So if a crime is committed in close proximity to the location identified in the title above, which law enforcement agency would bear the responsibility for the investigation?
In law enforcement circles, territorial turf wars are commonplace. Protecting one's turf is often about ego, pride, and maybe even a sense of responsibility. Folklore has officers from one jurisdiction squaring off to fight officers of another jurisdiction over whose responsibility a particular investigation may fall to. Many of these stories center around an officer or jurisdiction not wanting to take on an investigation, in an area they believe is the responsibility of the other. Seldom if ever do you hear of an officer or agency squaring off to fight to take on an investigation, when that investigation involves a crime committed in the other agencies community.
On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Chelsea King headed off in the early afternoon for a run. Chelsea, a student at Poway High school, lived with her parents in the city of Poway. When Chelsea failed to return from her run, her parents frantically began searching for her. Chelsea's car and cell phone were found near latitude 33.051047 and longitude -117.076578, also known as the Rancho Bernardo Community Park, which is located west of Interstate 15 and South of Lake Hodges. The Rancho Bernardo Community Park and the walking trails West of Interstate 15 along the southern edges of Lake Hodges, are all part of the City of San Diego and policed by officers from the Northeastern Division of the San Diego Police Department.
The tragedy and circumstances surrounding this despicable act, perpetrated by a registered sex offender, were quickly identified by members of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. It appears the initial missing persons report was received and documented by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. As law enforcement descended upon the Rancho Bernardo Community Park to begin their search for Chelsea and the investigation into the circumstances surrounding her disappearance, something out of the norm occurred. Rumors quickly began to spread as word leaked out that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department was in charge and leading the investigation. Whispers in cubicles and hallways within the San Diego Police Department questioned what was going on.
As the events unfolded Friday and into Saturday, information being provided to the press was coming from the Sheriff. The San Diego Police Department appeared to be taking a backseat, in the investigation of an extremely heinous crime, that appeared to have occurred in the city of San Diego; their jurisdiction. Those quiet whispers turned loud as frustrated, embarrassed, and bewildered veteran officers, detectives and supervisors began to question their role and responsibility for a crime that appeared to have been committed in their jurisdiction.
With the arrest on Sunday afternoon of a suspect, the desire to locate Chelsea became even stronger. Little if any information was being released that would give any indication as to the direction the investigation was headed. By Monday, the coffee chatter had nothing but praise for the quick apprehension of a suspect by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. This same chatter began to question the lack of participation and involvement of the San Diego Police Department.
On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, Chelsea's body was discovered in a shallow grave feet from the water's edge of Lake Hodges. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department had clearly risen to the occasion and shown their professionalism, experience, and expertise as they methodically and tirelessly investigated this heinous crime. The Sheriff spared no expense and used every available resource to give his deputies and detectives the ability to apprehend the suspect and bring Chelsea home.
A number of questions have arisen regarding the San Diego Police Department's lack of involvement in this case. These questions are not coming from members of the department alone. Was this lack of involvement the result of a dollars and cents decision? Did the Sheriff assert his authority as the lead law-enforcement officer in the county and accept responsibility for the investigation based on his knowledge of the resources available from within the San Diego Police Department? Why did the San Diego Police Department take a backseat in an investigation of a crime perpetrated within their jurisdiction? Was there, at the time, a belief that the San Diego Police Department is no longer capable of handling a case of such magnitude? These and many other questions beg for answers.
It is curious that through all of this, the mayor was not available to offer reassurances to the citizens, nor to offer explanation for the reason the sheriff of the county took control of an investigation within the city. The noticeable absence of the mayor and ranking members of the San Diego Police Department, as well as little or no mention of the involvement of the San Diego Police Department at the various press conferences and updates, have not gone unnoticed.
San Diego should be proud of the Sheriff's Department for their professionalism, dedication, determination, expertise and willingness to do whatever necessary to bring Chelsea home and apprehend the individual responsible for this despicable crime. Citizens in San Diego should at the same time demand answers to the questions being posed above. They should also question the ability of law enforcement to provide for their safety.
Keep Chelsea and her family in your thoughts and prayers as well as Amber Dubois and her family.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Pigs Flying in San Diego
Just to clarify the title of today's post; the pig was wearing lipstick and I saw it fly by my window at Headquarters around 1415 hours headed south west. I know some of you are thinking that maybe it's the oxycodone talking and right now it could be, but around two o'clock today my phone went off and I started reading a string of tweets from Twitter. The first in the string came from Lani Lutar of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association who said she was "at City Hall listening to pension presentation by actuary together with April Boling and Bill Sheffler." The next message posted by Ms. Lutar said, "This is huge. RT @dillonliam: goldsmith: employees could be on the hook for investment losses http://bit.ly/d8AOuP ." I quickly followed the link that Ms. Lutar provided in her tweet and it led me to the Voice of San Diego and an article written by Dillon Liam, that had city attorney, Jan Goldsmith, wondering if city employees should share some of the investment risk with taxpayers in the employees pension system.
After quickly reading Liam's article, I responded to Ms. Lutar's tweet by saying, "I saw a pig fly by my window this afternoon and thought I was seeing things. It had lipstick on too. Get real." My tweet went to Ms. Lutar and Dillon Liam to which Liam responded, "talk to Mr. Goldsmith and watch the meeting going on now." The meeting Liam was referring to was a City Council meeting where the city attorney was again providing one of his famous or infamous legal opinions, regarding the charter's requirement that the city and its employees contribute a "substantially equal" amount of certain pension costs. I quickly replied to Liam's tweet, "no need to Liam... the law does not support his Alice in Wonderland ideas. Do your own research for heaven's sake."
One of the major difficulties facing the City of San Diego besides incompetence, ignorance, lack of institutional knowledge, the inability or refusal to investigate and understand the history behind past actions, is the fact voters in this town seem to elect complete dolts. I wonder how many of the elected officials in this town have aluminum foil covering their windows. I find it absolutely pathetic that a person in the position Jan Goldsmith holds, would sit on the dais at a city Council meeting, in the eighth largest city in America, and make such statements. (The attorney representing SDCERS disagrees with this analisis and opinion)
If this was not such a serious issue, it would be comical from the perspective that you have two, purportedly intelligent, college-educated, legal professionals, reviewing the same language from a section in the charter and yet their "legal opinions" are so diametrically opposed it is hard to believe they are offering an opinion on the same topic. Why? Politics or ignorance? Incompetence? I did try to get a better look at that pig this afternoon, I wanted to know if it was male or female, but it turned and flew away so fast I missed it.
I'm sure there's going to be more on this issue in the very near future and I can't wait to see how many jump on the bandwagon before the wheels fall off. So far we've got Liam at the Voice of San Diego; Ms. Lutar and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association; the little rube no doubt has his dancing shoes on and party favors bouncing off the ceiling at home; and don't dismiss the mayor, who is no doubt sitting in his office with his feet on the desk, and that supercilious look he always wears, thrusting his fist in the air saying "You go Jan."
Time to apply ice to my hand and take another mind altering drug and drift off to sleep. Oh what will San Diego and our elected band of fools bring us tomorrow?
After quickly reading Liam's article, I responded to Ms. Lutar's tweet by saying, "I saw a pig fly by my window this afternoon and thought I was seeing things. It had lipstick on too. Get real." My tweet went to Ms. Lutar and Dillon Liam to which Liam responded, "talk to Mr. Goldsmith and watch the meeting going on now." The meeting Liam was referring to was a City Council meeting where the city attorney was again providing one of his famous or infamous legal opinions, regarding the charter's requirement that the city and its employees contribute a "substantially equal" amount of certain pension costs. I quickly replied to Liam's tweet, "no need to Liam... the law does not support his Alice in Wonderland ideas. Do your own research for heaven's sake."
One of the major difficulties facing the City of San Diego besides incompetence, ignorance, lack of institutional knowledge, the inability or refusal to investigate and understand the history behind past actions, is the fact voters in this town seem to elect complete dolts. I wonder how many of the elected officials in this town have aluminum foil covering their windows. I find it absolutely pathetic that a person in the position Jan Goldsmith holds, would sit on the dais at a city Council meeting, in the eighth largest city in America, and make such statements. (The attorney representing SDCERS disagrees with this analisis and opinion)
If this was not such a serious issue, it would be comical from the perspective that you have two, purportedly intelligent, college-educated, legal professionals, reviewing the same language from a section in the charter and yet their "legal opinions" are so diametrically opposed it is hard to believe they are offering an opinion on the same topic. Why? Politics or ignorance? Incompetence? I did try to get a better look at that pig this afternoon, I wanted to know if it was male or female, but it turned and flew away so fast I missed it.
I'm sure there's going to be more on this issue in the very near future and I can't wait to see how many jump on the bandwagon before the wheels fall off. So far we've got Liam at the Voice of San Diego; Ms. Lutar and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association; the little rube no doubt has his dancing shoes on and party favors bouncing off the ceiling at home; and don't dismiss the mayor, who is no doubt sitting in his office with his feet on the desk, and that supercilious look he always wears, thrusting his fist in the air saying "You go Jan."
Time to apply ice to my hand and take another mind altering drug and drift off to sleep. Oh what will San Diego and our elected band of fools bring us tomorrow?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Another Budget Deficit
I've had a lot of time to sit and read since I had my finger operated on last Wednesday. Let me apologize early on for any typos or grammar errors that may be left behind when I hit the publish button. A combination of oxycodone and my use of Dragon Naturally Speaking, could be a recipe for disaster, but I am going to give it a try. I spent a lot of time reading the Voice of San Diego, San Diego News Network, SignOnSanDiego, the Reason Magazine, as well as cruising the little rube's website, "Cleanup San Diego."
