There is ALWAYS Hope; or is there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Values

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU are going to be the BAD GUY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The mayor’s “Legacy”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prediction; Jim Barrett Becomes Fall Guy

Who can tell me who Jim Barrett is? His name has been in the news of late and many of his comments have been at odds with the mayor. He has spoken before city council several times. He is a city employee. Have you come up with who he is yet? OK, here is some help; "Sanders: We're Studying Water Budgets."

Mr. Barrett is the Director of the City of San Diego's Water Department and for the past several months has been in the news as he attempts to carry out yet another of the mayor's failed and flawed polities. Back in March of this year as the city struggled to implement a plan for reducing water consumption, Barrett's assistant, Alex Ruiz made some incorrect statements about a plan being used in Irvine to penalize those who used excessive amounts of water. Ruiz said the Irvine program would be impractical to implement in San Diego and said Irvine took 8-12 years to refine their program for 90,000 customers and San Diego was facing 240,000 accounts and only four months to implement a program. In short order, the Voice of San Diego wrote a story disputing these comments, "A Water Plan That Worked—And The City Ignored."

The VOSD showed this assertion by the city's water department to not be accurate and painted a picture of a city department unwilling to take a firm stand for political reasons. The VOSD wrote, "Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a utility watchdog, said San Diego's resistance to the Irvine Ranch approach is likely political. Mayor Sanders and Water Department officials likely fear that inefficient customers who fall into more expensive billing tiers "could be used to fan some political fires against the proposal," Shames said in an e-mail. "I believe it is more of a political calculation than a legal or ratemaking justification."

It appears three weeks ago, Jim Barrett again told the City Council that the city was not evaluating a water rate structure like the one used in the Irvine Ranch Water District. Lani Lutar stepped forward and said the city's Water Department wasn't being straightforward about its intentions to consider a water-rate structure designed to reward conservation and penalize excessive use. In another article in the VOSD on October 5, 2009, Rob Davis wrote, "Lutar said Alex Ruiz, the Water Department's deputy director, and Rod Greek, another water official, led business leaders, large water users and lobbyists to believe that the city was seriously pursuing the Irvine Ranch model. Lutar said at meetings in August and September, the water officials indicated they were open to the idea and having a consultant study it." Lutar was clearly upset and frustrated with the mayor when she said she felt "insulted that Sanders' office had asked for input it didn't seem to want."

If history repeats itself and the mayor acts as he always has in the past, Jim Barrett will be looking for a job before Thanksgiving. Politics being what they are in this city, the mayor will need a fall guy to provide cover for yet another failed policy and glaring indication of the right hand not being attached to the body and thus not knowing what the rest of the body is doing. Alex Roth, another of the many spinmeister's in the mayor's office, wrote a memo in an attempt to explain the mayor's position. I personally think the memo failed in that attempt.

While all of this is going on there was a very important discussion on Municipal Bankruptcy taking place last Thursday morning at a breakfast conference of sorts. The topic being discussed was an attempt to help people understand what a municipal bankruptcy proceeding would entail. The panelists were: Retired Judge John Ryan, who oversaw Orange County's 1994 bankruptcy case; Margaret Mann, an attorney at Sheppard Mullin; and Ali Mohdehi, a lawyer from Baker McKinzie. The program was moderated by April Boling and hosted by the San Diego Taxpayers Association.

Noticeably absent from the breakfast was the mayor and his staff. I get he does not want to be seen in public at a function discussing municipal bankruptcy, but to not at least have someone from his office in attendance to hear the discussion is mystifying. Is the mayor's head buried so deep in the sand he can't break the suction and free himself to at least make a decision to have a staffer attend? Discussions of this magnitude demand city leaders understand all the nuances of such a decision and to gage public opinion and concern. I am not an advocate for bankruptcy and believe the problems staring the city down at the moment are fixable. They are not though going to go away without decisive action on many fronts. The mayors simple action plan of cut, cut, cut, and cut some more, is not the answer and is simply exasperating the problems.

Jim Barrett may be the lucky one in all of this. He will be made the scapegoat and forced to find another job.

San Diego; America’s Most Dangerous Destination

A recent memorandum from Nader Tirandazi, Financial Management Director, dated October 19, 2009, talked about current vacancies within the City of San Diego. Tirandazi was responding to a City Council request to provide a list of current vacancies in the City by department. The memorandum detailed 832 vacancies city wide with 320 of these vacancies in the Police Department and 106 in the Fire Department. The memorandum does not tell the whole story.

The ability of officers to protect citizens has been impacted by the policies of the city council, mayor and last year's imposed contract. The exodus of officers, almost all of them with over 25 years of experience and the inability of the department to retain younger officers, has created one of this nation's most dangerous destinations. The mayor and others will paint a picture of all's well and tell people a larger number of officers does not equate to safer streets. They will boast of lower crime statistics and a safe city while explaining the exodus of almost 300 officers in one year. There is much they are not telling citizens.

The actual numbers of officers available to protect citizens have shrunk every year since the 1990's. There are currently 1,862 sworn police officers, which includes all ranks, to police the City of San Diego. This is 262.75 short of budgeted strength (Someone help me understand the .75 officer). Of these 1,862 sworn officers, 61 of them are recruits, who may be enthusiastic, but are of no help when it comes to providing police protection to our citizens. An additional 64 of these sworn members of the department are managers (Lieutenants, Captains, and Chiefs) who do not participate in the protection of citizens and do not answer radio calls or respond to emergencies. There is an additional 126 sworn officers who are unavailable for service for a variety of reasons (Industrial Leave, Workers Comp, Military Leave, Long Term Disability, Light Duty to name a few). This leaves 1,611 sworn officers from a budgeted strength of 2,124.75, available to provide for the public's safety. A far cry from the numbers provided to taxpayers by the mayor and others.

The population of the city of San Diego is 1.3 million people; with 470,000 households; living in a land area of 324 square miles. Between 2000 and 2008 the population of San Diego grew 9% from 1,223,000 people to 1,337,000 while at the same time our police department shrunk in size. In 2006, the mayor commissioned a pay and benefit comparison report where he declared he wanted to "Stem the loss of officers" who were leaving in droves for other agencies offering better pay and benefits. In the report the mayor boasts of the city being the "4^th safest city in America" citing a drop in overall crime of 2.3% for the first ten months of the year. The report, conducted by Buck Consultants, and presented December 19, 2006, showed the police department had 1,895 active sworn personnel (Today 1,862). Of those, 153 are on some kind of leave for a total of available sworn personnel of 1,742 (Today 1,611). The Department was budgeted for 2,089 officers in 2006 (Today 2,125.75). 683 officers have left the department since 2003 and only 390 have been hired.

In July of 2006, the mayor and police chief announced the "City's Comprehensive Police Recruitment and Retention Plan" in which the mayor called the loss of experienced police officers "a crisis for our community." On page 4 of this document, an e-mail the mayor sent police officers was re-produced. The diatribe has proven to be simply words, to buy him time to continue his failed policies. The entire "Plan" as you will, was and continues to be nothing more than empty words on a piece of paper. The pay and benefit study, as well as the recruitment and retention plan, were used as pacifiers to appease officers contemplating leaving.

