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.

Hiking With my Thoughts

I do a lot of hiking and in many cases I am wandering trails alone; with an inseam of 29 inches on a good day; those I hike with take one step to my three. So it does not take long for me to fall behind unless I want to jog. Those of you who know me and see me on a regular basis know that is not going to happen. So I plod along at my own pace and enjoy the solitude. Truth be told I enjoy the solitude; it allows me to think and talk to myself and formulate my many ramblings.

This past week has been filled with much activity. Between retirement announcements; parties; court hearings; Frank White's acquittal; political posturing; promotional announcements; the deaths of Fred McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, it has been a very busy week. Frank White's acquittal started the week off on Monday morning. Daily; announcements trickled out announcing retirements of personnel from almost every area of the department. Some surprise announcements caught a few people off guard, as the numbers continued to rise. At the close of Friday the tally was in the neighborhood of 150 sworn and 30 non-sworn.

Thursday evening was the celebration of Chief Cheryl Meyers' retirement after 31+ years of service to the citizens of San Diego. The poignant tributes paid to Chief Meyers illustrated her place among those who have worked for, around and with her over the years. Those in attendance were spared the presence of the mayor who turned up a "NO SHOW' after making arrangements to appear. It was better he not show his face as this was a celebration for Chief Meyers, who earned and deserved the spotlight and attention on her and her career.

Friday evening had celebrations for Sergeant Tony Johnson, Cold Team Homicide Sergeant; Sergeant Ralph Garcia, Range master; Sergeant Juan Rivera, Eastern Division; and Sergeant Dan Ellison, STAR/PAL. 120 years of combined service leaving to enjoy the next chapter in their lives. Each will be missed greatly by the men and women of the department.

Saturday evening; Sergeant Steve Stone and Detective Victor Morel, Financial Crimes Task Force, held a joint party at the Rock House at the San Diego Police Pistol Range to celebrate their 62 years of combined service to the Citizens of San Diego. Smiles, laughs and lots of great stories were shared as Steve and Vic were honored by those who had the honor and pleasure to work with these two great men. Both will be missed and their experience will be difficult to replace.

Sunday, June 28, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Officer John Russell will celebrate his retirement at the Embers Grill located at 3924 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. If you have some time, stop by and say good bye and good luck to John. John has had a great career and is one of the good guys. His calm, easy going manner did not translate into an officer who just plodded along. John was a hard working, dedicated officer who always worked hard and volunteered to do whatever it took to get the job accomplished. John's enthusiasm and experience will be missed.

As I walked along this morning I wondered where the San Diego Police Department will be in the next 90 days; six months; a year. I wondered about the promotions and transfers to fill the void left by so many retirements. I wondered what is to come from the SDPOA and the City going back to the bargaining table to discuss the mayor's obsession with eliminating DROP and other benefits. I wondered if there was any possibility of a positive outcome from this next step.

My thoughts turned to where I am headed and what should I do for the next three years. Where could I go that would be fun, rewarding and allow me to make a difference? There are so many great jobs that have been created by the exodus of our most senior people; technical positions that require experience in a variety of fields. But what so many forget is the void left in patrol; the leadership and experience that has left and will move inside to investigations and administrative jobs. There are so many options; my mind flittered from one vacant position to another; always coming back to one position. I am also going to be certified for Lieutenant again and like anyone who takes a promotional test, hope to reach that next level in my career. So as you can see my mind was all over the place as I wandered the trails this morning. I was suppose to meet two friends at 0630 hours but did not make it (Sorry Terry and Dick). Sitting with the father-in-law till 3 AM ended any thought I had of getting up at 5:45 to hike at 6:30. I hit the trail at a little after 10:00; alone in my thoughts and wishing I had walked on the treadmill at home after the first 2 miles.

In August we will see the promotion of one Chief; two Captains; six Lieutenants; fifteen Sergeants and a gaggle of Detectives. The promotions will bring more movement and change. Opportunity will present itself for those willing to step forward. Change is there for the taking. When the dust settles we will be a different department. We have an opportunity to help steer the course for the future and put our mark on the San Diego Police Department. Have you thought about what seat on the bus you wish to occupy as we begin to move forward? (No, this is NOT the mayor's train leaving the station) The next 60 days will tells us all what is ahead. Hang in there and be safe.

Parallels of a Time Past

Of late I have been spending more and more time at home taking care of my father-in-law, who is being cared for by Hospice as well. My father-in-law, Junior Parker, is a great man; 85 years old; WWII veteran who served with the 101^st Screaming Eagles at Bastogne; is a Silver Star recipient; returned from the war and joined the Los Angeles Fire Department where he rose through the ranks to Chief before retiring 31 years ago this Sunday. His two brothers also served in WWII and both retired from the LAFD. He often shared his thoughts and wisdom from his days on the LAFD. There are so many parallels to what he experienced during his time and what is occurring today with the San Diego Police Department.

In 1978, my father-in-law was attending a budget hearing of the Los Angeles City Council when it was decided vacation leave would be capped; sick leave would be reduced 50%; and all leave over the cap would be forfeited. My father-in-law had served for 32 years and had NEVER taken a sick day and had accrued in excess of 1,200 hours of vacation leave and an equal amount of sick leave. He quickly crunched the numbers and realized he would lose a huge sum of money and made plans to retire. He said he had no desire to leave a job he loved and believed he had several good years left to serve the department before he retired. But my father-in-law is also a practical man who grew up during the depression and knows the value of a dollar and was not willing to lose that which he rightly earned. So, on June 28, 1978, my father-in-law retired from the Los Angeles Fire Department; before he was ready or wanting too. (Sound familiar?)

Several years before his retirement, the Los Angeles Fire Relief Association (LAFRA) made a pitch to the City Council to add a COLA to retiree pension benefits. The active members were willing to go a year without a raise to gain this benefit. The City refused, so the LAFRA took their request to the voters. They won in a landslide; giving retirees a COLA matching the cost of living published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This was the first COLA for a municipal retirement system. There was NO cap to this COLA and when you take into account the maximum retirement benefit at the time was 70% at 30 years it was a necessary benefit.