I'm not sure what's going on at the Voice of San Diego. Over the past several months, their writing and investigative reporting has not been up to what it used to be. Their new fact check blog section at times glosses over the real issues. It's almost as if those that are caught fabricating, twisting, or exaggerating facts are being given a free pass. This is what's wrong with the relationship media has with politicians, in my humble opinion. It's almost as if the Voice of San Diego is starting to buy into the rhetoric.
I sat shaking my head the other day as I read where the city of San Diego is now facing an additional $30 million deficit and people were somehow surprised. I've said from the beginning, the massive cuts the mayor has undertaken will do little to cure the budget problems the city is facing. Until the politicians in this city accept the fact they must create new revenue streams; they can continue to cut until there are no services being provided by government and they will still face sizable deficits year in and year out. The shortsighted cuts the mayor has undertaken by eliminating jobs and services, have in reality, created part of the additional deficit recently realized. The only way for the mayor to reduce the retirement deficit, is to increase contributions and reduce benefits . The mayor has reduced the retirement benefits. The problem is, he has also eliminated the addition of new members into the system which has reduced the income, requiring a larger payment from the city. The mayor's solutions have been shortsighted and in the long run will prove to be costly.
I can guarantee when all is said and done, the new deficit will be much greater than $30 million. In the coming weeks this number will grow to $60 million or more and the mayor will blame the state, the economy and the president. It will not be anything he did, even though he's been the mayor now for the better part of six years. This Mayor will saunter along and at the end of his glorious tenure in 2012, he will blame past administrations and everyone else for the failures of his administration. The Mayor is going to take credit for the recent outsourcing of some of the computer services in the city of San Diego. Let us not forget the company offering the lowest bid was not selected and when calling for after hours assistance, you are speaking with someone in India. But the Mayor outsourced a city service and he is going to take the credit.
The little rube is at it again with his; City Employee Compensation Analysis, dated March 3, 2010. The little rube uses this report to show the true cost analysis for city positions. As only the little rube can do, he spins, exaggerates, and flat out lies about the true cost associated with various positions within the city of San Diego. On page 8 of the little rube's compensation analysis, the little rube lists the salary cost of a Police Officer II. The rube is a master at using numbers to argue or make a point. In this instance, the rube includes a variety of costs in an attempt to poison the taxpayer. His way of making the numbers appear legitimate, the little rube pulls the numbers from various reports generated by the City, SDCERS, and others. As an example of the spin tactics employed by the little rube he indicates the city will spend 38.11% or $26,533 toward a Police Officer II's compensation. The real number is less than half this amount and the little rube knows it. In his compensation analysis the little rube adds such items as Medicare payments, disability insurance, risk management administration, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation insurance premium payments, and "other post employment benefits" as part of the employees compensation. These costs are in no way part of employees compensation. While they may very well be costs associated with an employee, they are not part of his or her compensation package. This is just another way for the little Rube to poison the well so to speak and give taxpayers a false indication of the realities of what employees receive for the services they provide. We all deserve better.
It's time to take the headphones and microphone off and put some ice on my hand and call it a night. Have a great week ahead and be safe.
I'm not sure what's going on at the Voice of San Diego. Over the past several months, their writing and investigative reporting has not been up to what it used to be. Their new fact check blog section at times glosses over the real issues. It's almost as if those that are caught fabricating, twisting, or exaggerating facts are being given a free pass. This is what's wrong with the relationship media has with politicians, in my humble opinion. It's almost as if the Voice of San Diego is starting to buy into the rhetoric.
I sat shaking my head the other day as I read where the city of San Diego is now facing an additional $30 million deficit and people were somehow surprised. I've said from the beginning, the massive cuts the mayor has undertaken will do little to cure the budget problems the city is facing. Until the politicians in this city accept the fact they must create new revenue streams; they can continue to cut until there are no services being provided by government and they will still face sizable deficits year in and year out. The shortsighted cuts the mayor has undertaken by eliminating jobs and services, have in reality, created part of the additional deficit recently realized. The only way for the mayor to reduce the retirement deficit, is to increase contributions and reduce benefits . The mayor has reduced the retirement benefits. The problem is, he has also eliminated the addition of new members into the system which has reduced the income, requiring a larger payment from the city. The mayor's solutions have been shortsighted and in the long run will prove to be costly.
I can guarantee when all is said and done, the new deficit will be much greater than $30 million. In the coming weeks this number will grow to $60 million or more and the mayor will blame the state, the economy and the president. It will not be anything he did, even though he's been the mayor now for the better part of six years. This Mayor will saunter along and at the end of his glorious tenure in 2012, he will blame past administrations and everyone else for the failures of his administration. The Mayor is going to take credit for the recent outsourcing of some of the computer services in the city of San Diego. Let us not forget the company offering the lowest bid was not selected and when calling for after hours assistance, you are speaking with someone in India. But the Mayor outsourced a city service and he is going to take the credit.
The little rube is at it again with his; City Employee Compensation Analysis, dated March 3, 2010. The little rube uses this report to show the true cost analysis for city positions. As only the little rube can do, he spins, exaggerates, and flat out lies about the true cost associated with various positions within the city of San Diego. On page 8 of the little rube's compensation analysis, the little rube lists the salary cost of a Police Officer II. The rube is a master at using numbers to argue or make a point. In this instance, the rube includes a variety of costs in an attempt to poison the taxpayer. His way of making the numbers appear legitimate, the little rube pulls the numbers from various reports generated by the City, SDCERS, and others. As an example of the spin tactics employed by the little rube he indicates the city will spend 38.11% or $26,533 toward a Police Officer II's compensation. The real number is less than half this amount and the little rube knows it. In his compensation analysis the little rube adds such items as Medicare payments, disability insurance, risk management administration, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation insurance premium payments, and "other post employment benefits" as part of the employees compensation. These costs are in no way part of employees compensation. While they may very well be costs associated with an employee, they are not part of his or her compensation package. This is just another way for the little Rube to poison the well so to speak and give taxpayers a false indication of the realities of what employees receive for the services they provide. We all deserve better.
It's time to take the headphones and microphone off and put some ice on my hand and call it a night. Have a great week ahead and be safe.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
I'm Back from the Break
I took a little break in hopes of losing some of the caustic thoughts swimming in my head over the past several weeks. I have tried several times to put some thoughts to words and had trouble over and over writing these thoughts and keeping them clean enough for posting and at the same time trying to keep to my promise to maintain a BLOG that anyone could read. When I started writing almost a year ago now the best feedback I received was the steer clear of the caustic, vulgar, offensive language and keep the personal attacks on the shelf.
Watching the actions of various so called leaders in this city has made keeping these promises very difficult. Seeing good people suffer while being forced out of jobs they love and then being completely eviscerated when told of the job they can "bump" into (golf starter, storm drain cleaner, lawnmower driver, janitor, water police, to name just a few) at a fraction of the pay, is frustrating and painful. Some, who do not understand the personal impact and tragedy of these circumstances, think their words of "Hey, at least you have a job" is in some way consoling and supportive. They are not!!!
These are people who have given their heart and soul to the citizens of San Diego and performed professional jobs that did more than support their sworn co-workers. Some are months from reaching the age for retirement and do not have the ability to "bump" into other positions. The jobs they performed for us and the citizens still must be done. The jobs, tasks, and responsibilities were not eliminated but shifted to sworn members of the department. The non-sworn, support professional was sent packing to save money and help close a budget deficit. To ensure these jobs, tasks and responsibilities are done, sworn officers were pulled from the field to fill these many positions.
An already dismally understaffed patrol force again feels the effects of losing more officers. There are those who will say that isn't so. There are officers from canine, the harbor unit, and horse patrol who have gone back to patrol because their positions were also cut. Yes, this is true. But let us not forget these officer WERE ALL part of what patrol does on a daily basis. Their positions being eliminated saved less than many of us paid in taxes this year. Who is kidding who here?
April Boling talked about the civic problems that concerned her most in a recent interview with the Voice of San Diego. In the interview, Boling made the following statement and observation; "As municipalities cut back services, criminal investigation and and crime prevention are affected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that a reduction in reported crime equates to a reduction in crime." This is something many of us have been saying for a while now. Is anyone listening and more importantly does anyone care?
The mayor is playing duck and cover as the details of the so called "savings" from outsourcing the computer help desk duties for the City is being made public. In a Union Tribune article, it was disclosed that the company who was awarded the contract was not the lowest bidder and did not disclose the night time help would be provided from India. As pressure builds to keep the jobs in the United States, the company says to do so will cost an ADDITIONAL $80,000. So much for saving the taxpayers money. I can guarantee this is not the last we will hear about this issue. This is the first example of what is to come as more jobs are outsourced.
Did you hear the little rube was cited for talking on his cell phone while driving? It was reported in the Union Tribune the rube rolled a stop sign while talking on his cellular telephone and was stopped. The officer issued a "warning" for the stop sign violation and cited the rube for talking on the phone. This is an example of why the legislature found it important to create this law. Inattentive drivers, self absorbed in their world, talking on the telephone, not paying attention to their driving. What would have happened had a young child, running after a ball had run into the path of the rube's car? Would he have been able to stop or take evasive action? The answer is NO; not at all. His attention was not on driving, the world around him or the safety of others.