In 2008, the RAND Corporation conducted a study of the San Diego Police Department's hiring and retention of officers. The study focused on recruiting and offered suggestions for reaching the budgeted staffing level of 2,125.75 sworn officers. After only hiring a record three (3) officers in 2003 and 2004; a lofty goal of hiring fifty (50) recruits for each academy class was proposed in hopes of reaching budgeted levels. It became clear, with the recent exodus of officers in 2009; this goal was not going to be realized any time soon. The ability to safely police a city the size of San Diego with roughly 1,000 patrol officers, is akin to asking our SRT Unit to travel to Tijuana and handle police duties there while their officers come to San Diego for the training the mayor has so generously offered. It may work for a short period of time but eventually someone is going to die.

The mayor is now demanding a reduction of $74 million dollars from the police department's budget for next year. If you eliminate the positions currently vacant (262.75) the result will be a $32 million dollar savings. The mayor is only willing to recognize a $24 million dollar savings because he does not view benefits as being part of the equation. This is another example of number and cost manipulation by the city's administration. So where do you cut $50 million dollars from a department budget that is already operating with insufficient resources? The elimination of personnel is the fasted way to coming up with this money. There is always the elimination of overtime; elimination of holidays; reduction of benefits; wage reductions; elimination or reduction of medical insurance; or the demotion of supervisors at all ranks that will still leave the need to eliminate positions.

How many people would need to be eliminated to make up the $50 million dollars? My calculations indicate somewhere between 320 and 360 employees (Sworn and non-sworn). So those individuals in the academy; field training; POI's and even a few POII's will be staring down the possibility of losing their jobs. Realistic? Possible.

Today the San Diego Police Department has fewer resources on which to draw to recruit and retain officers and to protect our citizens. Yet our responsibilities are expanding to include homeland security, immigration, cybercrime, and human trafficking, and there is even an increase of traditional duties in all areas of our communities that have rising levels of crime and violence. All of this is being made even more difficult because of the policies of the mayor and city council. The taxpayers have clearly placed public safety as their number one priority, yet the mayor and council have not. They have used smoke and mirrors to cover their actions by putting out twisted and in some cases false statistics related to crime. Their glowing words have painted a picture full of lies and deception.

It is time the mayor and city council stop playing politics and start making public safety their number one priority. This will require the chief to stand up and provide realistic and honest crime statistics and the current status of the police department's ability to provide adequate police services to this community. The current level of staffing has created an environment in San Diego that is dangerous for citizens and police officers alike. The lack of sufficient officers; coupled with the lack of experience; has already resulted in an increase of 113% in preventable traffic accidents by police officers. I could go on about the issues facing the police department as a result of the exodus of officers and the lack of experience in the ranks. One of the most telling numbers not talked about is that of the Police Officer One. Currently there are 252 POI's or one third of our uniformed officers providing police services. This is clearly an un-acceptable number and a recipe for disaster.

If you think it acceptable for a city the size of San Diego to have fewer than 120 uniformed police officers available from midnight to seven in the morning; 150 uniformed police officers available between five pm and midnight, patrolling your communities providing for your safety, you are living in the right city.

The little rube and a Town Hall

That was an hour of my life I will never get back. I sat in amazement as the little rube twisted, spun, fabricated and exaggerated facts about city finances, retirement costs, retiree medical and more. I sat and listened to one after another voter/taxpayer rant about the excessive wages and benefits of city employees. Sitting front and center in the room was none other than Richard "Don't call me Dick" Rider. Rider had prepared a flier he set out for those in attendance to pick up and read. The heading on the flier was the name of his group, "San Diego Tax Fighters." The headline reads, "OUTRAGEOUS! We Are Still Paying 130% and Higher Pensions to Most 30 Year San Diego City Employees." The flier is full of exaggerations and miss-information and it does an excellent job of inflaming anyone who reads it.

The little rube's presentation is the same power point found on his web site "CleanUpCityHall." His script is well rehearsed and followed to a tee. He did not allow anyone to change the focus or dispute his assertions. I was chatting with a detective who had attended the meeting when I receive a message from the little rube via Twitter that read, "Explaining the City Deficit in Five Minutes" , which made me laugh out loud. OK, I understand "sound bites" but come on you little rube. It took the city years to get into this hole and for just as many years, people have been analyzing the reasons and attempting to find solutions and the little rube now tells everyone he can explain it in five minutes. Click on the link above and you tell me if he has succeeded. If not, I would suggest you call his office and tell him he failed. He suggested on more than one occasion this evening the only way to effect change and get politicians to change is to call them repeatedly until you see the change you believe should take place.

The highlight of the night was the little rube rallying the masses to his battle cry. Reforming the pension of city employees. He started by exaggerating the reality of the plan and as usual presented his information in a manner to inflame and anger. He succeeded and it was clear the mood in the room was to remove and cut whatever they could. Then the little rube went one step too far. As he explained his relationship with Donna Frye he said there was not one plan that would fit all when making cuts. "The cuts we need to make are not a one size fits all. The cuts we need to make to the person who retired in 1996 are not the same as those that need to be made to someone who retired recently." Did you all catch that? He indicated in this little diatribe he is looking at making a run at those who are already retired and their benefits. Now, before you all start screaming and yelling; he is a lunatic and stands about as much chance of getting at your benefits as I do making Lieutenant. So you can all relax but you need to be aware of his mentality and thought processes. He is clearly delusional and not well versed in the reality of what a vested benefit is.

What I found more concerning was his repeated comments of taking to the voters a referendum seeking changes he believes need to be made to eliminate city employee's "Lavish Retirement Benefits." He was as usual extremely vague as to what these changes are. He was very clear though he views the voters to be the solution to making the changes necessary to eliminate these lavish benefits.

The one hour presentation was broadcast on CityTV and will soon be in the archive and available to view. It is something everyone needs to view. His town hall meetings are going to be held city wide. The little rube does not see his area of influence as being only District Five. He sees his influence to be city wide and he has made plans to go into every district with his message to garner as much support as he can to pull off his agenda and make San Diego a national model of reform and how to reduce and eliminate retirement benefits. Constant vigilance on our parts is going to be required to ensure current and past benefits are preserved and the benefits of new hires are sufficient.

Who is paying attention?

Morbid Curiosity

Maybe not the best heading but it does fit my thoughts right now. I was perusing magazines at Borders last night checking out the latest Outside, Hot Rod, Backpacker and Maxim magazine when I saw the cover of Time. "Why It's Time to Retire the 401K (And what you can do instead)" was gracing the cover of the magazine. It caught my eye so I grabbed it and found a spot to sit down so I could read what this latest revelation was all about. I have argued against 401K Defined Contribution retirement plans as the replacement for the Defined Benefit plan for many reasons over the years. So my morbid curiosity was elevated as I began to read the analysis of this popular retirement plan.

