues. (I will talk about Retiree Medical tomorrow night) The basic premis is DROP is a vested benefit. What I find appalling is the mayor had this information and chose to ignore it. There is more information on these issues from other legal experts the mayor was provided and was well aware of the law when he took this city's employees down this path with the latest imposed contracts and illegal changes to DROP. The actions of the mayor in light of the information starting to surface; when he knew it; and what he knew, if true, is criminal. The absolute destruction of America's Finest Police Department in a span of months; entirely created, orchestrated and directed by the mayor who knew what he was doing was contrary to the law, is unconscionable. How he can look in the mirror is beyond me. How he shows his face in public; with sworn police officers doing their jobs by his side; all the while knowing what he did was contrary to ALL legal advice is beyond description or explanation.

The taxpayer needs to know the mayor is taking on fights his legal experts opine he has little if any chance of winning. They need to know he is not being honest with them about the benefits of City Employees. They need to know his actions are politically motivated and not in the best interest of the taxpayer. The facts need to be shown in open light for all to see. The imposed contracts, forced upon members of the San Diego Police Department and Local 127, are in jeopardy of being ruled null and void because of the mayor's deceit and flaunting of the law. The money the mayor was demanding from employees to close the budget deficit is in danger of not being provided by the employee if these imposed contracts are undone. Then what? The State propositions were soundly defeated and the Governor will no doubt be raiding what money the City does have. The $60 million dollar deficit will no doubt grow to over $100 million. I shudder at the thought of what the mayor will do next.

The mayor will punish City Employees even more; layoffs; explaining it is the only way. He will blame unions and employees for his failures and further turn the unknowing public against us. The house of cards the mayor has been building is now beginning to cave in. There is little chance the mayor is going to prevail when the SDPOA gets these issues before a judge. In the interim, employees will make life changing decisions necessitated by uncertainty created by the illegal changes forced upon City Employees. A once proud police department is being decimated by the exodus of over 150 senior, experienced officers and over 50 experienced, senior, civilian support personnel, all leaving to preserve retiree medical insurance and maintain the 7.75% interest to their DROP accounts.

When the mayor surfaces, the spin will no doubt be working overtime to "explain" why SDCERS is wrong. When this occurs, will anyone point to the legal opinions he has been given by several legal experts to the contrary? Will the mayor be taken to task for his ethical lapses? Will anyone put the facts together and figure out the mayor is taking this city for a ride? Who will be the first fatality when officers are unable to respond in a timely manner to an emergency; where the caller first had to wait for communications to answer the call for help; then dispatch has to wait for officers to clear so they could respond; and the citizen has to wait while the officers responded from the other end of the division do to a lack of staffing in all areas of the department? Will it be your son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister???

Breaking the Cycle of Abuse

Six years of counseling is generally what it takes to break the cycle of abuse (violence) in Domestic Violence situations. As a City employee, can you kind of relate to the cycle? Why is it we seem to mimic the abused victim of a psychological tormentor; physical abuser? Why do we leave and then return; knowing we are in store for more abuse at the hands of the abuser? Why do we make excuses for the abuser and downplay the pain and suffering? How do we continue to go through our day as if all is well? Do our children suffer too; seeing and hearing the strife and struggle to maintain normalcy?

The mayor has been abusing this city's employees for several years now, with no remorse or shame. His actions toward employees have created more human pain, both psychological and physical than the most violent of abusers. The stone faced, double speak; do as I say not as I do; you will give back; I am taking; I am responsible to the taxpayer, not employee; we are replacing experience with enthusiasm; we struggle with thoughts of leaving and giving up or in to the abuse. Then the stealing of promised benefits; moving the date one could retire; capping or removing retiree medical at the end of a career; forcing employees into furlough and cutting pay; eliminating possibilities for promotion and advancement; all at the hands of our tormentor, abuser; mayor.

Why do we stay? Why do we accept the abuse? Some would say because we know nothing different. Some would say there is no way out; we have bills, kids, too much invested to leave; no-where to go; fear of starting over; not wanting to feel as though we failed; or is it because we just don't know any better? In some way do you feel responsible for HIS actions; did you make him do it; did you cause the reactions and the pain?

What do we tell our victims when we sit and listen to them recount years of abuse? What do we do when we see the fear and pain in the children's faces while mom wipes tears from her eyes and snot from her nose? Do we help them take the leap and promise a better life if they would only take charge of their life and stop allowing the abuser to abuse? Do we tell them it will never get better; once the abuser has struck out in anger there is nothing to prevent it from happening again; the violence and abuse will only escalate and get worse?