Brian Marvel, SDPOA President spoke this morning at the monthly Sergeant's Association meeting. He discussed the promotions process; negotiations; and the status of the POA. There is a lot going on and we are greatly disadvantaged by not having our President working full time on our behalf. The elimination of the "Presidential Leave" is just another example of the mayor doing everything within his power to hamper, hinder and eliminate employee advocates ability to advocate for the member. Brian has not been deterred and is working hard on behalf of the member.
Charles Kindred posted a quote from General H. Norman Schwarzkopf on his Facebook the other day. The quote went something like this; "You can't help someone get up a hill without getting closer to the top yourself." I enjoyed a spirited exchange with this one. What do you think of this quote?
Well, it is time to close this rant and say good night. Be safe and have a good weekend.
Watching the actions of various so called leaders in this city has made keeping these promises very difficult. Seeing good people suffer while being forced out of jobs they love and then being completely eviscerated when told of the job they can "bump" into (golf starter, storm drain cleaner, lawnmower driver, janitor, water police, to name just a few) at a fraction of the pay, is frustrating and painful. Some, who do not understand the personal impact and tragedy of these circumstances, think their words of "Hey, at least you have a job" is in some way consoling and supportive. They are not!!!
These are people who have given their heart and soul to the citizens of San Diego and performed professional jobs that did more than support their sworn co-workers. Some are months from reaching the age for retirement and do not have the ability to "bump" into other positions. The jobs they performed for us and the citizens still must be done. The jobs, tasks, and responsibilities were not eliminated but shifted to sworn members of the department. The non-sworn, support professional was sent packing to save money and help close a budget deficit. To ensure these jobs, tasks and responsibilities are done, sworn officers were pulled from the field to fill these many positions.
An already dismally understaffed patrol force again feels the effects of losing more officers. There are those who will say that isn't so. There are officers from canine, the harbor unit, and horse patrol who have gone back to patrol because their positions were also cut. Yes, this is true. But let us not forget these officer WERE ALL part of what patrol does on a daily basis. Their positions being eliminated saved less than many of us paid in taxes this year. Who is kidding who here?
April Boling talked about the civic problems that concerned her most in a recent interview with the Voice of San Diego. In the interview, Boling made the following statement and observation; "As municipalities cut back services, criminal investigation and and crime prevention are affected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that a reduction in reported crime equates to a reduction in crime." This is something many of us have been saying for a while now. Is anyone listening and more importantly does anyone care?
The mayor is playing duck and cover as the details of the so called "savings" from outsourcing the computer help desk duties for the City is being made public. In a Union Tribune article, it was disclosed that the company who was awarded the contract was not the lowest bidder and did not disclose the night time help would be provided from India. As pressure builds to keep the jobs in the United States, the company says to do so will cost an ADDITIONAL $80,000. So much for saving the taxpayers money. I can guarantee this is not the last we will hear about this issue. This is the first example of what is to come as more jobs are outsourced.
Did you hear the little rube was cited for talking on his cell phone while driving? It was reported in the Union Tribune the rube rolled a stop sign while talking on his cellular telephone and was stopped. The officer issued a "warning" for the stop sign violation and cited the rube for talking on the phone. This is an example of why the legislature found it important to create this law. Inattentive drivers, self absorbed in their world, talking on the telephone, not paying attention to their driving. What would have happened had a young child, running after a ball had run into the path of the rube's car? Would he have been able to stop or take evasive action? The answer is NO; not at all. His attention was not on driving, the world around him or the safety of others.
Brian Marvel, SDPOA President spoke this morning at the monthly Sergeant's Association meeting. He discussed the promotions process; negotiations; and the status of the POA. There is a lot going on and we are greatly disadvantaged by not having our President working full time on our behalf. The elimination of the "Presidential Leave" is just another example of the mayor doing everything within his power to hamper, hinder and eliminate employee advocates ability to advocate for the member. Brian has not been deterred and is working hard on behalf of the member.
Charles Kindred posted a quote from General H. Norman Schwarzkopf on his Facebook the other day. The quote went something like this; "You can't help someone get up a hill without getting closer to the top yourself." I enjoyed a spirited exchange with this one. What do you think of this quote?
Well, it is time to close this rant and say good night. Be safe and have a good weekend.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Promotion Commotion
If you have not heard the clamor or uproar about the promotions list released today, you are either deaf or out of touch. The fermentation of those competing for the prized golden ring of promotion conjures up a whole list of feelings; agitation, annoyance, ballyhoo, bedlam, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, convulsion, disquiet, dither, excitement, uprising, rumpus, lather, furor, perturbation, hurly-burly. Yes, I took these descriptors from the dictionary and chose ones that most fit the goings on today around the Department. The final scores are out and now the fun starts for those hoping against all hope of grabbing hold of that prized “gold plated ring.” The categories are all set and the games begin for those who find themselves in the top categories. Candidates are creating lists, trying to determine who they are competing against all as the stomachs begin to growl and the teeth grind.
I am sitting on the sidelines this time, having gotten the message from my last experience and have to laugh, but at the same time cry for those in the center of this rumpus (I love this word). It is painful to watch those who have worked so hard to do their job, prove themselves and put themselves into a position to be considered for promotion, only to realize being number one or two or three or even seven on the list really means nothing. They studied for weeks on end in hopes they would miss the fewest questions on the written test. They waited for the results and when they realized they were “in the running” they paid for seminars to prepare for the oral interview in hopes of improving their position. They then practiced their delivery and participated in mock interviews and sought guidance and advice from those in positions of authority and leadership on how best to interview and project their abilities to win over the interview panels.
The promotion list for Sergeant and Lieutenant candidates are set and those in contention know where they stand on the list. Candidates are crunching numbers, hoping they are high enough to be “Certified” when that time comes for promotion. The requirements developed by Civil Service and City Personnel for candidates have been completed and by all rights that should be the end. The decision should be made from the list of certified candidates using the background information provided during the process; each candidate providing equal data during a specific time period and verified by personnel. The Command Staff of Captains and Chiefs should then meet to discuss the candidates using ONLY this information and selections then made. But, that is not how it is done and the candidates are not finished with the process.
The next step in the “process” is what has contributed to the agitation, annoyance, ballyhoo, bedlam, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, convulsion, disquiet, dither, excitement, uprising, rumpus, lather, furor, perturbation, hurly-burly. Some refer to the process as “Kissing the ring of the Chiefs.” Some candidates get the opportunity to meet with all of the chiefs; others meet with several; and some with none at all. Candidates are asked various questions; seldom the same questions; some candidates spend ten minutes with a particular chief while another may spend an hour with the same chief; some candidates will provide a resume and others will not. There is no set guideline or definition for how or what will take place, nor is there a guarantee every candidate will be given the “opportunity” to participate. Up to this point, all candidates were on equal footing. That all goes out the window as this next step in the process begins. I am not going to debate the benefits or flaws in this venture but will say in my opinion this “informal” process is patently unfair and clearly not vetted by Civil Service or City Personnel to ensure all candidates are afforded the same opportunity and treatment. Maybe it’s just me but for an organization that demands its employees practice fairness and equal treatment in everything they do, it fails them by not providing fair and equal treatment in this promotional process.
The golden ring for promotion is a carrot dangled on a long pole attached to a short string. Dangled in front and slightly out of reach for most, the carrot is there to provide hope. That hope translates into desire and the desire translates into abuse. The number of hoops hung in the halls of substation after substation that candidates must jump through has become ridiculous. Those vying for the small number of promotions start out with the best of intentions as they work a few extra minutes on their own. They “volunteer” for this and that and take on tasks and responsibilities of others to show prowess and dedication. Candidates don’t see their actions as wrong or out of line and do not feel used. They have hope, desire and a willingness to do “whatever” they are told so they can stand out and rise above their competitor. They jump through hoop after hoop in hopes of standing out. They grab for that carrot and hope, all while doing whatever is asked and never complaining or refusing for fear of being passed over.
The climate created around promotions has grown to something hard to describe in a way that makes any sense. Watching good people struggle daily to focus on their responsibilities because of the internal strife the process has created is troubling. Who will put a stop to the madness? At a time when we all need to trust one another and pay attention to detail; we find our most talented, distracted by a process they have no control over. The rumors are beginning as to who is where on what list and who is best placed to get promoted first. Human nature allows those involved in the process to be nervously irresolute, taking away from their ability to excel and perform to their potential. Can anyone say counter-productive? It is the process, official or not, but at some point we all need to re-focus and ignore the brouhaha created by the puppet masters and do our job.
Good luck to all the candidates who put themselves out there; studied for the written test and put forth your best in the oral interview.
I am sitting on the sidelines this time, having gotten the message from my last experience and have to laugh, but at the same time cry for those in the center of this rumpus (I love this word). It is painful to watch those who have worked so hard to do their job, prove themselves and put themselves into a position to be considered for promotion, only to realize being number one or two or three or even seven on the list really means nothing. They studied for weeks on end in hopes they would miss the fewest questions on the written test. They waited for the results and when they realized they were “in the running” they paid for seminars to prepare for the oral interview in hopes of improving their position. They then practiced their delivery and participated in mock interviews and sought guidance and advice from those in positions of authority and leadership on how best to interview and project their abilities to win over the interview panels.
The promotion list for Sergeant and Lieutenant candidates are set and those in contention know where they stand on the list. Candidates are crunching numbers, hoping they are high enough to be “Certified” when that time comes for promotion. The requirements developed by Civil Service and City Personnel for candidates have been completed and by all rights that should be the end. The decision should be made from the list of certified candidates using the background information provided during the process; each candidate providing equal data during a specific time period and verified by personnel. The Command Staff of Captains and Chiefs should then meet to discuss the candidates using ONLY this information and selections then made. But, that is not how it is done and the candidates are not finished with the process.