In 2006 I attended a conference at Harvard regarding the status of municipal retirement plans and the attempts across the nation to eliminate the defined benefit retirement plans for the less costly and less beneficial 401K defined contribution. Several states, cities and counties across the nation had made the change and were re-thinking the changes. What they initially thought would save them money, had now begun to exponentially cost more than the original defined benefit plan. The initial savings was negated when the payment owed by the entity grew as fewer participants were left in the plan. Similar to what is occurring in San Diego today. While there will be an initial savings, as those remaining in the SDCERS Retirement system dwindle, the City will be required to make up the difference and their payment will begin to grow, negating the savings.

The Time's article highlighted Occidental Petroleum Corporation who in the 1970's raided their employee's retirement fund. At the time, laws did not prevent employers from doing this as long as they closed the find and started over. Occidental Petroleum closed the original employee retirement fund and opened the 401K program. Over the years employees saved money in hopes of having sufficient funds to outlive their savings. The 401K plans proved to be less successful and have not provided sufficient moneys for people to live in their retirement years.

The tough times in the stock market have left most people with 401K retirement funds worse off than just 10 years ago. In 1983, sixty percent of workers in America participated in defined benefit retirement plans with less than fifteen percent of Americans participating in 401K type deferred contribution plans. 401K retirement plans were never meant to be the only vehicle for retirement. When Congress started the 401K plans it was done to close a loop hole for executives who received bonuses and to be a perk for these same highly paid executives. In 2007, the numbers reversed; sixty-three percent of retirement plans were in the form of 401K style defined contributions and seventeen percent were defined benefit plans.

The average 401K plan today has less than $46,000. That is not enough money for retirement, no matter what part of the country you live in. To make it worse, 46% of all 401K plans have less than $10,000. "The time may have come to consider returning 401K plans to their original position as a third tier of retirement planning, behind pensions and Social Security" says Alicia Munnell, who heads the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. "They should not be the thing we rely on for retirement security." Last summer the Government Accountability Office concluded, "If no action is taken, a considerable number of Americans face the prospect of a reduced standard of living in retirement."

Where my morbid curiosity kicks in; what is in the mind of the mayor? Does he just not care about the people who work for this city? Why would he strip away benefits for retirement and force upon workers a plan that will leave them destitute when they reach retirement age? From the beginning the mayor has openly said our benefits were not excessive but not politically sustainable. So, for political expediency, the mayor has destroyed the lives of countless individuals who dedicated themselves to serving the citizens of San Diego. Every cut, reduction and elimination to wages and benefits at the hands of the mayor, the city has gained virtually nothing. The budget deficits continue to grow and the mayor's only answer is more cuts. He has continued to blame the employees and their retirement benefits and now the "Recession" is at fault.

What is to come next? On Monday, the City Council bought hook line nad sinker the mayor's plan to begin the process to build a new city hall. The wages and benefits of employees are not politically sustainable, but building a new city hall to the tune of $432 million dollars while facing a $200 million dollar budget deficit is. Add to this the mayor's championing of the one billion dollar expansion to the Convention Center and the $250 million dollar downtown library he want to build. Call me crazy but this is lunacy. We were once referred to as "Enron by the Sea." It appears this label was justified. The idiocy of the elected officials in this town is pathetic. The mayor will cut wages, lay off workers, eliminate retirement benefits, demand furloughs, and at the same time make plans to spend two billion dollars without batting an eye. This all while making plans to again cut wages, lay off workers, eliminate benefits and cut services in an attempt to cut the projected $200 million dollar deficit.

My morbid curiosity wonders when it will all end.

Tongue in Cheek Folks

My last post, "The little rube for mayor" was tongue in cheek and designed to get people thinking, talking and acting to ensure this self serving politician is identified for who and what he is. If you have not had a chance to spend some time reading his web site, "Clean Up City Hall" it is a must read. This egotistical, self inflated; snake oil salesman is the biggest threat to city employees, retirees and workers that has ever come to town. You thought Mike Aguirre, Pat Shey, Gerry Sanders, Richard Rider or Steve Francis were dangerous? None of them hold a candle to this lunatic.

To begin to understand his agenda, mission or goals you need to take a look at the white paper, "Target San Diego" which talks about the agenda of the right leaning Republicans and the groups spearheading this fight. CPI or Center on Policy Initiatives in San Diego commissioned this paper which was written by Lee Cokorinos in November 2005. This document is seventy-nine (79) pages in length and provides an inside view of the little rube and the mayor's mind and why they have done many of the things they have to labor and specifically the SDPOA since elected. It gives a clear roadmap of the little rube's agenda and what his goals and aspirations are. If you focus your attention starting on page 25, with the "Americans for Tax Reform and the Project for California's Future" you will begin to understand the reasons the mayor has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the need for increased revenues and additional or increased taxes of any kind and the little rube's fixation with outsourcing. I would strongly urge you to read the ENTIRE document closely.

At the bottom of page 27, you will find the little rube's philosophy for change; "Your primary mission is not to educate, but to persuade." To educate you must be specific; articulate; provide consistent and honest information. To persuade you simply have to sound specific; sound articulate and appear to be providing consistent and honest information. The little rube is a master of the spin machine; fabricating numbers to suit his agenda; and providing a portion of the truth making it difficult to debate his position.

On page 33, the "Reason Foundation" a center-right foundation is explained. To understand the government reforms and privatization the little rube presses for so hard, reading the information here along with the various magazines highlighted (Reason; The Economist; The Nation; The American Enterprise; and Privatization Watch). In the last sentence on page 35, the little rube appears. But on page 39, "The Performance Institute and the Assault on San Diego" starts with a statement by the little rube; "If we can show reform in San Diego, it becomes a model nationwide." On page 43 the real "Little Rube" comes to life when he hits town. Since his arrival, he has begun a systematic program to implement his agenda and build his credentials for his movement to the next level of government office. The little rube is clearly positioning himself for a run for mayor in 2012.

Our task is to shadow his every move and counter his lies, spin and half truths. To accomplish this we need to have real numbers in hand, educate ourselves so we can educate the naïve taxpayer/voter. The little rube is going to attempt to persuade these naïve taxpayers/voters, knowing they are angered by the downturn in the economy, the loss of their retirement savings, medical insurance and in many cases their jobs (his spin and exaggerated numbers and the UT have fueled this anger). He will play on this anger to persuade them to go along with his cuts, modifications and eliminations of wages, benefits and in many cases jobs. We must educate these same people with factual data and show what the little rube's agenda will do to this city.