Fast forward 25 years; voters in Los Angeles voted to approve DROP for Police and Fire. Their retirement system is not facing an Unfunded Liability anywhere near that of the City of San Diego. The press and public understand the system and it works. The DROP in Los Angeles started out being a 3 year DROP and has now increased to a 5 year DROP. Members must have 25 years of service to enter DROP. The reasoning is this ensures the retiree has made sufficient contributions to sustain the system and is not retiring early which negatively affects the system. The COLA still remains, but is capped at 3% and the maximum retirement benefit is 90% at 33 years of service. There are four (4) tiers in the retirement system for the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments. Tiers two through four offer a maximum 70% retirement with 30 years of service; tier five offers a maximum 90% retirement with 33 years of service. The contribution rate is 8% of salary as long as the system remains 100% funded. If the system drops below 100% funded the employee contributes an additional 1% until the system is back to 100% funded.

So why do I spend time talking about Los Angeles? I think we need to take a look around and examine why other plans are working and what is it they are doing that allows them to maintain 100% funding. Why is it voters in Los Angeles, San Francisco and many other cities across the nation are voting to implement DROP programs for their Public Safety members? We need to take a hard look at our DROP and find out if the program is "Cost Neutral" or what the actual cost is. Once this is determined we can understand what if anything needs to be done to correct the faults with the program, so it works for both the employee and taxpayer. To do otherwise would be foolish in the face of a mayor intent on taking this cherished benefit away. We need to have the facts and knowledge to refute his repeated miss-statements and spin regarding DROP so we can make our case to retain this earned and vested benefit.

The benefits offered employees of the City of San Diego have been labeled "Cadillac" and "Excessive" and "Illegal" and so many other descriptors that I could go on and on. The reality is the benefits offered are in line with those offered across the state and nation. In many ways the wages and benefits when combined; fall well below those of workers in cities; not only within the region but the state. The cost of benefits to a San Diego employee is in many cases 10-20% higher than those of other cities. The contribution to SDCERS by employees is between 10 and 17%, while other cities pay the entire amount for the employee as part of their benefits. Many cities pay the medical insurance of employees and their families while the City of San Diego covers basic health insurance for their employees only. Top that all off with wages that are in the bottom tier of ALL cities in California.

Reasonable suggestion for changes to DROP and other benefits should come from us. What is acceptable to us that will allow for DROP to remain part of our Retirement Benefit? We could sit back and refuse to participate in discussions to protect DROP; but we would then be subject to someone else making the determination of what we should do and how it should be done. I believe we need to participate in the process of evaluation and review that will set the platform for discussions if changes need to be considered.

This is a large field of landmines when dealing with the current mayor. His spin machine is large, tested, and nuclear powered, compared to that of the SDPOA. The mayor's army of henchmen is salivating at the thought of eliminating DROP. Their belief is they can spin the analysis to further turn the taxpayer/public against us. That is why we need to ensure our participation in the analysis and review of the plan. Knowledge is power and the more we have related to this issue the better prepared we will be to combat the spin machine and lies that are sure to surface.

If you want to ensure DROP is available when you reach 50 years of age, I would urge you to get involved today and offer your time to the SDPOA. You cannot afford NOT to MAKE time to involve yourself. If you want a DROP, you must sacrifice your time and energy. Do not expect "the other guy" to do it for you.

Confused? Join the Club!

Today's long waited court hearing on DROP took place this morning. The judge rendered his decision and from the looks of it, was not very clear in his ruling. Case in point is the dueling press releases from the City Attorney and the SDPOA. During the hearing today, I received text messages from someone who was in the court. Who the person is does not matter; but what concerns me is the belief this person took away from court is similar to what the City Attorney reported in his press release. As the judge spoke during the hearing I received messages reporting the discussion. We all know how short text messages are and what type of information can be relayed in them. I would venture I received one hundred such messages and as they were coming in, I was becoming more and more concerned.

The last text I received was as follows; "judge acknowledges sdpd personnel are the best and have had their pay and benefits chopped away at for the last several years but he is not here today to rule on that. poa ordered to back to table to meet and confer about drop…the two parties are first to resolve the process first… poa has an obligation to meet on this issue. the court rules poa did not violate the mmb act. is drop an employment benefit… yes… the issues to be discussed is drop a betts issue. court declines to stop the change in entry age for now. to deal with the july 1^st date sdcers and the city will respect the drop applications for july 1… for an unspecified time… to be determined later… as to interest rates… the court rules… rates… will stay place… 4 another 4 weeks." This is a person who sat through the hearing, listening to the sides argue and the judge presenting his ruling. To say there is confusion is an understatement. I shared the above text with several people at Headquarters after receiving it.

A few hours later I talked to Jeff Jordan, Vice President of the SDPOA. Jeff had a completely different opinion of what the judge had ruled. He explained; as the SDPOA press release stated; "Today, in Superior Court, the San Diego Police Officers Association prevailed in preserving the core benefit of the DROP program, which includes the ability to enter the program at age 50. San Diego Superior Court Judge David Oberholtzer ruled that while interest rate terms are negotiable, the DROP entry age is a vested benefit." Jeff said Mike Conger, the attorney who represented the SDPOA, believed the SDPOA prevailed on all issues critical to the DROP; with the exception of the interest paid to DROP accounts. Jeff said the judge ordered the SDPOA back to the table to discuss DROP, but also said any changes must be voted upon as prescribed by Charter Section 143.1.

Then I see the press release from the City Attorney that made me think I was in some dream world and confused. The press release said in part; "Superior Court Judge David Oberholtzer today refused to grant an injunction sought by the San Diego Police Officers Association (POA) against the City of San Diego to prevent changes in the DROP program. In addition, Judge Oberholtzer granted the City's petition for an order requiring the POA to "meet and confer" under state labor laws as to additional changes to DROP. The POA had resisted such negotiations, claiming the program was completely "vested". Judge Oberholtzer did not find that DROP benefits were "vested". Judge Oberholtzer found that DROP is a condition of employment. Judge Oberholtzer also held that there is no law requiring an actuarial study as a condition to meeting and conferring on changes and/or elimination of DROP. But rather, expected the City and POA to discuss this and other issues related to DROP when they meet and confer about DROP." So you can imagine the confusion? It is no wonder the general public cannot understand the issues related to DROP.