The next step in the “process” is what has contributed to the agitation, annoyance, ballyhoo, bedlam, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, convulsion, disquiet, dither, excitement, uprising, rumpus, lather, furor, perturbation, hurly-burly. Some refer to the process as “Kissing the ring of the Chiefs.” Some candidates get the opportunity to meet with all of the chiefs; others meet with several; and some with none at all. Candidates are asked various questions; seldom the same questions; some candidates spend ten minutes with a particular chief while another may spend an hour with the same chief; some candidates will provide a resume and others will not. There is no set guideline or definition for how or what will take place, nor is there a guarantee every candidate will be given the “opportunity” to participate. Up to this point, all candidates were on equal footing. That all goes out the window as this next step in the process begins. I am not going to debate the benefits or flaws in this venture but will say in my opinion this “informal” process is patently unfair and clearly not vetted by Civil Service or City Personnel to ensure all candidates are afforded the same opportunity and treatment. Maybe it’s just me but for an organization that demands its employees practice fairness and equal treatment in everything they do, it fails them by not providing fair and equal treatment in this promotional process.
The golden ring for promotion is a carrot dangled on a long pole attached to a short string. Dangled in front and slightly out of reach for most, the carrot is there to provide hope. That hope translates into desire and the desire translates into abuse. The number of hoops hung in the halls of substation after substation that candidates must jump through has become ridiculous. Those vying for the small number of promotions start out with the best of intentions as they work a few extra minutes on their own. They “volunteer” for this and that and take on tasks and responsibilities of others to show prowess and dedication. Candidates don’t see their actions as wrong or out of line and do not feel used. They have hope, desire and a willingness to do “whatever” they are told so they can stand out and rise above their competitor. They jump through hoop after hoop in hopes of standing out. They grab for that carrot and hope, all while doing whatever is asked and never complaining or refusing for fear of being passed over.
The climate created around promotions has grown to something hard to describe in a way that makes any sense. Watching good people struggle daily to focus on their responsibilities because of the internal strife the process has created is troubling. Who will put a stop to the madness? At a time when we all need to trust one another and pay attention to detail; we find our most talented, distracted by a process they have no control over. The rumors are beginning as to who is where on what list and who is best placed to get promoted first. Human nature allows those involved in the process to be nervously irresolute, taking away from their ability to excel and perform to their potential. Can anyone say counter-productive? It is the process, official or not, but at some point we all need to re-focus and ignore the brouhaha created by the puppet masters and do our job.
Good luck to all the candidates who put themselves out there; studied for the written test and put forth your best in the oral interview.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Give the Mayor a Raise
Here we go again. The City’s Salary Setting Commission has again recommended pay raises for the mayor and City Council. This year the commission is not just recommending a pay raise, they are recommending a HUGE PAY RAISE. The recommendation for the mayor translates to a $135,536 raise from $100,464 to a whopping $235,000. The City Council would be equally rewarded for their hard work and diligence (in theory folks) with a raise of just less than $100,000 to add to their $75,386 salary.
Now before you all start screaming what a croc of poo this is, I need to admit I actually agree with the premise of raising the salary of our elected leaders. Let us take the persons who occupy the current elected positions out of the discussion and focus on the positions. The old adage, “You get what you pay for” could not be more clear and obvious until you look at the current group of elected persons running this city.
Why would anyone with a brain, experience, and ability to make a difference, leave a good paying private sector job to run for election, for a job that pays less than a tenured police officer? Add to this the hours one would devote to the position, the wear and tear and miles on one’s personal vehicle, and the out of pocket cost for medical insurance. Why would a normal person seek this job unless it were simply for ego, power or some other narcissistic need?
We expect and demand (those of us who pay attention and care) that our mayor be an honest, experienced, educated and dedicated person who understands finance, budget, personnel, politics and has an above average ability to communicate honesty with us taxpayers. When we pay $100,464 to that person, you need look no further than the current person occupying the mayor’s office to understand the need to elevate the pay to attract a higher quality individual.
The mayor has begun to sound off reasons for refusing the recommendations of the commission. He is taking the political high road in his refusal to accept the increases. The council will no doubt follow suit and simply for political reasons. They would be crucified, if they for a millisecond, discussed accepting the recommendation. That is too bad.
The intelligent course of action would be to set a plan in motion to increase the salary for elected members in future years, so as not to affect the salary of the current elected members. The salary for the mayor should be increased incrementally as suggested beginning in 2012 when the next mayor takes office. The same would follow for city council positions, beginning with the city council positions up for election in 2012.
BEFORE any of this can occur, the mayor and council, need to correct the current structural problems with the city’s budget. To do this the mayor and council MUST increase revenue and begin to charge taxpayers the normal cost of services. Until the days of a free ride are put behind this city, nothing will change. The Chargers, Padres, Rock and Roll Marathon, Street Scene, Movie details and the many other special events that are subsidized by taxpayers, must pay the cost of the services necessary to hold their events. The Transient Occupancy Tax, which is the lowest of any major city, needs to be raised substantially and the revenue used to fund public safety and begin funding retiree medical.
The mayor and council must also begin paying their fair share of the retirement contribution necessary to fund their retirement. Their current contribution of 9.06% of the 39.59% required, must be brought in line with the premise of “Substantially Equal” and they must contribute 19.8% to receive their current benefit of 3.5% per year of elected service.
The mayor and council must also act to restore the positions eliminated from the police department as well as the wages and benefits of police officers. None of this will happen with the current mayor in the position of “strong mayor.” He does not have the ability to be honest nor is he capable of putting his inflated ego on the shelf and admitting he has been less than truthful from the beginning about DROP and the other benefits earned by police officers. He continues the politics by refusing to disclose the contents of a DROP study already conducted to determine cost neutrality and stonewalls providing information on the second study he is seeking in hopes of altering reality. I go back to the initial conversation I had with the mayor prior to him first being elected and his comment about DROP, “It’s political, I won’t get elected telling the truth about DROP.”
I’m headed to the eastern Sierra tomorrow to do some fishing. I hope to dodge a few rain drops, a little bit of snow and float down the Owens River trying to outdo last year’s catch. I’m going to do a bit of reading, some writing and relax. I have a couple of rants in my head and will find the time to put them to paper and post while I am gone. Be safe and take care of each other. Go Saints.
Now before you all start screaming what a croc of poo this is, I need to admit I actually agree with the premise of raising the salary of our elected leaders. Let us take the persons who occupy the current elected positions out of the discussion and focus on the positions. The old adage, “You get what you pay for” could not be more clear and obvious until you look at the current group of elected persons running this city.
Why would anyone with a brain, experience, and ability to make a difference, leave a good paying private sector job to run for election, for a job that pays less than a tenured police officer? Add to this the hours one would devote to the position, the wear and tear and miles on one’s personal vehicle, and the out of pocket cost for medical insurance. Why would a normal person seek this job unless it were simply for ego, power or some other narcissistic need?
We expect and demand (those of us who pay attention and care) that our mayor be an honest, experienced, educated and dedicated person who understands finance, budget, personnel, politics and has an above average ability to communicate honesty with us taxpayers. When we pay $100,464 to that person, you need look no further than the current person occupying the mayor’s office to understand the need to elevate the pay to attract a higher quality individual.
The mayor has begun to sound off reasons for refusing the recommendations of the commission. He is taking the political high road in his refusal to accept the increases. The council will no doubt follow suit and simply for political reasons. They would be crucified, if they for a millisecond, discussed accepting the recommendation. That is too bad.
The intelligent course of action would be to set a plan in motion to increase the salary for elected members in future years, so as not to affect the salary of the current elected members. The salary for the mayor should be increased incrementally as suggested beginning in 2012 when the next mayor takes office. The same would follow for city council positions, beginning with the city council positions up for election in 2012.
BEFORE any of this can occur, the mayor and council, need to correct the current structural problems with the city’s budget. To do this the mayor and council MUST increase revenue and begin to charge taxpayers the normal cost of services. Until the days of a free ride are put behind this city, nothing will change. The Chargers, Padres, Rock and Roll Marathon, Street Scene, Movie details and the many other special events that are subsidized by taxpayers, must pay the cost of the services necessary to hold their events. The Transient Occupancy Tax, which is the lowest of any major city, needs to be raised substantially and the revenue used to fund public safety and begin funding retiree medical.
The mayor and council must also begin paying their fair share of the retirement contribution necessary to fund their retirement. Their current contribution of 9.06% of the 39.59% required, must be brought in line with the premise of “Substantially Equal” and they must contribute 19.8% to receive their current benefit of 3.5% per year of elected service.
The mayor and council must also act to restore the positions eliminated from the police department as well as the wages and benefits of police officers. None of this will happen with the current mayor in the position of “strong mayor.” He does not have the ability to be honest nor is he capable of putting his inflated ego on the shelf and admitting he has been less than truthful from the beginning about DROP and the other benefits earned by police officers. He continues the politics by refusing to disclose the contents of a DROP study already conducted to determine cost neutrality and stonewalls providing information on the second study he is seeking in hopes of altering reality. I go back to the initial conversation I had with the mayor prior to him first being elected and his comment about DROP, “It’s political, I won’t get elected telling the truth about DROP.”
I’m headed to the eastern Sierra tomorrow to do some fishing. I hope to dodge a few rain drops, a little bit of snow and float down the Owens River trying to outdo last year’s catch. I’m going to do a bit of reading, some writing and relax. I have a couple of rants in my head and will find the time to put them to paper and post while I am gone. Be safe and take care of each other. Go Saints.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
You be the Judge - Is he a Hypocrite?