We cannot sit back and grimace at his comments; yell at the TV; curse the paper; or allow him to put forth initiatives for changes to the Charter without countering his every word. We need to be pro-active and get in front of his campaign to persuade by educating the public. We must be attentive to his words, actions and agenda. We can use his own words and actions against him. He is playing a game of politics and following an agenda that is in conflict with some of his own past words and actions. We must focus on Law Enforcement ONLY. We must focus on the wages, benefits and working conditions of the job we know. Allow Fire, MEA, 127 and the others to focus on what they do and their wages and benefits. We can only argue and defend what we know. So let us keep it simple and focus our energy on the proposed cuts to law enforcement and the reductions to our wages and benefits and what the long term costs will be.

If you did not see the October 7, 2009, City Council meeting, I would suggest you do so. It can be seen online at the City's Web site on CityTV, in the archive section. The little rube was caught in a couple of miss-truths and allowed to use a Power Point to present his view of the future deficit. This presentation will no doubt be seen on the 14^th at the little rube's town hall meeting. What is alarming about this is at the same meeting it is clear the only person on the current City Council who understands reality and has any ethics is Todd Gloria. The "Green Rock" AKA Marti Emerald, clearly is out of her league and has highlighted just how ignorant she is to the reality of politics and what is going on in the world around her. We are in trouble folks. The "Dim Bulb" AKA Sherri Lightner is just as bad as the green rock. I think if you combined their IQ's, you would not come close to reaching 100.

The little rube is holding a "Town Hall Meeting" on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 6pm at the Scripps Ranch Library. If history repeats itself, the audience will be filled with right leaning, extremely conservative types, with the idea city workers are overpaid, lazy, incompetent thieves whose wages and benefits need to be eliminated and reduced while the majority of jobs could be done cheaper and better by outside contractors. There was applause with every mention of eliminating DROP, reducing retirement benefits and reducing wages at his last town hall meeting.

We must counter his lies with facts and the truth; we must counter his spin with reality; we must be the teacher in the room, providing education to the taxpayer/voter as the little rube attempts to persuade. We have to first be in attendance. We need to visible, professional and active. Asking questions; countering lies; stopping the spinning of reality and educating as we do so. I will be there; who will join me?

The “little rube” for Mayor!!!

I was so enthralled with the little rube's "Issues in the Forecast" that I kept thinking to myself, "This guy would make a great mayor." I know what some of you are thinking, but I want you to hear me out. I think maybe I have been overly critical of the little rube and unnecessarily harsh of his methodology, views and tactics. I think I was somewhat jealous of the little rube's good looks, charisma and intelligence. I must admit I did not want to believe he could have all of the answers. I was so far off in my impression and portrayal of the little rube I think I owe you all an apology. Let me explain in more detail my thoughts.

The little rube has an appropriately titled web site, "Clean Up City Hall" with the mantra "Holding San Diego City Government Accountable." What more could any taxpayer really want in a leader? Unlike our current mayor, the little rube is paying attention to ALL aspects of San Diego. The little rube's issue forums address issues such as; budget and pension; citizen service quality; environmental protection; infrastructure; internal management; jobs and economy; libraries; open government and ethics; parks and recreation; planning and development; public safety; quality neighborhoods; stadium search; strong mayor – strong council; transportation; and water and sewer. I was embarrassed when I realized the little rube was so versed and on top of ALL of the aspects of what is wrong with San Diego.

I was aghast when the mayor announced the pending deficit of $179 million. I was not surprised in the least when the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) announced the deficit may actually be closer to $201 million. But then I read the analysis of the little rube and felt a knot in my stomach. Then I started to read the little rube's report and his "Issues in the Forecast." A $262 million deficit for 2010; followed by a $315 million deficit for 2011; as things get worse in 2012 with a $331 million deficit; in 2014 a $354 million deficit; ending with a staggering $365 million deficit in 2015. Taken cumulatively the five year deficit for the City of San Diego will be $1,627,756,710. That is ONE BILLION, SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN MILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND, and SEVEN HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS.

I have been saying for months now the mayor could not balance his personal check book so why would anyone believe he could balance the city's budget? The mayor's five year forecast projects a $796,200,000 deficit or $831,556,710 short of what the little rube has forecast. Even the IBS forecast the five year total to be $1,163,000,000 or $464,756,710 short of the projections of the little rube. The differences are staggering and worrisome. I am now starting to think maybe Pat Shay is on to something when he says Chapter 9 is the best avenue for the city. The little rube has presented a clear and convincing case that indicates the city will soon have an annual deficit that is about twenty-five percent more than that of the annual revenues for the city.

The little rube along with Donna Frey sent the mayor a letter on October 8, 2009
asking the mayor to create a "Budget Scoring Spreadsheet." Why has it taken so long for someone to demand this type of tool to analyze the city's budget? The little rube and Donna write, "In light of the dire financial situation presented by the recently released Five Year Financial Outlook, it is our intention to solve the city's budget crisis this year through comprehensive long-term reform plan, implementing structural changes to eliminate unsustainable financial practices inherent in the city's budget." I am so excited to see someone is finally taking the lead and putting into action what others simply talk about. The little rube is going to actually "solve the city's budget crisis this year." The letter continues, "The City Council needs a tool to calculate and forecast the impacts of a variety of reforms and changes in revenues and expenditures in the city's budget. As such we request that your office work with the Independent Budget Analyst to create a budget scoring spreadsheet." Now that I get what the little rube is all about, I love this guy. He really wants to make things better and clearly he believes he can fix this mess without Chapter 9. I know many of you are worried about that and the possibility of losing everything.

Donna Frey and the little rube continue; In addition, we ask that your office score - either from the pension system or from an independent actuary – the financial savings that could be achieved if the city were to change pension benefits in the following manner:

• Suspending the Cost of Living Adjustment on future pension benefits until such time that the system is fully funded
  
• Achieving "budget neutrality" for the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)
  
• Eliminating the Preservation of Benefits provision
  
• "Unwiding" of Retroactive Benefits Increases

Do you all see why I have changed my mind and come around to support the little rube? Do you all see what I am seeing in that the little rube cares about us and wants to make things better? I know sometimes it does not appear that way, but I have had to distance myself from it all to really appreciate and see how much he cares. He is actually demanding from the mayor, he and his office actually do something. The mayor will no doubt fight the request of Donna and the little rube. He would not want the little rube to show him up or point out more incompetence. Strong mayor will defeat the strong council every time.

Page two of the letter discussed the "Legal Analysis and Negotiations on Reforming Pension Benefits." The little rube and Donna write, "The cost of city pensions continues to be a specificant driver of the city's budget deficit. We are concerned that the existing level of pension benefits in not sustainable.

In evaluating how to reform existing pension benefits, we request that the City Attorney provide an assessement of what specific component of benefits are vested, which benefits might not be vested, and how benefits could be changed through amendments to the Municipal Code, benefit adjustments made independently by the board of the pension system, benefit concessions negotiated through Collective Bargaining, etc."

Additionally, we request that Labor Relations prepare and present to the City Council a process for initiating negotiations with the city's labor unions on possible pension benefit reforms for existing employees who are not in the new plan.