What do we know to be in agreement? The judge ordered the SDPOA to meet with the City to discuss DROP. That much in agreed upon by all parties. I think that is where the agreement ends. It will be several days and maybe weeks before we can get our hands on the actual ruling from the judge to understand the vast opinions of what the judge actually said. I think it is a sad state when intelligent people can sit in a court of law; educated in the rules and language; participate in the process and have such vast views of what occurred in a single hearing. It is one thing for a lay person sitting in the galley listening to the proceeding to misinterpret a ruling; but for professionals to have such issues is pathetic. Was the judge not speaking the king's language? Was he not clear in his decision and articulate enough to convey his message for all to understand?

If you are confused; you are not alone. The SDPOA will be working diligently to provide information to members in hopes of belaying the concerns the future holds. The mayor has made it clear his number one goal in life is eliminating DROP. He has worked tirelessly to reduce and eliminate the benefits of those who work for the City of San Diego. Rest assured he will seek a ballot initiative to ask the public to take DROP from workers. He is surly feeling his oats after today. He is popping the corks on his bubbly and toasting to a victory over the SDPOA. He cannot wait to get back to the table to wreak more pain and hardship on the SDPOA.

If ever there was a time for the membership of the SDPOA to come together to fight for a common cause; this is it. We cannot sit on the sidelines while our destiny is decided by others. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight with our every breath for our rights and those benefits we have earned over the past 25 years.

DROP Showdown at Sunrise

Tomorrow morning the SDPOA will be in court (Department 67; Judge; Honorable David B. Oberholtzer) at 0900 hours to defend the DROP against the mayor's attempt at reducing the interest paid to DROP accounts; changing the entry age of those wishing to take advantage of this benefit; elimination of DROP from managers (Chiefs and Captains); and seeking a final determination that DROP is a "Vested Right." The City is attempting to have the court rule DROP is not a "Vested Right" and subject to negotiations.

The central issue of "Vesting" is clearly addressed by David Wesco, the San Diego Retirement System's Administrator/CEO, in a letter to the mayor on June 22, 2009. Mr. Wesco also sent a tersely worded letter to City Attorney Jan Goldsmith on June 3, 2009, detailing clearly the effects of Charter Section 143.1 and the fact DROP is a "Vested right" in the eyes of SDCERS.

The attorney for the City (NOT the City Attorney) attempts to make the City's case in their petition using the June 10, 2009, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruling on "DROP Salary." The use of this ruling is almost laughable if this were not such a serious case before the court with extreme ramifications. Remember that "Institutional Knowledge" I talked about? This is a classic example of the problems associated with a person who is involved in an issue of this magnitude who has a total and complete lack of knowledge of the core issues. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal made no such determination of DROP. But it appears in a legal brief the City filed as their "Opening Brief on Petition for Writ of Mandate Compelling SDPOA to Meet and Confer on City's Proposal to Eliminate DROP."

The hearing tomorrow will likely take all day. The City was successful in keeping MEA and the other Unions out of the court. The Fourth District Court of Appeal refused today to overturn this ruling which sets up a faceoff with the SDPOA and the City. Mike Conger has prepared his legal briefs that have been posted on his web site for all to read. Take the time to read the facts and educate yourself. You will find a disturbing thread in each of the papers filed by the City. They have included information that is factually incorrect and in several instances the wording is almost word for word taken from article found in the Union Tribune; all of which is a fantasy and factually incorrect.

No court case can be called a "Slam Dunk" when issues of this magnitude are being considered. The human variable and potential for "If you say it long enough and loud enough; someone is bound to believe it" coming into play. The City's briefs are filled with the spin, half truths, miss-statements and flat out lies the Union Tribune has employed for the past several years. My hope is the Judge is made acutely aware of these factual errors and sanction the attorneys for the City for their careless and in my opinion; knowing and calculated miss-representation of the facts.

Tomorrow is an important day for the SDPOA and all City Employees who have had the City attempt to eliminate promised, "Vested" benefits and further damage the lives of so many. This is a political fight being waged by the mayor against the city's employees. This has more to do with ego than it has to do with money. The mayor has steadfastly refused to conduct an analysis of DROP to determine its actual cost because he knows the numbers would not support his assertion DROP is costing the City millions of dollars. The mayor has had ample opportunity to provide for the analysis of this program and yet on the eve of trial; in briefs the mayor and city assert in page after page their reasons for eliminating DROP; the "Double Dipping" costing the City millions of dollars each year.

The truth will soon be out and we can hope and pray for a positive outcome in Department 67. Do not look for the judge to rule tomorrow; in all likelihood he will take arguments from both sides and make a calculated decision in the coming days and weeks. The City is sure to appeal if the decision goes against them; keeping people in turmoil for many years to come. I say take one day at a time and focus on your safety and family. Control those things within your sphere of control and let the rest go. We cannot control the actions of the mayor; courts or politicians. We can control how we respond to their words and actions. Stay positive and be safe. They only win if we let them.

Does ANYONE on the 11th Floor of the CAB Tell the TRUTH?

Have you all been following the lies out of the mayor's office regarding the Water Department? Alex Ruiz, Assistant Director of the Water Department was caught in several lies when questioned about the City's plan for water conservation and mandatory rationing. Taking the next step in reporting on these lies; the Voice of San Diego asked for e-mails related to the issue through a Public Records Request. Two and a half months after making the request, the City provided a partial list and refused to say how many were withheld and why.

Then the lies begin in earnest. When questioned as to how many were redacted or withheld, Ray Palmucci of the City Attorney's office said he would provide a letter of explanation in 10 days. Darin Pudgil ignored e-mails asking for this information and Palmucci sidestepped the issue feigning ignorance. The City provided 736 e-mails related to the Water issue, but withheld 692 e-mails (48%). So the question raised from this is what is the City trying to cover up? Why is Darin Pudgil refusing to respond to a legal mandate for a Public Records Request that by law is required to be completed within 10 days unless there is some exigent reason for being unable to do so. But again; what is the mayor trying to keep from the public now?