If there is anyone out there who currently works for the City of San Diego and still supports the mayor of this town, I want you to read closely what I have discovered over the past couple of evenings. If this does not change your thinking, I will assume you work in his office or live in his house.
The mayor took a deferred retirement from the police department when he left after 26 years of service. At age 50 he was eligible to begin drawing his pension of approximately $84,000. In 2005, when the mayor ran for election he said, “If elected mayor, I will remove any position of conflict by not re-entering the pension system. Additionally, I will donate back to the city the portion of my mayoral salary equivalent to my pension benefits to eliminate any double dipping.”
When first elected the mayor took a salary of $36,000 along with his $84,000 retirement benefit. His annual salary with the two combined payments totaled $112,000. When re-elected to a second term, the mayor secretly began taking his full salary of $100,464 annually and his retirement had grown to $92,400, for an annual salary of $192,864.
Remember the mayor said he was not going to re-enter the retirement system and told everyone he would not “double-dip.” Well, he either lied to everyone to get elected (say it's not so) or he plum forgot his promise and had someone sign him up to gain the benefit of his time as mayor.
Now here is the part that should piss off every taxpayer, employee, supporter or non-supporter of the mayor. According to SDCERS actuary Cheiron, in their June 30, 2009, Actuarial Valuation, in Section IV, Contributions, on page 21 of their January, 8, 2010, report, it indicates the “Total Normal Cost Rate for Current Members” (Contribution rate for Elected Members) is 39.59% with the City paying 30.53% and the elected member paying 9.06%. Let’s compare safety’s contribution of 29.26% for police and 29.36% for fire with the City paying 16.04% of police and 15.96% for fire while the employee pays 13.22% for police and 13.40% for fire. The contribution for the General worker is 19.90% with the City paying 9.12% and the employee paying 10.78%. Remember, the mayor reneged on years old promises of the city picking up portions of these contributions in lieu of pay raises (which saved the city money) and forced employees to make these payments (as well as reducing wages and flexible benefit dollars). There has been NO CHANGE to the contributions of elected officials and they still receive additional dollars for their flexible benefits..
Elected officials earn 3.5% per year of elected service and ONLY pay 9.06% of the 39.59% contribution. So a person, who is elected to mayor or city council and serves eight years, stands to receive 28% of their highest salary as a retirement. The mayor will serve two terms totaling 7 years. He would receive 24.5% of his highest one year’s salary or about $24,622; if he were participating in the retirement system. Remember he said he was not going to participate.
Turns out the mayor IS PARTICIPATING in the retirement system for Elected Members after all. He is positioning himself to add more than $24,000, to his $92,400 Safety Retirement. He is doing this and ONLY PAYING 9.06% while Police Officers pay 13.22% and earn 3% per year of service, Fire personnel pay 13.40%, earning 3% per year of service and General workers pay 10.78% earning 2.5% per year of service.
The mayor has been cutting, eliminating and changing our wages and benefits at will, all while secretly increasing his own. When will the public wake up and realize they are being lied to and taken for a ride by this transparent politician? When will the press stop pandering to him and the little rube and start to do their due diligence? Crime is down; city employee retirements are excessive; I’m being promoted to Captain; and the mayor is telling you the truth. I also have some land for sale that is great beach front property; I am free to show it on any night there is no moon and the tide is low.
If just once there was a reporter who would write a story telling the truth about the retirement benefits of city employees; I would be grateful. To see a reporter explain in detail that 90% is the MAXIMUM retirement benefit ANY EMPLOYEE retiring from the city is capable of receiving and not the 130% the little rube says every time he opens his mouth; I would be grateful. If that reporter would explain the “pick-up” the city asked employees to accept in lieu of pay raises and how it saved the city millions of dollars; I would be grateful. If that reporter would accurately write about the city’s request in 1981, employees leave Social Security for the promise of lifetime retiree medical insurance to be provided by the City, so the City could save millions of dollars; I would be grateful.
I know I am asking a lot of a reporter in San Diego. But, heck; can’t we all have a dream?
The mayor took a deferred retirement from the police department when he left after 26 years of service. At age 50 he was eligible to begin drawing his pension of approximately $84,000. In 2005, when the mayor ran for election he said, “If elected mayor, I will remove any position of conflict by not re-entering the pension system. Additionally, I will donate back to the city the portion of my mayoral salary equivalent to my pension benefits to eliminate any double dipping.”
When first elected the mayor took a salary of $36,000 along with his $84,000 retirement benefit. His annual salary with the two combined payments totaled $112,000. When re-elected to a second term, the mayor secretly began taking his full salary of $100,464 annually and his retirement had grown to $92,400, for an annual salary of $192,864.
Remember the mayor said he was not going to re-enter the retirement system and told everyone he would not “double-dip.” Well, he either lied to everyone to get elected (say it's not so) or he plum forgot his promise and had someone sign him up to gain the benefit of his time as mayor.
Now here is the part that should piss off every taxpayer, employee, supporter or non-supporter of the mayor. According to SDCERS actuary Cheiron, in their June 30, 2009, Actuarial Valuation, in Section IV, Contributions, on page 21 of their January, 8, 2010, report, it indicates the “Total Normal Cost Rate for Current Members” (Contribution rate for Elected Members) is 39.59% with the City paying 30.53% and the elected member paying 9.06%. Let’s compare safety’s contribution of 29.26% for police and 29.36% for fire with the City paying 16.04% of police and 15.96% for fire while the employee pays 13.22% for police and 13.40% for fire. The contribution for the General worker is 19.90% with the City paying 9.12% and the employee paying 10.78%. Remember, the mayor reneged on years old promises of the city picking up portions of these contributions in lieu of pay raises (which saved the city money) and forced employees to make these payments (as well as reducing wages and flexible benefit dollars). There has been NO CHANGE to the contributions of elected officials and they still receive additional dollars for their flexible benefits..
Elected officials earn 3.5% per year of elected service and ONLY pay 9.06% of the 39.59% contribution. So a person, who is elected to mayor or city council and serves eight years, stands to receive 28% of their highest salary as a retirement. The mayor will serve two terms totaling 7 years. He would receive 24.5% of his highest one year’s salary or about $24,622; if he were participating in the retirement system. Remember he said he was not going to participate.
Turns out the mayor IS PARTICIPATING in the retirement system for Elected Members after all. He is positioning himself to add more than $24,000, to his $92,400 Safety Retirement. He is doing this and ONLY PAYING 9.06% while Police Officers pay 13.22% and earn 3% per year of service, Fire personnel pay 13.40%, earning 3% per year of service and General workers pay 10.78% earning 2.5% per year of service.
The mayor has been cutting, eliminating and changing our wages and benefits at will, all while secretly increasing his own. When will the public wake up and realize they are being lied to and taken for a ride by this transparent politician? When will the press stop pandering to him and the little rube and start to do their due diligence? Crime is down; city employee retirements are excessive; I’m being promoted to Captain; and the mayor is telling you the truth. I also have some land for sale that is great beach front property; I am free to show it on any night there is no moon and the tide is low.
If just once there was a reporter who would write a story telling the truth about the retirement benefits of city employees; I would be grateful. To see a reporter explain in detail that 90% is the MAXIMUM retirement benefit ANY EMPLOYEE retiring from the city is capable of receiving and not the 130% the little rube says every time he opens his mouth; I would be grateful. If that reporter would explain the “pick-up” the city asked employees to accept in lieu of pay raises and how it saved the city millions of dollars; I would be grateful. If that reporter would accurately write about the city’s request in 1981, employees leave Social Security for the promise of lifetime retiree medical insurance to be provided by the City, so the City could save millions of dollars; I would be grateful.
I know I am asking a lot of a reporter in San Diego. But, heck; can’t we all have a dream?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Crime is Down; Let's Celebrate - RIGHT
Did you catch the latest numbers released today showing crime is down in San Diego? If you missed them don't fret, they were like everything else in this city; baloney. As with any statistic it is all in what and how the information is compiled. I was writing my rant in my pea brain today as I drove home in traffic, when I received the below press release from the SDPOA. I think this release hit a grand slam explaining the flaws with the results of the Uniform Crime Report Data and the claim of record low crime in San Diego.
For Immediate Release
Uniform Crime Report Data Not True Indicator of Crime in San Diego
Selective Inclusion of Crime Details Results in Deceptively Low Statistics
San Diego, CA – January 27, 2010 – The San Diego Police Officers Association, Inc. (SDPOA) today urges restraint over celebrating today’s crime statistics announcement by the City of San Diego and issued the following statement from Brian R. Marvel, president of the San Diego Police Officers Association:
“The SDPOA is always proud of the men and women who wear the uniform and play such a key role in keeping San Diegans safe. Any decrease in crime rate is a commendable event; however, we believe that it is a disservice to citizens to not provide a full and complete picture of actual crime statistics.
When it comes to reviewing crime rate statistics, as is the case with any data, it is important to remember that the manner of calculating results can be more telling than the actual results.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) that produced today’s crime data released by the City of San Diego does not fully reflect actual crime rate for San Diego. The UCR qualifies its own rankings by saying that the data does not provide insight into many variables and can ‘lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses.’ The UCR openly states that the rankings are a quick overview and can create misleading perceptions about actual crime rate.
For example, the report states that the number of rapes is down, but that only constitutes one of 17 sex crimes reported to the police department. The UCR does not take into account date rape by drugs, same sex rape and spousal rape, to name a few.