The city's financial problems have reached a point where one-time solutions are no longer an option. These issues much be solved in a structural fashion, and we look forward to exploring some of the structural spending reforms listed above.

Before you go on, I want you to go back and re-read the last four (4) paragraphs above. I want you to see why I have changed my view of the little rube. When you finish re-reading the last four paragraphs, take a few minutes to review, "Money Matters" written by the little rube. He really gets it and understands the crisis we are all facing. His numbers are startling and would persuade the most skeptical of taxpayer to join in the reforms and changes the little rube is proposing. His leadership and forward thinking is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of his colleagues on the city council and that of the mayor. It is time to seek the mayor's removal and elect the little rube, it cannot get any worse.

The little rube is going to take his message to the streets with a first of several "Town Hall" meetings on Wednesday, October 14, 2009. The meeting will take place at the Scripps Ranch Library. The purpose of the "Town Hall" meetings is to persuade taxpayers to join his fight to clean up city hall. The little rube is using his extensive knowledge of government, contracts, financing and reform to persuade taxpayers to demand change.

I would encourage all of you to attend this first of several meetings and get on board with these changes. The only way to educate taxpayers is to help the little rube as he persuades them. You see, the game plan of the little rube is to "persuade" not "educate" taxpayers. The ability to persuade is made easier by inflating facts and spinning information. When participating in the art of persuasion it is acceptable to generalize and avoid specifics. The average taxpayer is just confused when presented with facts because true politicians never deal in facts. These facts confuse taxpayers/voters and it is preferred to persuade them by first identifying selected individuals in each community who will support and add validity to the politician who is persuading the taxpayer/voter to a position. Then the politician (little rube) points to them for validation and conformation of the miss-information being used to persuade.

So I beg you all to join me on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 1800 hours at the Scripps Ranch Library, to lend a hand to the little rube and educate these taxpayer/voters. You can also see what I have seen and understand why I am such a strong supporter of the little rube and his message. Left unchecked, the little rube will be able to persuade taxpayers/voters, so we need to assist him with the education. The little rube needs our help and as police officers we owe it to the city, taxpayers/voters to do all we can to assist with education. Who wants to join me?

How Big is the Table?

The mayor says, "Everything is on the table" when talking about the projected budget deficit for next year and how to address it. The problem is the mayor is only willing to put cuts and reductions on the table and that will do no good. The table is not big enough for all the programs, services, jobs and expenses that would need to be cut to balance the budget next year. Projections surfacing from city hall indicate across the board 24% cuts will be necessary to help close the deficit. The mayor still refuses to discuss increasing revenue by raising fees, taxes and charging for the services provided to taxpayers.

Andrea Tevlin is the only person talking about increasing revenues and at the same time acknowledging reductions and elimination of services and jobs will not be sufficient to close the deficit. The discussion regarding increasing revenues does not seem to fit on the table for the discussions taking place if the mayor is in the room. His adamant refusal to entertain discussion related to revenue increases is hypocritical. He has not had a second thought when he increased the retirement contribution of employees by refusing to honor prior commitments achieved through negotiations where the city begged employees to settle for the city picking up a percentage of the employees retirement contribution in lieu of a pay raise. He has not thought twice of making employees pay more of the premium for medical insurance, even after demanding the Unions give up control of their own medical insurances with a promise of lower premiums and additional dollars to go towards these premiums.

If the SDPD eliminates 24% of its staffing, we lose approximately 450 employees. Drastic and unrealistic; or is it? If 24% of the 2010 Fiscal budget for the police department is eliminated, we would lose approximately 105 million of a 424 million dollar budget. Drastic and unrealistic; or is it? The mayor says we are selfish, unbending, and unrealistic and think we deserve more than any of the other departments and employees in the city. Can someone answer this question; are we being unrealistic, selfish and unbending when we refuse to agree with the mayor's cuts and reductions to public safety?

The bottom line is the mayor cannot continue to cut, slash and reduce the police department any more than he already has. To do so would be patently criminal and unacceptable at any level. Selfish; maybe. Unbending; possibly. Unrealistic; absolutely! I would suggest every member of the department take stock of his or her position and responsibilities as a police officer. Do you feel adequate staffing is available during the shift you work? Do you feel you have the ability to take a day off when you feel the need due to stress or fatigue? Do you feel pressured to cut corners when doing your job so you can free yourself to be available to assist with additional calls for service; thus not doing the job you know is necessary? Do you pass up taking enforcement action due to a lack of adequate staffing and cover? Do you devote more than 75% of your duties to answering calls for service?

If you answer yes to any of the above questions, you need to have a very frank and honest discussion with your loves ones. You need to explain your fears, frustrations and the realities of your job and the lack of support you are receiving from the mayor and city. Let your family know you are working under these dangerous conditions. Share with them the numbers of officers working the shift you work and why this is dangerous and unacceptable. Who will be held accountable for your injury or death? As we move toward additional cuts to the police department, keep your family informed and document in a diary in some way the safety concerns you have and the lack of staffing you experience. We are currently working on borrowed time and face the real possibility we are going to experience the serious injury or death of an officer in the very near future. The lack of experience in patrol; coupled with the lack of adequate staffing; during this economic crisis, is a recipe for disaster. Don't allow yourself to be that officer. Protect yourself and your family and at all cost; do what you know is right and safe.

The table is not big enough for what needs to be done and the mayor has chosen to stick with a café table for laying out his options. Until he sits at conference table large enough to accommodate intelligent, resourceful, risk taking individuals; we will continue to spiral toward the abyss. The mayor is attempting to cure the deficit the same way a plastic surgeon goes about performing liposuction on an obese person. He can suck all the fat he likes from the person. Take too much and shock will kill them. Take a little here and a little there year after year and you simply make them appear slimmer in clothes but in reality they are still the same obese person. Until you alter the eating habits of the person and implement structural changes to their life by adding exercise and diet as well as psychological counseling, you have not properly addressed the problem.

If you have not seen today's Dilbert Cartoon by Scott Adams, you need to look it up. I have it linked in my Facebook. It is the mayor through and through.

Relationships and the mayor

OK let me first give this disclaimer; I don't subscribe to the Union Tribune. I do not have a bird or cat for which I would need this rag to line the respective bottoms of the cage or litter box. So I missed the conversation the mayor had with the editorial board as published in Sunday's edition. I was alerted to the comments of the mayor yesterday and read on-line with interest, his perception of the relationship he has with the SDPOA. I touched on my perception of his relationship with police officers in a prior post, but now I want to take a few minutes and touch on HIS perception. Remembering, a man's perception is his reality.

I found his comments to be completely self-serving and very delusional. What planet is this guy living on? The mayor was asked, "What is your relationship with the police union right now, after the 6 percent cuts that were imposed on them last year?" I laughed as I read his reply. "Well I don't think my picture is up in their office anymore." Someone needs to clue this pompous, arrogant, ego inflated person his picture NEVER WAS on the wall in any office at the SDPOA. He was a pathetic chief and has been an even worse mayor. The only purpose to have a photograph of him on the wall at the SDPOA would be for sport. But what is telling about his first comment is he attempts to make light of this relationship.