Christina DiLeva, "Press Assistant" for the mayor, wrote a letter citing Government Code sections allowing for the City to withhold e-mails and provide no explanation. So the mayor throws another underling under the bus while Darin Pudgil and Gerry Braun hide in a side office, refusing to accept responsibility for this mess.

The mayor's office provides an excuse for refusing to release all of the e-mails with the following comment; "the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." Who wants to take a stab at what in the hell would be contained in e-mails discussing water conservation; the Irvine Ranch Water District approach to water conservation; and the City plan for conservation that the public interest is better served keeping 48% of the e-mails secret?

Lani Lutar, President and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, made a keen observation about the mayor's office refusing to release these e-mails. Lutar said, "The speculation of what's in the emails is going to be so much worse than what's probably in them. It doesn't seem to make sense. I'm concerned from a good governance perspective why information would not be made available to the public." Maybe more lies?

In the span of a couple of months, people are starting to demand proof when the mayor or any of his minions speak about issues. In short order the taxpayers will begin to see firsthand the lack of honesty, integrity and ethics in the mayor's office on the 11^th floor of the City Administration Building (CAB). I said a couple of weeks ago the lies would soon catch up with the mayor as they did when he was chief.

The 64 thousand dollar question; will he bail from the mayor's office like he bailed from the police department? We can all hope!!!

Institutional Knowledge

What is it worth? Can it be quantified in dollars and cents? When does it matter most? Within any profession or job it is that person or group of people who have been around long enough to know why something was or was not done; how something came to be; what the thinking was behind a certain change or implementation of a policy, procedure, rule, law or benefit. When it's gone and no longer available those in decision making positions are forced to guess at the intentions of those before them, lacking the willingness or desire to seek out this "Institutional Knowledge."

When Mike Aguirre was elected City Attorney, the purging of experience, knowledge, expertise and "Institutional Knowledge" took priority over what was best for the City. When the ex-chief was elected mayor, the purging of experience, knowledge, expertise and "Institutional Knowledge" took priority over what was best for the City. Mike Aguirre and the mayor each found it suited their collective agendas to hire outside council and consultants with no knowledge of the inner workings of the City of San Diego to do their bidding. "Institutional Knowledge" was viewed as a hindrance to the goals each had for reaching their agendas of eliminating DROP; reducing or eliminating Retiree Medical; eliminating "Terminal Leave"; reducing the interest paid on DROP accounts and the reduction of the City's workforce.

Thankfully those who possess the "Institutional Knowledge" from decades of experience involving policy making; law and labor negotiations are sharing this knowledge. They are providing insight into the thinking and discussion that took place at the time, when changes were made to collective bargaining agreements; enhancements to retirement benefits; withdrawal from Social Security and Medicare; communications with Social Security, SDCERS, the IRS; and City Council Resolutions. They are sharing their knowledge of where these items can be found; how they came to be; what the thought processes were; and the intent of these changes.

Joe Flynn served on the SDCERS Board from 2005 to 2007. Joe has decades of "Institutional Knowledge" related to SDCERS and the operations of the City of San Diego. Joe sent a "Letter to the Editor" to the Union Tribune in response to a June 12, 2009, editorial. Here is the letter he sent;

In your June 12 editorial you continue to convey the impression that San Diego retirees get free health care and the taxpayers get nothing. Not so. In 1981 the City initiated the withdrawal from Social Security to save the City money. To meet requirements for withdrawal, however, the City had to establish the supplemental savings plan (with mandatory contributions by the employee and the city) to take the place of Social Security payments at age 65.

To take the place of Medicare, the City promised that "The City will pay for the retired employee's health insurance." * These costs were paid by the City on a year-to-year basis without full accounting. The City then moved these costs into the pension system which contributed to the under funding. This move was later disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service. Accounting changes now require the city to show the future costs of health care.

The City's withdrawal (from Social Security) did not come from the employees or the Unions but was initiated by the City to save money. It is unfair to report and repeat only the costs without ever mentioning the savings to the taxpayer which have accrued since 1981.

Joe Flynn, Retired City Employee

Member of the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, 2005-07

*City Manager Memo dated November 20, 1981 entitled, "Withdrawal from Social Security" plus attachment, "Outline of Essential Provisions of Supplemental Pension Plan."

John Kaheny is asking questions from his position of knowledge about the vesting of Retiree Medical. John's knowledge surrounding this issue directs the focus of the City's withdrawal from Social Security and the communications between the City and Social Security Administration. He points to 1981 and the file detailing the election of members of SDCERS when asked by the City to leave Social Security for a promise of a similar benefit to be paid for by the City. Mr. Kaheny believes; based on his "Institutional Knowledge" this information is important when determining the "Vested Rights" argument.

Mr. Kaheny's knowledge goes deeper when discussing the elimination of "Terminal Leave." Mr. Kaheny points out the Rules of the Civil Service Commission and the provisions related to leave. The Civil Service Rules which are part of the Municipal Code in Article 3: Civil Service; Division 11: Leaves of Absence; discuss "Terminal Leave" and its use. The "Institutional Knowledge" of Mr. Kaheny and Joe Flynn are providing the; who, why, how and when decisions were made; and where and how to verify these important details. These pathways are opening up other avenues of information and bringing to light related documents the mayor and city attorney do not want to see the light of day.

One of these documents is, "Opinion Number 2007-04" written by Mike Aguirre on September 27, 2007. The mayor and his minions tout and spout Retiree Medical is not a "vested right" and thus they can eliminate or reduce this benefit as they see fit. Even Mike Aguirre, who wanted to eliminate EVERY BENEFIT possible, opined this benefit to be a vested right. It is clear; AGAIN the mayor is hiding FACTS from the public and the employees he is systematically and repeatedly screwing. The mayor will deflect any knowledge of this information and point to some other opinion from another of his many "outside" lawyers and consultants. All of whom lack the "Institutional Knowledge" to provide competent and accurate advise.

More is to come as documents find their way to the surface as the "Institutional Knowledge" is tickled, caressed and prodded into action. The "Institutional Knowledge" may have left City Service; much of it did not leave voluntarily; and much of it was laying in wait; wanting and waiting for someone to ask. To think the mayor has the gall to boast replacing "Experience" with "Enthusiasm" when that experience is what carries the "Institutional Knowledge" that runs and protects this City.