How about we city employees call the YWCA and see if they can intervene and prevent the abuse and offer a helping hand? Maybe a trip to Becky's house in hopes of finding solitude and peace of mind as we city employees get our feet under us again so we can make a better life for us and our children? Can we call Focus and seek advice and reassurance we are doing what is right, when we finally decide we have had enough and make the decision to leave? We have to do something; we can no longer afford to go along to get along. We must confront our mayor and tell him we will no longer take his abuse; psychological or physical. Our children are suffering and we must BREAK THE CYCLE OF ABUSE!!!

The light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off due to budget constraints.

Elaine Ambrose

Let’s NOT forget our Civilian Support

I have been ranting away and so focused on the loss of sworn officers, I have neglected to address the astonishing losses we are facing in our civilian support personnel. Over 30 of our most dedicated, hard working, experienced and talented people in Communications, Human Resources, Crime Analysis, Fiscal Management, Lab, Records, Northeastern Division and Investigations will soon be departing.

Over 800 years experience will leave service before June 30, 2009, because of changes the mayor has forced on employees nearing retirement. The men and women who work tirelessly behind the scenes (some side by side with officers) to provide world class public safety to the citizens of San Diego are being forced to leave to preserve retirement benefits changed by the mayor during the last round of collective bargaining. Many, who like their sworn counter parts, are neither ready nor wanting to retire.

The combined loss of support personnel cannot be replaced over night. The selection and hiring of talented, qualified replacements will take months and in some cases a year or more. Human Resources is losing their top person; Communications already below staffing struggles everyday to fill positions to answer calls for help from the public is losing ten highly experienced personnel; Crime Analysis also below staffing has a back log of requests for assistance from Investigators seeking help in solving crimes from Car Prowls to Murders; Fiscal Management is trying to keep the books balanced and ensure we have the money, equipment and other resources necessary to get the job done will now have to make do with three less, senior, experienced analysts; The Lab faces a one year backlog of fingerprint analysis, the inability to process DNA requests, and will now have to make do with three less senior, experienced Criminalists'; Records Division like the others, is already understaffed and struggling to meet the needs of officers, detectives and the public will lose five (5) of our most experienced specialists'.

The public needs to be made aware of the additional loss to public safety that will result on June 30^th because of this loss. Yes, police officers in uniform will continue to respond to the public's calls for service. The wait for callers seeking help will stretch from 3 minutes to 5 or more; the delay will result in more calls to 911, which will soon over load the system resulting in emergency calls being placed in the queue and made to hold; Investigators will wait months and in some cases longer to have evidence processed and analyzed; crimes will lag in file drawers waiting for the answers to the questions posed from the evidence; crime will increase and the ability to solve these crimes will dwindle.

The loss is not just blue. The loss is more than color. The loss is more than sworn. The loss is so deep and wide the effects will be felt for years into the future. Yes, we will continue and we will do our level best to provide the best possible customer service possible. But I say to you mayor; working as hard as we can for as long as we can will not fill the holes left by those you forced to leave before their time. The public will pay in more ways than can be described in these pages. When they (The Public) are affected maybe then they will see what you have done and hold you accountable for your actions.

Strike three you’re out mayor!!!

Spent a wonderful afternoon at Petco Park with my wife watching the Padres. Jake Peavey pitched a complete game victory over the Cincinnati Reds. The weather was perfect San Diego; sunny, 71 degrees, light breeze. You could not ask for a better Sunday afternoon in San Diego. I ran into several retired and active members of the department as I headed to my seat. Thank you all for the kind words and encouragement.

I was doing some reading when I got home and came across a piece by Ken Singleton. Singleton wrote about the right balance of leadership and management. Singleton said, "Leadership is about doing the right thing and management is about doing things right. Success is about achieving the right balance of both." This passage jumped off the page as I thought of the actions of the mayor and what he has accomplished in the time he has held office.

"Leadership is about doing the right thing." Strike one mayor. Somebody help me out here. I have been racking my brain to give him a ball, but no such luck. Doing the right thing would require the mayor to care about people and before doing anything, consider the impact on people, before taking any action. That is clearly not something the mayor has done since elected.

"Management is about doing things right." Strike two mayor. Violating the City Charter and other Laws, is not doing things right. Doing things because they are politically expedient can not be considered doing things right.

"Success is about achieving the right balance of both." Strike three mayor. When you only care about yourself and how you are perceived, it is next to impossible to care about others. When you don't care about the people, it is easy to break the law and violate the rights of others and not do things right. You cannot balance something you have not done in the first place. Caring more for one, over the other, is even worse. Which of your daughters do you care for more mayor? We know you care more for taxpayers than you do City Employees (Regardless of what you may say; your actions speak louder than your words).

Have a seat on the bench mayor. Allow someone to come into the game who understands the Right Balance of being a leader and managing the huge problems facing the City of San Diego. You have struck out in your attempts at balancing the leader, manager thing and people are leaving the park.

Today's police officers are opting for employers who care about them professionally and personally. You have shown you clearly do not care about police officers; professionally or personally. Strike three mayor; you are out. You failed.