The mayor continues, "You know, I've always have a good relationship with the POA." I laughed again as I continued reading his attempt at answering this question. Please tell me WHEN this mayor had a "good relationship with the POA." I am all ears mayor. You are kidding right? I understand your attempt at being political but for Christ's sake, could you just this one time be honest? YOU HAVE A COMPLETELY PATHETIC, CAUSTIC, DEEPLY DIVIDED, ARROGANT relationship that LACKS TRUST, HONESTY, ETHICS AND COMMUNICATION. You have failed in every manner in every context from the day you announced your run for mayor.

He continues, "I still respect them tremendously." OK, somebody help me out here. He still respects us tremendously. In spite of; help me here; anybody? We refused to drink his cool-aid but he still respects us? We refused to bargain away vested benefits, for lesser, more expensive ones, but he still respects us? We refused to accept three out of four contracts when the bargaining did not even come close to being conducted in good faith and then forced upon us, but he still respects us? But, he still respects us tremendously? Clearly he does not think before he responds to questions.

Now it gets interesting and I will attempt to choose my words carefully but will call it as I see it. To my firemen friends; I respect the job you do and the challenges you have faced and the decisions you have made. Having said that; we can agree to disagree with each other as it relates to accepting or not, the screwing at the hands of the mayor over the past several years. While our needs are different and our views of what is important is somewhat different; I believe the differences in our contracts provided firefighters the ability to lessen the pain and allowed for them to agree to accept the cuts demanded by the mayor over the years. I do see this coming to an end in the coming months and they will understand our plight from a personal standpoint when that occurs.

The mayor finishes his answer with the following; "But I think the association has to be more realistic. If the entire city is suffering, you can't say, 'But we're the police, we deserve everything.' We didn't see the firefighters doing that. They joined us. We were happy they were a partner in this; they didn't want the pay cut anymore than the police officers did. But they saw the way the city was going and they understood." So we need to be more realistic? In what way mayor? We need to understand it is customary for a past chief of police to screw his old department and be realistic that is just the way it is suppose to be? We are supposed to be more realistic about our expectations of honest and ethical behavior from our mayor? What in the hell are you trying to say here mayor?

Where in the hell did you come up with this one; "But we're the police, we deserve everything?" If memory serves me, when I was on the SDPOA Board, we offered more than was asked for and were turned down because in the words of the city's labor negotiator/lawyer; "The city council does not have the ability to understand what you are trying to do. This has become political and they do not want to accept your offer." To follow up on this thought, if my information is correct, the current SDPOA Board offered MORE than the mayor was seeking and were turned down because it was not what the mayor wanted and in the manner he wanted it. Here again the mayor attempts to make the members of the SDPOA out to be greedy, demanding thugs who only care about themselves. He again fails to be truthful and again uses the press to keep the public's opinion negative toward police officers and the association.

Then the mayor goes into his false praise and platitudes toward firefighters. "They joined us." "We were happy they were a partner in this; they didn't want the pay cut anymore than the officers did." Let's be clear of the truth here. Firefighter's crafted a deal that best suited their members. They did so because their contract allows for virtually unlimited overtime and the ability to make the money back that was taken. Firefighters by and large all have second jobs that in many cases pay them more than their firefighting job. The joke in many circles is firefighting is their part time job that allows them to have higher paying real jobs. Police officers on the other hand have a very difficult time taking on a second job, especially if working patrol. The rotating shifts, extended shifts and court do not allow for part time jobs in most instances. The availability of overtime is limited to special events (Padre, Charger, SDSU Football and the assortment of other civic events held every so often in the city) and if an officer is lucky he or she may get 3 or 4 events a year. This does not even scratch the surface of the cuts forced upon police officers in the last contract.

The bottom line is the mayor is delusional if he thinks for a second he has ANY type of relationship with police officers or our association. He lacks credibility and he has proven to be unethical as well as vindictive; a terrible combination for a politician who holds the cards. As a strong mayor he is a complete and utter failure. He is a bully and a liar. He will spin, fabricate, diminish, and exaggerate information to suit his needs. His people will intentionally put out miss information and exaggerations to bolster a point by the mayor and when called on the inaccurate information will simply say the exaggeration was to help with "context."

The mayor jokes about his not being welcome among the ranks of police officers. He then, as above, lays blame for this poor relationship at our feet. The truth is the mayor knows we know. We know who he is; we know what he is; we know all his dirty little secrets; and the fact he is unethical and vindictive and has lied so much he is no longer capable of identifying the truth. Because of this, the mayor knows we know and he is uncomfortable placing himself in our presence. He is uncomfortable among us because he cannot stand before us knowing we know. He cannot justify his actions toward us. He cannot justify nor back up his lies to and about us. He cannot walk among us, as he is no longer one of us. He has betrayed the honor of the badge and is no longer worthy of having one. He knows this and he knows we know.

The mayor also addressed the low numbers of police officers who are employed by the city. The question, "The police union is talking publicly about the low ratio of officers to the city's population. How does San Diego have one of the lowest big-city crime rates with one of the lowest ratios?" I wanted to puke reading the garbage he spews on this one. "This goes back quite a ways, before I was chief." Yes it does and when you were chief you demand on may occasion moving to a 2 per 1,000 ratio as being optimum and necessary to combat crime in a safe manner. "We have always had the lowest ratio for a major city. But we have an understanding that it's not the number of cops you put on the street, it's what those cops do when they're on the street." We have an understanding that it's not the number of cops you put on the street, it's what those cops do when they're on the street. Who is this "We" you are talking about? In a short period of time, while trying to increase the numbers of officers after the exodus of officers in the late 70's, San Diego lost more officers killed in the line of duty than any other city in the nation. We are headed there again and this is acceptable? "When they are tied to community groups and the neighborhoods, and they work with them, you're always going to get a better result." This has nothing to do with having adequate numbers of officers to safely police a city the size of San Diego. Who will be the next officer killed in the line of duty because there was no one to cover or assist when the call is made? Who will be the officer killed in the line of duty because he or she was so tired from a lack of ability to take a day off due to staffing? Who will be the officer killed in the line of duty because the mayor repeatedly cut wages, benefits and the number of officers and the lack of experience resulted in a critical mistake at an incident? "You can look across the country and you will find the police departments that have huge ratios of police officers. You go to Detroit, they probably have five or six officers per thousand people, and we have 1.6." He we go again with the spinning of reality and the truth. We may have 1.6 per thousand if fully staffed as 2,178 officers. At the current number of sworn police officers working for the San Diego Police Department we do not make it to ONE (1) per thousand. "Right now, in times that are tough, we just put a hard freeze on all employees being hired, including police officers. We've seen the Police Officers Association put out a statement saying people's safety is going to be jeopardized, and all of that. I don't believe that." Easy for you to say mayor. You are not out working the street, trying to manage the calls for service and crime that is occurring in the streets of San Diego. You are not working grave-yards in Mid-City Division with eight (8) officers or Northeastern Division with four (4) officers. You are not the one responding to a Domestic Violence call where multiple callers are reporting a fight, ALONE at three in the morning and the nearest cover unit is twenty minutes away from another division. This police department is grossly understaffed and the lack of staffing is unsafe for officers as well as citizens.