FRANK WHITE IS ACQUITTED

Today, a jury in Vista found Frank White "NOT GUILTY" of all charges stemming from his off-duty shooting. Rick Pinckard represented Frank at trial and provided excellent representation. The SDPOA supported Frank and his wife through this difficult time. Mr. Pinckard is to be commended for his dedication and expertise in defending Frank.

Happy Father’s Day

I'm going to be brief today and keep it light. I had the pleasure of attending Sergeant Joe Woods' retirement party yesterday at the San Diego Police Officers Association. Many family, friends and co-workers paid tribute to a man who impacted so many. Joe was one of those who always had a positive attitude and brought that out whether he was mentoring new recruits as an Academy Training Officer; a member of the SWAT team; coaching or counseling members of his patrol squad; or interviewing people during an investigation while working Internal Affairs. Joe always had a smile on his face and a kind word. Sergeant Woods will be missed.

I signed my BLOG up on Twitter this morning. If you would like current updates and musings from my BLOG, please join and follow. If you have not used Twitter it is very easy to do. Find the Twitter web site; www.twitter.com and then click the "join" button if you have not yet registered. After you have joined, you can either; search for the link to "SparkySanDiego"; or "Steve McMillan"; (I also have a Twitter account under "stevemac1956") and click the "Follow" button. It is that simple. If you wish to have the updates show up on your telephone by way of a text message, don't forget to activate your account with your cellular telephone. I promise not to send more than 2 new notifications per day from Twitter; unlike the mayor who sends as many as 10 a day, most of which have nothing to say.

I want to wish all the fathers out there a "Happy Father's Day." Like many of you, I am blessed with two wonderful children who have made me very proud. My daughter is an English/Language Arts teacher at a local high school and my son is starting year one in Law School next month. As many of you have experienced it is not always easy being a father and working in law enforcement. The changing shifts, long hours and constant of having to work holidays, birthdays and those times when our children wanted us there the most; all made difficult by the career we chose. We suffered along with them. But, we persevered and never stopped finding those times when we could spend laughing with; loving and teaching our children.

Go enjoy the day and spend time with your children; your children's children and your significant other. I am off to the Padre game this afternoon and hope for a win to end the weekend. After the game my kids will be home waiting for me and a BBQ with the in-laws. I am working on two lengthy posts I hope to finish this coming week, dealing with Manager's Proposal 1 and 2 or MP1 and MP2. The mayor is looking to repeat the idiocy of these two incidents with his own proposal; I will call it MP3 (mayor's proposal 3) that will take use AGAIN down the wrong path. More on that later.

Happy Father's Day.

 

The After Life of Police Work

Life offers us many opportunities and challenges. I am sitting on the balcony enjoying the crisp morning air and my third cup of coffee after having read the paper, when I started thinking about all of those who are leaving the police department for retirement. I picture the faces of friends; old partners; co-workers; acquaintances and those I only knew by sight; as they venture off in a new direction. A life of retirement and moving forward in front of them. Many have a sense of apprehension and fear of the unknown. They have devoted over half of their life to a career they loved and are being pushed out the door to make room for "Enthusiasm."

I want to put a different slant on this exodus of our most talented and experienced members of the department. Life offers opportunities for us to change direction at the drop of a hat. What may seem initially a set-back, is actually a stepping stone for moving in a different direction. I hike whenever I get a chance. I have hiked Mt. Whitney; Half Dome in Yosemite; Mirror Lake; Dove Lake; Parker Lake; Ice Lake, the John Muir trail and many other locations up and down California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico. One of the hikes I do often is right here in our back yard; Iron Mountain. I do it as often as I can and with friends who enjoy the hike and our many conversations directed at solving the ills of society. But, when hiking Iron Mountain there is a clearly marked trail and signs telling you not to cut the trail or leave the trail.

Hiking Iron Mountain helps you learn how to keep your footing on uneven terrain when on a steep descent and to navigate rocky trails, switch backs and long steep climbs. It prepares you for climbing a steep trail in the Sierra's or White Mountain of Arizona or climbing into the Grand Canyon. There are several variation of the trail on Iron Mountain; some longer than others; some steeper than the others; some more technical and then the main trail; wide and varied. This is important because it allows you to take different paths for a change in scenery and to help gain a variety of experiences for future hikes in faraway places.

As we near the end of our careers and prepare for the next chapter in our lives we instinctively look back at where we have been. I am more aware of the stepping stone I have covered in my path to where I am today. My career and life are filled with miss-steps and a few slips along the way. I have taken a variety of paths to gain new experiences and see more of what my career and life had to offer. I guess you could say I have a wonder lust for new adventures. I seldom stayed in the same job for more than 2-3 years. I enjoyed the varying paths and adventures each new assignment offered. I have no regrets for any of the changes of direction these stepping stones led me to. Many times I may not have been as observant, respectful or cautious as I should have been when making some of my decisions to take one path or the other but I have always been watchful of my step, the angle of the descent, the difficulty of the ascent and how to proceed. Sometimes I threw caution to the wind and let whatever happened, happen.

I have three years ahead of me before I head off into retirement. I have made the decision to stay and gut out the future and hopefully in some way help set the course for the next generation of police officer. Those that are leaving have many stepping stones before them. Each stone has its advantage and will take you forward in a different direction. With each step on a new stone you will move forward, but differently. Each of you will move at different rates to new places in your lives and maybe even change direction several times before you find the path that best suits you and the life you wish to lead after police work.

As your foot hovers over the stepping stone in front of you; be thoughtful of the experiences you have had in life and step with confidence; in the face of a small flicker of fear of what is to come. I know that ultimately each of you has given a life time of dedication to making this world a safer place and it is time now for you to encounter a new and exciting adventure. As you step forward onto that stepping stone, that stone will lead you in a different direction; follow your heart; there is no turning back. There is a life after police work.