All victims of crimes deserve to have their crimes identified and reported yet the UCR reporting process does not reflect all crime data from a major municipality like San Diego. As a result, incomplete data is often used to report on increases or decreases in the crime rate.
The SDPOA would like to work to develop a crime data analysis system that provides the public with an accurate assessment of San Diego’s actual crime rate. The information provided by the Uniform Crime Report could be one component of such a comprehensive analysis; however, it should not be the sole data source for reporting on the current crime rate in America’s Finest City.”
The Uniform Crime Report cautions agencies from relying exclusively on UCR data as the sole indicator of crime in their area. The advisory states, in part; “These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city county, state, region or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/about/variables_affecting_crime.html
About the San Diego Police Officers Association
The San Diego Police Officers Association (SDPOA) is the only recognized bargaining unit for the over 1,800 members of the San Diego Police Department. The SDPOA was established in 1912 and incorporated in 1953 to assist San Diego police officers in issues related to wages, hours and working conditions. The SDPOA also aids members and their families in sickness, distress and death, and strives to improve social relations and welfare among the members. The San Diego Police Officers Association members include over 98% of the San Diego Police force and represent all ranks within the department, including the Chief of Police.
Visit; http://www.sdpoa.org/
Reality is, "REPORTED" crime is down; not crime itself. Citizens calling to report crimes are often directed to the telephone report unit, only to find themselves waiting extended periods of time (hours turn into days) and often are not following through on their reporting out of frustration due to the long wait or lack of follow through (missed call backs or no call back at all). Many more citizens are simply not even making the effort to report their crimes because they believe, and rightly so, that nothing will come of the report. More alarming is the number of crimes being "Maytag-ed" by officers on a routine basis. Trying to keep up with calls for service and remain free for priority calls, which are up and more violent than in the past, officers are finding excuses for not completing crime reports in all instances.
The other statistic I found troubling is the claim response times remained low for the three highest priority calls. Officers responded to over 660,000 calls for service, with the severity of calls increasing from the prior year. Officers responded to more calls with the potential for violence and at the same time fielded fewer officers to handle these calls. By the grace of god and a lot of luck we were spared the loss of an officer in 2009. How much longer can ou luck hold? With the number of new, energetic and enthusiastic officers in the field and fewer experienced officers, the odds are largely against us.
The claims today do not surprise me but give cause for concern. Painting a picture of all is well and San Diego is safer than ever is a disservice to the citizens we serve. We strive to earn the support of the public and yet on a daily basis we let so many down. The citizen who was a victim, sitting at home watching the news report these low crime statistics, will no doubt have a different opinion knowing the truth about their experience.
Here is a statistic I would challenge you to look at; determine how many calls were received by communications; routed to the telephone report unit; and how many actual reports were taken. This would no doubt provide insight into the reason for the low numbers, but not support any claim of lower crime.
For Immediate Release
Uniform Crime Report Data Not True Indicator of Crime in San Diego
Selective Inclusion of Crime Details Results in Deceptively Low Statistics
San Diego, CA – January 27, 2010 – The San Diego Police Officers Association, Inc. (SDPOA) today urges restraint over celebrating today’s crime statistics announcement by the City of San Diego and issued the following statement from Brian R. Marvel, president of the San Diego Police Officers Association:
“The SDPOA is always proud of the men and women who wear the uniform and play such a key role in keeping San Diegans safe. Any decrease in crime rate is a commendable event; however, we believe that it is a disservice to citizens to not provide a full and complete picture of actual crime statistics.
When it comes to reviewing crime rate statistics, as is the case with any data, it is important to remember that the manner of calculating results can be more telling than the actual results.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) that produced today’s crime data released by the City of San Diego does not fully reflect actual crime rate for San Diego. The UCR qualifies its own rankings by saying that the data does not provide insight into many variables and can ‘lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses.’ The UCR openly states that the rankings are a quick overview and can create misleading perceptions about actual crime rate.
For example, the report states that the number of rapes is down, but that only constitutes one of 17 sex crimes reported to the police department. The UCR does not take into account date rape by drugs, same sex rape and spousal rape, to name a few.
All victims of crimes deserve to have their crimes identified and reported yet the UCR reporting process does not reflect all crime data from a major municipality like San Diego. As a result, incomplete data is often used to report on increases or decreases in the crime rate.
The SDPOA would like to work to develop a crime data analysis system that provides the public with an accurate assessment of San Diego’s actual crime rate. The information provided by the Uniform Crime Report could be one component of such a comprehensive analysis; however, it should not be the sole data source for reporting on the current crime rate in America’s Finest City.”
The Uniform Crime Report cautions agencies from relying exclusively on UCR data as the sole indicator of crime in their area. The advisory states, in part; “These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city county, state, region or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/about/variables_affecting_crime.html
About the San Diego Police Officers Association
The San Diego Police Officers Association (SDPOA) is the only recognized bargaining unit for the over 1,800 members of the San Diego Police Department. The SDPOA was established in 1912 and incorporated in 1953 to assist San Diego police officers in issues related to wages, hours and working conditions. The SDPOA also aids members and their families in sickness, distress and death, and strives to improve social relations and welfare among the members. The San Diego Police Officers Association members include over 98% of the San Diego Police force and represent all ranks within the department, including the Chief of Police.
Visit; http://www.sdpoa.org/
Reality is, "REPORTED" crime is down; not crime itself. Citizens calling to report crimes are often directed to the telephone report unit, only to find themselves waiting extended periods of time (hours turn into days) and often are not following through on their reporting out of frustration due to the long wait or lack of follow through (missed call backs or no call back at all). Many more citizens are simply not even making the effort to report their crimes because they believe, and rightly so, that nothing will come of the report. More alarming is the number of crimes being "Maytag-ed" by officers on a routine basis. Trying to keep up with calls for service and remain free for priority calls, which are up and more violent than in the past, officers are finding excuses for not completing crime reports in all instances.
The other statistic I found troubling is the claim response times remained low for the three highest priority calls. Officers responded to over 660,000 calls for service, with the severity of calls increasing from the prior year. Officers responded to more calls with the potential for violence and at the same time fielded fewer officers to handle these calls. By the grace of god and a lot of luck we were spared the loss of an officer in 2009. How much longer can ou luck hold? With the number of new, energetic and enthusiastic officers in the field and fewer experienced officers, the odds are largely against us.
The claims today do not surprise me but give cause for concern. Painting a picture of all is well and San Diego is safer than ever is a disservice to the citizens we serve. We strive to earn the support of the public and yet on a daily basis we let so many down. The citizen who was a victim, sitting at home watching the news report these low crime statistics, will no doubt have a different opinion knowing the truth about their experience.
Here is a statistic I would challenge you to look at; determine how many calls were received by communications; routed to the telephone report unit; and how many actual reports were taken. This would no doubt provide insight into the reason for the low numbers, but not support any claim of lower crime.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Exposed Nerve?
I guess I exposed a nerve last night when I wrote about my observations and concerns with the San Diego Police Officers Association's communications/lobbyist. I heard from a number of active and retired officers, all voicing their concerns about a myriad of issues. Central to their concerns is a perceived lack of action from the SDPOA Board of Directors and their silence on issues surrounding retiree medical benefits and the constant threats of rollbacks to these and other benefits.
It is always a good read when SDPOA Board Member "Free Radical" aka Woody Dubois comments. He can always be counted upon to be fired up and say what’s on his mind. His comment to my rant was no exception. But I have a question FR/WD; if you were in a meeting with CALPERS trying to work out a solution to this difficult issue, why were you responding to my post and some of the other comments, instead of focusing your thoughts and energy on the task at hand (it’s a rhetorical question)? I appreciate the comments and the information provided but would question the timing.
The number one issue for many of those I have talked with recently is retiree health insurance. Thinking outside of the box and researching every possibility is what it is going to take to solve this and many of the other critical issues facing the members of the SDPOA. Beginning the discussion with CALPERS is the first in a million step process. Have the other unions collectively agreed to this venture? Without ALL of their participation and agreement, this discussion is a non-starter. The sad part of thinking outside the box and trying to find new and innovative solutions is the SDPOA cannot do it alone. But it is this type of thinking and action the members are clamoring for from their POA.
To the naysayers and critics of the SDPOA Board of Directors, I wish to offer some observations and comments. I can be quick to ridicule or challenge when I perceive lack of action or indifference on the part of the board. The reliance on technology to communicate a message to constituents is often met with frustration on the part of the recipient of the intended information. No one medium is best for getting a message out to a mass of people except good old fashion one on one or group talk that involves the delivery of accurate and detailed information followed up with open and honest feedback. The frustration of the member is heightened when he or she perceives nothing is being done on their behalf. Rumors begin to float about and apathy soon follows when information is not transmitted in a manner that reaches its intended target. Being a board member is a thankless and tireless job. There will always be those who think board members are not doing enough; are in over their head; or think they can do a better job. When these same people get elected they find out just how difficult it is to communicate in a timely manner the actions of the board on behalf of the member. The SDPOA e-mail blast is only as good as the message being sent; the SDPOA forum is like this blog in that only a handful of people (same 10-12 people) share their thoughts while many will lurk in the shadows reading the comments of a few; the Informant is a poor medium lacking timely or detailed information on the issues of negotiations, labor relations or concerns of members; the SDPOA phone blast has a limited ability to provide any real information; and the Choir Practice which I have found to be sparsely attended and not effective are all good and bad at the same time. I applaud the board for the effort, but reliance on these message delivery mechanisms fall short of desired results.