The irony of all this is the mayor so proudly signed a letter of intent to train police officers from Mexico at our police academy. The comment was made there would be no officers pulled from the field to do this training, as we already have trainers at the academy who will conduct the training. This is true; plus, since we are in a hiring freeze and we are not training police officers for the citizens of San Diego, we might as well train officers from Mexico. What I find pathetic about this endeavor is there is nothing concrete as to what the program will cost, who is paying for it, how many dedicated officers there would be conducting this training or what the training would even entail. Simply amazing; only in San Diego can this happen.

The mayor is setting the stage for next year's negotiations with his revised 5 year forecast. His stated intention is further cuts and reductions. He has stated publicly there will be deep cuts to staffing and services. He has not mentioned cuts to wages because he is saving that for negotiations. His plan of attack will be to again make police officers out to be the bad guys, greedy and demanding and unwilling to sacrifice. He will recommend upwards of 150 layoffs of police officers. You know, all those "Enthusiastic" new officers. He will then offer that if officers accept a 4% pay cut, the jobs will be saved. It is going on all around the country right now. This mayor will simply copy and paste the page from that play book and again stick it in our bum. His only way of dealing with the deficit is to cut. He knows no other way.

The mayor will then take his shot at firefighters. The part of their contract that guarantees them overtime is the clause in the contract requiring four (4) people to actively man a truck. If that is removed and the department moves to three (3) per truck, the overtime is gone and firefighters are not only now losing a precious income but they gave up ALL of their holidays as a cost savings during their last contract and will be much further behind us at that point. This will devastate the fire department and will set them back 25 years. That group the mayor so proudly points to as "team players, who get it," will now be the ones standing ready to set a back fire in hope the wind will change and burn his house down.

The rest of the interview has the mayor pimping the expansion of the Convention Center and the Chargers. He just does not get it. Three more years of hell at the hands of this politician. The damage will continue and the hole deeper before he walks away. Who will be left and whose name will be etched on the Memorial in front of Headquarters?

$179 Million Dollar Tsunami

If you have yet to take a few minutes and read the newly released five year forecast from the mayor's office, you need to. After you have digested this you might want to do a comparison of the differences from the five year forecast just last year. The assumptions from year to year are frightening. If you read closely the changes in assumptions, it appears the forecasts are made in a high school economics class and the numbers and assumptions were pulled from thin air. To add insult to injury and to highlight my point, the numbers being thrown around by the mayor of the upcoming deficits for other California cities are not even close to being accurate. When the numbers were questioned, Rachel Liang, one of the mouth pieces for the mayor throws herself on the sword.

When questioned about the numbers by the Voice of San Diego, Laing said she was responsible for the numbers and would look into them being incorrect. Regardless, she said, the numbers still make her point: that the national economy is affecting budgets throughout California. Laing said, "The point is I was trying to give context to our budget problem. San Diego has obviously had huge financial problems in the past. I was trying to make clear that this problem is not exclusive to San Diego now. That's a fact the public needs to know." So if I understand her logic, it's OK to fabricate, exaggerate, and miss-state the accuracy of something to help give "context" to whatever? Just more obfuscation from the mayor's office and no one seems to care.

On October 2, 2009, IBA, Andrea Tevlin and her staff conducted a review of the mayor's latest (revised) five year forecast. While they agree in principle with the forecast, they take exception to some of the numbers (go figure) and paint a more realistic view of where the city is. Tevlin hits the nail on the head when she says the forecast from the mayor and his staff, continue to fall short on solutions. The solutions she is referring to are increases in revenue. Tevlin also points out the short sighted and ill-conceived assumption indicating no wage increases for the next five years.

"No New Revenue Increases" is the mantra from the mayor. The mayor's failed policies of slashing, cutting and deferring, has lead the City to more of the same in perpetuity. No matter what the economy does, the City will have a huge deficit each and every year BECAUSE of the mayor's short sighted, ignorant and very political policies. As articulated by COO Jay Goldstone, when asked about future cuts and the structural problems with the mayor's budget; "What areas to cut and how much will be debated in the upcoming budget discussions." Cuts, cuts, cuts; it's all they know how to do. It is the easy way out for someone who himself is struggling with putting a daughter through college without his police pension and FULL salary and still can't figure it out.

We have endured five straight years of cuts to every area of service this city has to offer. Year after year since the mayor took over he has cut, reduced and eliminated programs, employees, wages, benefits; yet what has he accomplished? The real answer is nothing. We face the largest deficit in history and we are in worse shape today than we were when he took office. He will blame the economy for his failures. He will blame the state government for his incompetence. He will blame the employees for the benefits offered and provided by prior administrations. He will blame the unions for refusing to drink his Kool-Aid; and accepting the unreasonable reductions and elimination of wages and benefits without proper meet and confer; and honest and fair negotiations. He will fail to accept responsibility for his failures and acknowledge his culpability for the current deficit amount.

The mayor will continue to dig a deeper hole for the next three years until he falls off his high horse and either knocks some sense into his thick head or he is rendered unfit or unable to perform and someone with the testicular fortitude to do what is necessary and seek sustained and significant revenue increases takes over. His mantra of blame has grown old and accomplishes nothing. It is time to move over mayor and let someone who is willing to embrace reality and stop playing a game of politics and do the job necessary to right this sinking ship.

Pathetic Excuse mayor

Many of you may have heard the mayor was noticeably absent at the May 6, 2009, San Diego County, Police Officer Memorial. This year's memorial was also a dedication of the new memorial located at the County Building on Pacific Coast Highway. When the mayor failed to attend the memorial, the SDPOA first called the mayor's office to seek an explanation for his absence. It is believed the mayor, prior police officer and chief of the San Diego Police Department, should have been in attendance to show reverence to those who have given their lives serving the citizens of San Diego. Darren Pudgil, the mayor's press secretary said the mayor was fulfilling a prior commitment and was "giving an important speech at San Diego State University." Giving the benefit of doubt for a minute, who the hell is keeping the mayor's calendar that he would be scheduled for a speech on this date? The mayor knows when the Police Memorial is held EVERY YEAR and if it is not on his calendar he a clearly not doing his job nor paying attention.

The SDPOA accepted the explanation (I prefer to call it an EXCUSE) and while angered and disappointed, the SDPOA moved on. Then several months later it came to light the mayor was actually at the Yacht Club talking to the "SAE alumni association" which is comprised of mostly SDSU alumni; NOT giving an "important speech at San Diego State University." When this information came to light the SDPOA sent a letter to the mayor seeking an explanation. On July 15, 2009, SDPOA President Brian Marvel wrote to the mayor. Brian stated the purpose of the letter was to express the membership's disappointment with the mayor's decision to skip the San Diego Law Enforcement Memorial on May 6, 2009, so he could attend a gathering at the San Diego Yacht Club.