The Exodus is in Full Swing

• Antoine "Tony" El-Assis         Traffic Motor        25 Years Service
  
• Carlos Chacon            Detective / Sergeant    33 Years Service
  
• Jeffrey Fellows            Detective / Sergeant    34 Years Service
  
• Michael McCollough        Traffic Inv Sergeant    29 Years Service
  
• Max Verduzzco            Traffic Inv Sergeant    30 Years Service
  
• Robert Rohde            Traffic Inv Agent    34 Years Service
  
• Bryan Manning            Traffic Inv Detective    22 Years Service
  
• Kenneth Hofer            Police Officer II        29 Years Service
  
• Curtis Perkins            Traffic Motor        29 Years Service
  
• Stephen Webb            Traffic Motor        29 Years Service
  
• William "Bill" Day        Traffic Motor        27 Years Service
  
• Darryl Emerson            Traffic Motor        22 Years Service
  
• Dave Hoffman            Police Officer II        29 Years Service
  

The above members of the department bid farewell on Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Friends, colleagues and family joined in a celebration to wish them all well in retirement at the Recital Hall in the Palisades Building at Balboa Park. Many laughs, tears and stories were shared during the recognition of 402 years of dedicated service to the citizens of San Diego.

• Steve Robinson            Detective / Sergeant    30 Years Service
  
• Sharon McNair            Detective / Sergeant    24 Years Service
  
• Ted Kasinak            Detective         35 Years Service
  
• Dave Walker            Detective        29 Years Service
  
• Ed Martinez            Agent            29 Years Service
  
• Mike Kroesch            Police Officer II        25 Years Service
  
• David Lyall            Police Officer II        28 Years Service
  
• Scott Lawford            Police Officer II        24 Years Service
  

The above members of the department bid farewell this evening, Friday, June 19, 2009. Friends, colleagues and family joined in a celebration to wish them all well in retirement in the Hall at the SDPOA. Many laughs, tears and stories were shared during the recognition of 224 years of dedicated service to the citizens of San Diego.

• John Teft            Sergeant        30+ Years Service
  
• Steve Sloan            Detective        30+ Years Service
  
• Joseph Wood            Detective / Sergeant    31 Years Service
  

Steve celebrated his retirement with a gathering at the Rock House at the San Diego Police Pistol Range on Thursday, June 18, 2009. Steve served as a Director for many years on the SDPOA Board of Directors, serving the members and representing us during negotiations. John celebrated his retirement with a gathering at the same location, Friday, June 19, 2009. Many OMBAC friends, family and co-workers joined in wishing John well in retirement. Joe will be celebrating his retirement at the SDPOA Hall on Saturday, June 20, 2009, at 1500 hours. Joe ended his long career working as a Detective Sergeant in Internal Affairs. He will be joined by many family, friends and co-workers to send him off to retirement and wish him well.

The twenty-four (24) dedicated Police Officers above have provided a combined 717+ years of service to the Citizens of San Diego. These men and women have given the best part of their lives ensuring the safety of people they do not know. Each will tell you they did the job because they loved it and could think of nothing more satisfying than fulfilling their responsibilities as a police officer. None of them joined the department for the money or the benefits. They were called to the job for many reasons; most saying because they wanted to make a difference. They will all tell you they are leaving because the promises made by those they served have been broken and they cannot continue to serve and risk the loss of retiree medical insurance for themselves and their family. Few were ready or wanting to retire.

They each can stand tall and be proud of their service, dedication and commitment to the Citizens of San Diego. I wish to say "THANK-YOU" from the citizens and co-workers who had the pleasure and honor of working with you all. Enjoy another 30 years of happiness and joy and remember you were one of the good guys who made a difference. You will be missed greatly!!!!

The Oath of Law Enforcement

The assault of employees continues by San Diego's mayor. There is no let up in sight and the writings are on the wall. Can someone stop by the 3^rd Floor of Headquarters and see if one of the Graffiti Task Force Detectives can look into these writings? I can't help but think, based on past behaviors, the mayor and his minions won't use spray paint to boast of the next assault, like the graffiti from Logan or Shell Town gangsters when boasting of their many crimes. Seems the mayor and his staff are boasting of things to come for MEA and Firefighters Local 145. If you missed today's revelation in the Union Tribune; "Benefits for ex-city employees examined" you should take a few minutes and read it.

The disingenuous comments and pathetic argument put forth by the mayor and his minion Goldstone related to "Terminal Leave" is but another benefit under attack. To say "I told you so" is little consolation to the destruction one individual has been able to reek upon a once proud group of civil servants. The mayor; once a police officer, sued to get promoted to sergeant; sued again to get promoted to lieutenant; then promoted to captain; followed by his promotion to deputy chief then assistant chief and then the chief; it is absolutely pathetic and offensive to hear references to him and his time wearing a badge. Over the years we have had police officers go bad and commit crimes; giving a black eye to every man and woman wearing a blue uniform and the badge of a police officer. We did our level best to put on a professional face and work a little harder to re-build and re-gain the trust of the public we serve when these few failed in their oath and promise to never betray the badge, their integrity or public trust. Never has a police officer ever gone as bad as the ex-chief, now mayor. We have had those convicted of murder and rape; so for me to make such a comment is a strong statement of where we are today.

Many of you remember the International Association of Chiefs of Police or IACP. The mayor knows the group and their ideology. The IACP is very high on ethics and honor and promotes agencies re-affirming their oath on a regular basis to keep it fresh in every police officers mind. IACP'S oath, used by agencies world-wide is as follows;

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

They follow the oath with definitions of the words in the oath;

Honor means that one's word is given as a guarantee.
Betray is defined as breaking faith with the public trust.
Badge is the symbol of your office.
Integrity is being the same person in both private and public life.
Character means the qualities that distinguish an individual.
Public trust is a charge of duty imposed in faith toward those you serve.
Courage is having the strength to withstand unethical pressure, fear or danger.
Accountability means that you are answerable and responsible to your oath of office.
Community is the jurisdiction and citizens served

I started this post wanting to point out the threats to the rest of the city work force by the mayor. Local 127 SEIU and the SDPOA had "Terminal Leave" stripped from us for our refusal to play along with the mayor's antics during the last round of negotiations. As has been his history, the mayor went all out in his assault on police officers and now blue collar workers for our refusal to kneel and kiss the ring of the master. They have seen the wrath of the egotist and his vindictive and destructive manner when not getting his way. SEIU and the SDPOA had far more TAKEN from them than the other unions who, for whatever reason, bowed and kissed the master's ring and signed contracts. The more I write about this, the more I come back to my thoughts of the "Battle of the Badges." OK I digress again, sorry.