I may not agree with the actions or direction of the SDPOA, but I am a strong supporter of the Association. I freely voice my opinion and often ask questions of board members. I believe it is the silent majority that need be prodded to get involved if we are ever going to make a difference as a group. The loudest voice or most ardent critic is not always the opinion most widely held by the masses. But, like the little rube and his message, if left unchecked becomes the most widely held belief. The comments posted on this blog are a small sample of the perceptions or beliefs held by those who take the time to write. I do not judge or filter comments to my blog. I have rejected the comments from one individual who I know and will not allow this person to participate on my blog. The person is not a member of the police department or association; never has been and does not even live in the state.
I will continue to rant and speak out. My perceptions; personal observations; thoughts; snippets of wisdom; and a little bit of random insanity, will be posted for all to see. I welcome others to be insightful and share their thoughts so we can contemplate and debate issues in a civil and open forum. I would urge you to become educated and involved in your association and take an active role in the changes you desire. The nine directors cannot do it alone. They need your help and they need you to hold them accountable as the same time. They in turn need be open to criticisms and feedback without striking out in anger when the message is not to their liking.
What I hear from members more than anything else is their desire for someone to counter those voices most in the public who paint our benefits in a false light and tell the taxpayers all is well. They want someone, anyone, to stand up for them and tell the truth. No one has suggested throwing rocks at the mayor. What is being suggested is someone to accurately and consistently articulate the reality of police officer wages, benefits and working conditions; to counter the message the little rube is preaching with real facts; and to do this in a professional manner. The time and place is here and now. Waiting for a better time or a better place is simply abdicating the responsibility of doing what is right and necessary.
Be safe and support each other. We are all in this together and we are only as strong as our weakest link.
It is always a good read when SDPOA Board Member "Free Radical" aka Woody Dubois comments. He can always be counted upon to be fired up and say what’s on his mind. His comment to my rant was no exception. But I have a question FR/WD; if you were in a meeting with CALPERS trying to work out a solution to this difficult issue, why were you responding to my post and some of the other comments, instead of focusing your thoughts and energy on the task at hand (it’s a rhetorical question)? I appreciate the comments and the information provided but would question the timing.
The number one issue for many of those I have talked with recently is retiree health insurance. Thinking outside of the box and researching every possibility is what it is going to take to solve this and many of the other critical issues facing the members of the SDPOA. Beginning the discussion with CALPERS is the first in a million step process. Have the other unions collectively agreed to this venture? Without ALL of their participation and agreement, this discussion is a non-starter. The sad part of thinking outside the box and trying to find new and innovative solutions is the SDPOA cannot do it alone. But it is this type of thinking and action the members are clamoring for from their POA.
To the naysayers and critics of the SDPOA Board of Directors, I wish to offer some observations and comments. I can be quick to ridicule or challenge when I perceive lack of action or indifference on the part of the board. The reliance on technology to communicate a message to constituents is often met with frustration on the part of the recipient of the intended information. No one medium is best for getting a message out to a mass of people except good old fashion one on one or group talk that involves the delivery of accurate and detailed information followed up with open and honest feedback. The frustration of the member is heightened when he or she perceives nothing is being done on their behalf. Rumors begin to float about and apathy soon follows when information is not transmitted in a manner that reaches its intended target. Being a board member is a thankless and tireless job. There will always be those who think board members are not doing enough; are in over their head; or think they can do a better job. When these same people get elected they find out just how difficult it is to communicate in a timely manner the actions of the board on behalf of the member. The SDPOA e-mail blast is only as good as the message being sent; the SDPOA forum is like this blog in that only a handful of people (same 10-12 people) share their thoughts while many will lurk in the shadows reading the comments of a few; the Informant is a poor medium lacking timely or detailed information on the issues of negotiations, labor relations or concerns of members; the SDPOA phone blast has a limited ability to provide any real information; and the Choir Practice which I have found to be sparsely attended and not effective are all good and bad at the same time. I applaud the board for the effort, but reliance on these message delivery mechanisms fall short of desired results.
I may not agree with the actions or direction of the SDPOA, but I am a strong supporter of the Association. I freely voice my opinion and often ask questions of board members. I believe it is the silent majority that need be prodded to get involved if we are ever going to make a difference as a group. The loudest voice or most ardent critic is not always the opinion most widely held by the masses. But, like the little rube and his message, if left unchecked becomes the most widely held belief. The comments posted on this blog are a small sample of the perceptions or beliefs held by those who take the time to write. I do not judge or filter comments to my blog. I have rejected the comments from one individual who I know and will not allow this person to participate on my blog. The person is not a member of the police department or association; never has been and does not even live in the state.
I will continue to rant and speak out. My perceptions; personal observations; thoughts; snippets of wisdom; and a little bit of random insanity, will be posted for all to see. I welcome others to be insightful and share their thoughts so we can contemplate and debate issues in a civil and open forum. I would urge you to become educated and involved in your association and take an active role in the changes you desire. The nine directors cannot do it alone. They need your help and they need you to hold them accountable as the same time. They in turn need be open to criticisms and feedback without striking out in anger when the message is not to their liking.
What I hear from members more than anything else is their desire for someone to counter those voices most in the public who paint our benefits in a false light and tell the taxpayers all is well. They want someone, anyone, to stand up for them and tell the truth. No one has suggested throwing rocks at the mayor. What is being suggested is someone to accurately and consistently articulate the reality of police officer wages, benefits and working conditions; to counter the message the little rube is preaching with real facts; and to do this in a professional manner. The time and place is here and now. Waiting for a better time or a better place is simply abdicating the responsibility of doing what is right and necessary.
Be safe and support each other. We are all in this together and we are only as strong as our weakest link.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Strange Bedfellows?
Sitting here this evening watching Jeopardy, I began scanning various internet news sites, Twitter, Facebook and the many BLOGS I follow regularly. While scanning the various posts on Twitter there were several that caught my eye causing me to stop and wonder. Before I get into the content, I want to lay a foundation for where this post is going.
Kimberly Hale is the lobbyist hired by the SDPOA in September 2009 to assist them with lobbying efforts and public communications. Ms. Hale is a Director at Public Policy Strategies, a lobbying firm owned by Tom Shepard, who ran the mayor’s two election campaigns. Ms. Hale is married to Darren Pudgil, the mayor’s communications director. Ms. Hale is the Vice Chair of the San Diego County Taxpayer’s Association (SDCTA). She is also a board member for the San Diego Downtown Partnership who hail themselves as the “voice of downtown.” Ms. Hale is a part time user of Twitter and Facebook.
Lani Lutar is the President and Chief Executive Officer for the SDCTA, whose written creed is; “The San Diego Taxpayers Association is a watchdog organization that looks out for your tax dollars. SDCTA takes a leadership role in fiscal oversight of local government and aggressively resists unwarranted taxes and fees, discriminatory regulations, and ill-advised public expenditures. We challenge local government at all levels to be accessible, responsive, efficient and fair.” Ms. Lutar took over for Lisa Briggs in 2006, when Ms. Briggs accepted a job with the mayor. Ms. Briggs represented the mayor at the table during negotiations with the SDPOA and the city for several years. From 1999 to 2004, Ms. Lutar served in leadership roles on several non-partisan San Diego City council candidate campaigns. In 2005, Ms. Lutar served as an advisor for the mayor’s City Hall Reorganization group. Ms. Lutar has been a strong and loud voice in San Diego, calling for reform and advocating the reduction of police officer benefits and retirement.
Over the past several months, Ms. Lutar and Ms. Hale have traded tales of woe while sitting side by side getting pedicures; or planning this year’s SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner; or having breakfast or lunch together.
What caught my eye tonight were several Twitter posts from both ladies about their activities. Ms. Hale was hired by the SDPOA to assist them with lobbying city hall and crafting the association’s message. The mayor is clearly not a friend of the association and has gone out of his way to destroy a once proud police department and the men and women who serve San Diego. His actions dating back before his election have been detrimental to the members of the SDPOA and public safety in San Diego.
In a Twitter post on November 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “The three p's of life...talking politics and policy while getting a pedicure with Lani Lutar.”
In another Twitter post on January 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “Sitting at the Poseidon Resources' table getting ready to be sworn in by my fav Mayor Jerry Sanders.” Ms. Hale was attending the San Diego Partnership Installation Luncheon to be sworn in (not sure to what).
In another Twitter post on January 24, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Ms Hale wrote, “At breakfast with one of my besties, Lani Lutar. we heart egg whites!”
This afternoon, January 25, 2010, Ms. Hale wrote on Twitter, “We had a fab SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner planning meeting, you will love this year's theme...stay tuned.”
On January 20, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Ms. Lutar wrote on Twitter, “Go Carl! Keep it up! RT @carldemaio: I’m appeariing on CW-6 Morning Show tomorrow at 7am to talk pension reform.”
In another Twitter post by Ms. Lutar on January 12, 2010, at 10:24 PM, she wrote, “We are slowly but surely having an impact on pension reform in the region. The smaller cities rarely get media coverage for their efforts.”
There are many more posts related to “pension reform” posted by Ms. Lutar on Twitter that would concern any police officer who reads them. Ms. Lutar falls prey to the little rube, using his twisted, exaggerated and misleading information to call for further reductions and “reforms” to police officer pensions and benefits.