Brian outlined the conversation with Pudgil and the made the following comment; "Although, we would have considered the Memorial a much more important event, we understood that a speaking commitment to the Student Body at SDSU was also important." Brian, being politically correct and giving the benefit of doubt on May 6^th to the mayor is now calling bullshit. The next line of the letter to the mayor is very pointed and direct; "However, as we now know, that was not true." Brian goes on; "Mr. Pudgil purposely misled us because a luncheon commitment at the Yacht Club might not be viewed as important." So much for a mayor's office that is transparent, honest and forthright. Transparent in that it is clear the mayor does not give a damn about the police officers who serve this city. Transparent in that the mayor and his staff will lie, deceive and spin the facts at will to accomplish whatever it is they see fit to do.

Where this gets even more telling is the fact the mayor left the luncheon early enough to have attended the Memorial and still chose not to. Brian writes; "Moreover, we are given to understand you left the yacht club luncheon early and could have attended the Memorial." Brian is very clear as he addresses in a professional and yet stern manner what has been learned; for the membership who has grown weary of the treatment at the hands of this mayor. Brian closes with the following two paragraphs;

"As our mayor, and former police chief, we would expect a much greater reverence from you to the thirty (30) San Diego police officers who have died protecting the citizens of San Diego. Twelve (12) of those officers died during your tenure with the San Diego Police Department. The names of those thirty (30) officers are now etched on the Law Enforcement Memorial Wall that was unveiled during this ceremony."

"As an Association that represents over 1,800 San Diego Police Officers, we are saddened and disappointed by your decision not to attend and recognize those officers that made the ultimate sacrifice to this city. In addition, as a POA Board, we find the conduct of your press secretary reprehensible; considering he is supposed to be working for an administration that purports to be transparent and ethical."

The mayor willingly and intentionally disrespected EVERY POLICE OFFICER of the San Diego Police Department by his actions on May 6, 2009. He followed this disrespect up with dishonesty, deceit and a blatant disregard for those who gave the ultimate price in their service to the citizens of San Diego. The pattern of this conduct started BEFORE ONE SINGLE VOTE WAS CAST for his first election to the mayor's office. The mayor waltzes into the SDPOA Hall for a forum of candidates for mayor and starts his presentation with; "I did not come here seek your endorsement, I do not want it." He spends the rest of his time telling everyone in attendance what he plans for the future. He ends his presentation with accusations that one of the individuals present leaked to the press his personnel package containing his discipline while he was a police officer. To refresh those who may not know; the mayor was a heavy drinker and after a drinking binge, headed off in his car; leading CHP on a pursuit ending at the check-point on Interstate 5 and him receiving a few days on the beach for his actions. A member of the press, who was following the campaign, did his due diligence (someone explain this term to the mayor) and reviewed the law suits the mayor filed to get promoted (NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE) and located this information. The mayor, in his usual style accused a member of the Association for leaking the files with no basis in fact or knowledge of how or who obtained the information.

This was a clear sign of things to come. What is telling of late, is that the mayor, at virtually every event, will make a back handed comment about police officers, the police officer's association or department and his not being welcome and not feeling comfortable or welcome among police officers. He makes jokes about this and plays it as if we are the ones who are wrong, bad, hostile, arrogant, caustic, and failing to understand what he is doing is necessary and proper and needed to meet his goals. He lays blame at the feet of the association, the members and the department for the city's failure to balance its budget and the perceived excessive benefits earned by workers. He continues to perpetuate the blatant lies and misrepresentations of the benefits and wages received by police officers in this city. He continues to spin crime statistics and the level of protection available to this city.

His off handed quips at the police officers expense is born from his lack of integrity; his total lack honesty; his many ethical lapses; his complete disregard for the truth and the treatment of officers during negotiations. He knows his actions, words and deeds are wrong and he is unable to justify them to even those who once called him "friend." He cannot look a single police officer in the face and justify his actions or words. He cannot stand in the presence of those who wear the badge that symbolizes honesty, integrity, respect and honor because he lacks these characteristics and as the saying goes; "The emperor has no clothes" which could not be more accurate as it relates to the mayor of San Diego. The mayor's avoidance of events where police officers are present is of his making and it is a result of his lies, deceit and lack of honor, integrity and respect. These are his doings and his reward for being who and what he is.

The mayor responded on September 10, 2009, to Brian Marvel's letter (sent on July 15, 2009). Nothing like a timely response from the mayor. The mayor simply said he committed several weeks prior to receiving his invitation to the Memorial to speak to the SAE alumni association and "would have certainly appreciated the opportunity" to attend the Memorial but "Unfortunately, this prior obligation prevented me from attending this year." Again, it is about priorities and the mayor's complete lack of respect for the men and women who provide law enforcement protection to the citizens of San Diego. Why ANYONE would make excuses or attempt to explain the actions of the mayor is beyond me. To even attempt to justify or explain an action from this politician is pathetic and laughable. His excuses for actions are pathetic and laughable if they were not creating such a serious and potential deadly consequence.

Home Again, Home Again; Jiggidy Jog

After a week in the Sierra's and another week in Hawaii, I am back home and trying to get my head around going back to work next Monday. The time in the eastern Sierra's was extremely relaxing and a great start in my desire to decompress from the stresses of life. The week in the mountains was followed by a week on the North Shore of Oahu, celebrating 30 years of marriage. I have always resisted going to Hawaii, using the argument; I live in San Diego and if I want to go to the beach I can head off to La Jolla, Del Mar, Encinitas or any of the other local sandy stretches of sand along the California coast. How wrong could one be?

I made a promise to my wife the computer would be left at home and I turned my Blackberry off. I forwarded my cell phone to her cell phone just in case. I was never so relaxed in my life. I had completely forgotten what it was like to relax, not worry about work, politics or the game of life. I read a couple of books, enjoyed taking naps, exploring the island, watching the sunset, snorkeling and basically reintroducing myself to my wife of 30 years. Our entire trip was worry free, stress free and extremely relaxing.

I'm back and after checking my e-mail I have some very good material for my next few BLOG posts. Tonight I am off to watch the Padres force the Dodgers to wait another day before they can say they are Western Division Champs. Hope to watch Heath strike out the side again tonight to close his 42^nd game. Tomorrow I have some reading to do to catch up on the goings on in San Diego (I did see the hiring freeze) and what the mayor has been up to while I was relaxing on the sand in Hawaii. I am going to rant about a past snubbing at the hands of the mayor that people need to know about. Then I have some ideas for the future.

So, until tomorrow; I'm back and ready to rant but need one more day to put the letters of the alphabet in the proper "qwerty" alignment within my brain. Hope all is well with all of you and check back tomorrow for my first true post of many to come.