The thing I have learned in my 30 years in law enforcement and just shy of 53 years on this earth, is a person either possesses honor; integrity; character; and courage or they don't. I have learned that a person who lacks honor; integrity; character or courage, NEVER had it and NEVER WILL. In my opinion, a person is born with these characteristics and they are re-enforced by their upbringing. A person who is honorable and acts with integrity, character and courage acts as such when alone or in a group and in all their words and actions. A person who lacks honor is not capable of acting with integrity, character or courage.

The mayor has proven over and over again his lack of integrity and character. His first statements when seeking election to fill Mayor Murphy's seat, told the entire story of the individual who is now the mayor. To refresh; when questioned about his statements and stand on the DROP and SDCERS Benefits and why he jumped on the band wagon rather than tell the truth about these benefits; he replied, "I won't get elected telling the truth. It's politics." He showed his lack of courage and character from the very beginning. He showed his cowardice and lack of character when he admitted his need and desire to perpetuate further lies and miss-truths about employee benefits and the DROP. His true lack of integrity, shown clear for all to see, and yet in San Diego seemed normal and acceptable to voters, who were blinded by a past title and the lore of stripping the civil servants of the perceived, "Cadillac Benefits." Little did people know what they were in for?

The mayor has fostered a culture lacking honor; integrity; character and courage. His actions and words have become a daily attack of workers and their benefits. His true character emits a total lack of integrity; bearing no sign of courage to do what's right; and his ego prevents him from doing the honorable thing and resigning his office to allow the City to try as it will to find a person of honor who acts with integrity; character and courage. There is no hope for this mayor to rekindle or repair his ability to lead this city. He has lost completely the trust and faith of EVERY worker in the City of San Diego. It is a sad time for San Diego; falling further and further into the abyss of hopeless despair. Go back and read the oath of law enforcement and the definitions. This is who we are; who is he?

Have You Seen My Chameleon?

The only possible explanation I can generate from my 52 ½ year old, Sponge Bob brain, of why the mayor is now championing the expansion of the Convention Center and espousing the increase to fees and taxes, is he physically changes colors when laying down with any of the following; the downtown power brokers, chamber of commerce, Lincoln club, republican money men, or special interests. What other explanation could be plausible? Why can't we see him for what he is? He is constantly changing color as he slithers from his downtown office to any of his many cronies to get his new walking orders. Who is he? What is he?

If you missed it; the latest revelation from the mayor's office is his "championing" of the expansion of the San Diego Convention Center with a price tag of ONE BILLION DOLLARS and an annual cost of $53 million. How many times can someone change colors before they start to look like a clown?

Who among us made the following statements; I'm opposed to taxes; we need to raise fees; I don't think the taxpayers are ready for new taxes; we need to raise taxes (TOT increase from 10.5% to 15.5%); In today's difficult economy I do not think it fair to raise fees; we need to raise fees for entry into Sea Word, The Zoo, The Wild Animal Park ($1 to $2 surcharge per ticket); we need a 1 % to 3 % tax on food and drink; we need a $5 surcharge for rental cars; I support Proposition 8; and oops, I am opposed to Proposition 8? Can someone catch this slippery clown and put him in a cage before he changes color yet again and we can't see him?

I had to laugh as I read the comments of Port Commission Chairman Michael Bixler who was unexpectedly surprised by the plan to expand the Convention Center and said he had a lot of questions. In a Union Tribune article, September 28, 2008, Bixler said; "There's a process that you have to follow; it's like when a tenant is moving out of an apartment and somebody new is moving in and you, as landlord, don't know who they are." But more than that, Bixler said, he does not know how the convention center plans to pay for an expansion and hotel, which together could cost $1 billion. The port also wants to receive market-rate rent from the hotel of several million dollars a year."

I got another laugh as I watched the mayor's video (1^st link above) explaining his reasons for supporting the expansion of the Convention Center during this horrible economic time. His colors changing with every word and phrase; he even keeps a straight face as he details the importance of this "Vital Economic Engine." The list of committee members appointed by the mayor is long and distinguished and stacked with the usual players to ensure his desired outcome is guaranteed.

The spin machine is in full swing as the chameleon champions his cause, changing color with each word and action. Rather than rant on about this latest changing of color by the mayor, I would point to an article written by Don Bauder; who, honestly, I seldom agree with; in the Reader on June 10, 2009, titled: "Convention Liars." Bauder nails everything that is wrong with the chameleon and his latest proposed fleecing of the taxpayer.

I am fully aware of the need for a convention center large enough to attract businesses and conventions that will fill the halls and hotels and bring in needed tax dollars to the City. I understand the desire to be one of the top five convention cities in America. I am not so naive that I do not understand the desire. But for heaven's sake; when is someone going to lead this City and start setting priorities that make sense? The streets and parks in this city are in such disrepair from lack of deferred maintenance and repair; parks, libraries and pools will have to be closed in short order due to budget constraints; many of the city buildings and offices are in need of major repairs or replacement; public safety is as stressed and stretched as any in the nation and the chameleon wants to spend ONE BILLION dollars on the expansion to the Convention Center. The thought process of adding $53 million in expenses to the City's budget to pay for this expansion is nothing short of idiotic and pathetic, when viewed against the budget shortfall of this City and projected revenues for the next several years. Not to mention the Pension Debt and lack of planning for future Retiree Medical expenses.

How is it we have come to accept these types of actions from our elected mayor and city council? Why have we become so complacent we allow a mayor to tell us what we want? What will it take to get people to speak up and demand THEIR NEEDS be met before the desires of the politicians? If you could vote on the priorities of the mayor and city council, what would be your top three priorities? Would the expansion of the Convention Center be on your list, even if I were to allow you to set your top 10 priorities?

It's time to stand up and shout in a loud and firm voice; "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH; GET OUT!!!!" We were looking for a mayor when we got this chameleon.

Pension Savings or Screw Job?

Did you all catch the latest out of city hall today? To forewarn you, the "Little Rube" is at it again. At 12:38 PM the Union Tribune/Sign on San Diego posted a story titled; "Report studies pension savings" which sounds innocuous. Naturally I read the article and instinctively began gnashing my teeth. The story begins by explaining how the City could save millions of dollars a year if it were to suspend the 2% Cost of Living increase (COLA) for retirees.

So as the story goes; the "Little Rube" aka Carl DeMaio, and one of the mayor's minions, Jay Goldstone asked Cheiron (A Consulting Firm) to study this part of the SDCERS benefit for retirees. Cheiron said a one year suspension of the COLA would reduce the City's unfunded pension liability by $58 million. Cheiron said if this reduction was taken the City's annual required pension contribution would be reduced by $4.5 million. Cheiron said if the City were to eliminate the 2% COLA permanently the City would cut their unfunded pension liability by $920 million. This would then lead to a reduction, according to Cheiron, of $74 million in pension contribution by the City in 2010.

So I ask myself as I read the last paragraph of the article; "When will the mayor and the "Little Rube", stop the attacks of employees and their VESTED benefits?" I am glad today my doctor saw fit to put me on blood pressure medication over my objections last year. The "Little Rube" wants an opinion from the City Attorney (I actually laughed at this part of the article) to see if the City could "legally suspend the annual increase." I am like you; waiting with bated breath for this next "Memorandum of Law" from our NEW City Attorney. So while we all wait for this new revelation I thought I would break out the calculator and do some math.

I began to look at the numbers Cheiron opined on related to the 2% COLA. I am not a math major but I think I understand the concepts of what is necessary to understand these numbers. How on earth can you make the leap from the first statement of reducing the unfunded liability by $58 million and a reduction of $4.5 million in pension contribution for a one year suspension of the COLA to a reduction of $920 million pension liability with a permanent elimination of this same 2% COLA? I'm sorry; I'm not buying these numbers or analysis. I tried every math equation I could remember from my days of school and math classes, statistics, economics and public finance. I pulled out the latest numbers from SDCERS and the pension liabilities they have reported to the City. The numbers in the article do not jibe in any way when compared to the analysis of Cheiron. Seems reminiscent of the information in the City's court filings they cannot seem to justify or explain.

What do we know about the mayor and "Little Rube"? We know BOTH of them are HELL BENT on eliminating DROP. We know BOTH of them are HELL BENT on eliminating the Defined Benefit Retirement from employees and replacing it with the less acceptable, more expensive and politically motivated Defined Contribution Retirement for new hires. We know BOTH of them are HELL BENT on reducing the work force of the City and outsourcing as many job functions as humanly possible and as quickly as possible. We know BOTH of them have NO ETHICS or understanding of HONESTY when putting information out to the taxpayer when seeking to meet their goals. We know BOTH of them are HELL BENT on doing whatever it takes to make ALL of this reality.

This is just another poke, jab, slap and kick of the dedicated city employee who had NOTHING to do with the City knowingly, willingly and unlawfully underfunding the City's Employee Retirement System. Think the lines are long for those seeking to join the workforce for this City? If you do; I have some land I am seeking to sell at a much reduced rate. I have some pictures if you would be interested in seeing them. Please; no checks or credit cards…. CASH ONLY!!!!

Demoting Chiefs, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants

The City of Fresno Police Department is demoting 25 supervisors from the rank of Chief to Sergeant. The City of Oakland is laying off 140 officers to close their budget deficit. The City of Sacramento Police Department is headed toward layoffs and the City of Stockton has sent layoff notices to 55 sworn officers; seven supervisors were demoted and 35 civilian employees of the department were also laid off. There are about 20 more examples of police agencies facing layoffs or demotions of supervisors and detectives to close budget deficits in cities across the state.

There were five (5) Oakland officers attending the Internal Affairs Class I attended in Campbell last week. I listened as they detailed the planned layoffs of officers and demotions of supervisors. This is all after the City spent over $70 million dollars hiring 170 officers to bring their department to full staffing. Those in attendance did not have much confidence things would change and they were preparing for the loss of 140 SWORN officers.

The above examples are all worse case scenarios and taken from headlines and web postings over the last couple of weeks. Many are knee jerk reactions to budget deficits from City Council's and Mayor's across the State. The threats of layoffs and demotions are scare tactics and attempts to paint unions and their members as greedy, selfish, uncaring employees who refuse to help save their respective Cities. The common theme presented by these elected members of city governments, is that the budgets of the public safety departments, is larger than all others and thus it makes more sense to cut them.

I am not saying there is not a financial crisis in cities and states across the nation. I am not saying there is not a need to share in the cuts and reshaping of budgets and expenditures. I am not implying we should not participate in reductions of wages or benefits to help keep the city afloat. But I take exception to a mayor who threatens the layoffs of 124 police officers and a similar number of firefighters from a city already decimated with the exodus of almost 250 sworn public safety officers (140+ Police and 88+ Fire) who have retired prematurely. I take exception at a city government that excludes its employees in the decision making processes of these cuts and reductions in benefits. I take exception to a mayor who is using the current financial and economical crisis to further his agenda of eliminating the DROP for purely POLITICAL reasons.

The mayor and city council has yet to share in the cuts the rest of us have been subjected to. The mayor continues to receive his retirement payments as well as his full salary. Yes, he will tell everyone who will listen he took a 6% cut to his regular pay. We are not that stupid mayor; that cut amounted to NOTHING comparatively speaking. Don't get me started on the city council and their refusal to take the same cuts as the rest of us. Their latest slap in the face, orchestrated Marti Emerald, to take reserve funds to make up the anticipated 6% cut, is a complete joke. They have yet to pare their staffs or office expenses. The mayor's office is larger than any mayor's office in City history.

When elected officials begin to act honestly and inclusive; unions and their members can join together in seeking solutions to the mounting problems facing us all. When true honesty and transparency is reflective of the mayor's every action and word; workable solutions will be openly discussed and implemented without fear. To even utter potential layoffs of safety personnel in the City of San Diego today, is indicative of how far from reality and honesty the mayor sits. We have a long way to go and with the current lack of leadership and truth in government (you do know I mean TOTAL LACK of truth) the turn-around may not occur in any of our lifetimes.