I think you can get the idea of why the posts on Twitter caught my eye and caused me to do a little more reading. Over the past several weeks, a number of officers have brought up Ms. Hale and what it is she does for us and more importantly whose side is she representing? Politics makes for strange bedfellows and sometimes the lines are blurred and the web broad to catch what is thrown in your general direction. Knowing where the line is and which side you occupy is extremely important, especially in politics.
The Twitter posts and the associations Ms. Hale is a part of are troubling on the surface. To whom does she truly represent? Can Ms. Hale effectively represent the interests of the SDPOA and at the same time participate in policy discussions as Vice Chair of the SDCTA or a board member of the San Diego Downtown Partnership? Does the comment written by Ms. Hale last week about the mayor generate any concern? Is it just me?
Members of the San Diego Police Officer’s Association are concerned for their future. They have seen the little rube and many others, over and over again spinning, twisting and flat out lying about their retirement. We have all sat defenseless as the little rube and others call for pension reforms thru reductions and elimination of earned and vested benefits with nary a peep from our association.
When can members expect to hear or see our message and the direction the board of directors is taking this association and its members? How much longer is the little rube going to be allowed to preach his lies before the association counters the information with factual data and stop his campaign and assault on members and their benefits? Last week the association served the mayor with a public records request seeking information related to any study the mayor may have undertaken related to DROP neutrality. This is long overdue and a welcome action on our behalf.
The members are looking for their association to do more. Is anyone listening?
Kimberly Hale is the lobbyist hired by the SDPOA in September 2009 to assist them with lobbying efforts and public communications. Ms. Hale is a Director at Public Policy Strategies, a lobbying firm owned by Tom Shepard, who ran the mayor’s two election campaigns. Ms. Hale is married to Darren Pudgil, the mayor’s communications director. Ms. Hale is the Vice Chair of the San Diego County Taxpayer’s Association (SDCTA). She is also a board member for the San Diego Downtown Partnership who hail themselves as the “voice of downtown.” Ms. Hale is a part time user of Twitter and Facebook.
Lani Lutar is the President and Chief Executive Officer for the SDCTA, whose written creed is; “The San Diego Taxpayers Association is a watchdog organization that looks out for your tax dollars. SDCTA takes a leadership role in fiscal oversight of local government and aggressively resists unwarranted taxes and fees, discriminatory regulations, and ill-advised public expenditures. We challenge local government at all levels to be accessible, responsive, efficient and fair.” Ms. Lutar took over for Lisa Briggs in 2006, when Ms. Briggs accepted a job with the mayor. Ms. Briggs represented the mayor at the table during negotiations with the SDPOA and the city for several years. From 1999 to 2004, Ms. Lutar served in leadership roles on several non-partisan San Diego City council candidate campaigns. In 2005, Ms. Lutar served as an advisor for the mayor’s City Hall Reorganization group. Ms. Lutar has been a strong and loud voice in San Diego, calling for reform and advocating the reduction of police officer benefits and retirement.
Over the past several months, Ms. Lutar and Ms. Hale have traded tales of woe while sitting side by side getting pedicures; or planning this year’s SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner; or having breakfast or lunch together.
What caught my eye tonight were several Twitter posts from both ladies about their activities. Ms. Hale was hired by the SDPOA to assist them with lobbying city hall and crafting the association’s message. The mayor is clearly not a friend of the association and has gone out of his way to destroy a once proud police department and the men and women who serve San Diego. His actions dating back before his election have been detrimental to the members of the SDPOA and public safety in San Diego.
In a Twitter post on November 1, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “The three p's of life...talking politics and policy while getting a pedicure with Lani Lutar.”
In another Twitter post on January 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Ms. Hale wrote, “Sitting at the Poseidon Resources' table getting ready to be sworn in by my fav Mayor Jerry Sanders.” Ms. Hale was attending the San Diego Partnership Installation Luncheon to be sworn in (not sure to what).
In another Twitter post on January 24, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Ms Hale wrote, “At breakfast with one of my besties, Lani Lutar. we heart egg whites!”
This afternoon, January 25, 2010, Ms. Hale wrote on Twitter, “We had a fab SDCTA Watchdog Awards and Fleece Dinner planning meeting, you will love this year's theme...stay tuned.”
On January 20, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Ms. Lutar wrote on Twitter, “Go Carl! Keep it up! RT @carldemaio: I’m appeariing on CW-6 Morning Show tomorrow at 7am to talk pension reform.”
In another Twitter post by Ms. Lutar on January 12, 2010, at 10:24 PM, she wrote, “We are slowly but surely having an impact on pension reform in the region. The smaller cities rarely get media coverage for their efforts.”
There are many more posts related to “pension reform” posted by Ms. Lutar on Twitter that would concern any police officer who reads them. Ms. Lutar falls prey to the little rube, using his twisted, exaggerated and misleading information to call for further reductions and “reforms” to police officer pensions and benefits.
I think you can get the idea of why the posts on Twitter caught my eye and caused me to do a little more reading. Over the past several weeks, a number of officers have brought up Ms. Hale and what it is she does for us and more importantly whose side is she representing? Politics makes for strange bedfellows and sometimes the lines are blurred and the web broad to catch what is thrown in your general direction. Knowing where the line is and which side you occupy is extremely important, especially in politics.
The Twitter posts and the associations Ms. Hale is a part of are troubling on the surface. To whom does she truly represent? Can Ms. Hale effectively represent the interests of the SDPOA and at the same time participate in policy discussions as Vice Chair of the SDCTA or a board member of the San Diego Downtown Partnership? Does the comment written by Ms. Hale last week about the mayor generate any concern? Is it just me?
Members of the San Diego Police Officer’s Association are concerned for their future. They have seen the little rube and many others, over and over again spinning, twisting and flat out lying about their retirement. We have all sat defenseless as the little rube and others call for pension reforms thru reductions and elimination of earned and vested benefits with nary a peep from our association.
When can members expect to hear or see our message and the direction the board of directors is taking this association and its members? How much longer is the little rube going to be allowed to preach his lies before the association counters the information with factual data and stop his campaign and assault on members and their benefits? Last week the association served the mayor with a public records request seeking information related to any study the mayor may have undertaken related to DROP neutrality. This is long overdue and a welcome action on our behalf.
The members are looking for their association to do more. Is anyone listening?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Political Opinion
It has been a long time since I have taken the time to read material about our pension, DROP and retiree medical. This weekend I read with interest our illustrious City Attorney’s latest attempt at a legal opinion (Opinion Number 2010-1) related to “Pension Benefits and Other Post-Employment Benefits.” “Just Wondering” beat me to the punch in detailing the highlights of this political opinion. I call it a “political” opinion because I firmly believe a first year law student could challenge much of what has been written and successfully refute the many opinions offered.
I believe, as “Just Wondering” has stated, the “opinion” is a clear play book of where the City is headed in negotiations that have just started. The city attorney’s writings will no doubt result in an “Un-Fair” labor practice complaint by the other unions when changes are imposed because the city team is unwilling to change their demands during negotiations this year. As police officers, we cannot file “Un-Fair” labor practice complaints because we are not covered by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB).
The issue most on my mind as I read the opinion is the retiree medical benefits and the changes already undertaken and changes undoubtedly coming. I entered the DROP in June of 2007. When I signed my “DROP Contract” I had to initial twenty-four (24) items agreeing to and acknowledging the terms of DROP. The title of the form; “DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP) ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE IN DROP AND AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT” is four (4) pages in length and spells out the terms.
The salient points of the agreement are in bold type. The agreement as written on the first page reads;
“Once you enter DROP, you will not be able to change your election to participate in DROP or your agreement to leave employment and retire, regardless of what happens between now and your retirement date. For example, if you elect to participate in DROP and your family circumstances change such that you would rather continue working, you still must retire at the end of your designated DROP period. Also, if any benefit improvements occur between the time you enter DROP and the date you retire, you will not be eligible for these improvements.
This Agreement is designated to help you think through your decision to participate in DROP. You should consider this decision very carefully. This Agreement asks you specific questions to ensure the Retirement Administrator and the Retirement Board that you have, in fact, carefully considered your decision to participate in DROP, and that you understand the consequences of your decision. In fact, your decision is so important that you will have 7 calendar days to reconsider your election to participate in DROP after you sign it.
Please take these questions and this Agreement very seriously. If anything is unclear, do not complete this Agreement without first speaking to a Retirement System staff for clarification.
The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts. Each is important because it demonstrates you have carefully considered your election to participate in DROP.”
The process is clear for entering DROP. Each person sits with a Retirement System staff person who explains all of the details of the agreement. On page 2 of the agreement there are ten (10) statements you must initial. The eight statement states;
“I understand that if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.”
In 2007, when I signed my DROP contract agreement, the MOU with the SDPOA for which I and the City were bound, stated I would receive retiree medical benefits; my DROP account would earn guaranteed interest in an amount equal to the amount earned by the plan (the amount to be set by the actuary as the assumed rate) and the annuity was set at 8%.
According to the agreement (contract) I signed, the city could not change these agreed upon “retirement benefits.” First the change in the amount of interest earned on DROP accounts was forced upon DROP participants; then the retiree medical insurance benefit was reduced; and finally the annuity interest rate was reduced.
According to the DROP agreement I entered into; “if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through the meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.” Remember the first line of the last paragraph on the first page of my DROP agreement; “The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts.” Yet the City Attorney has opined the city can make changes at will and I am bound by these changes. So my signature on the agreement seems to only bind ME to the agreement.
Let’s take a look at what the City Attorney wrote in his latest opinion regarding Retiree Health Insurance. Beginning on page 54 of the opinion the City Attorney discussed the “RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT.” I believe the City Attorney’s opinion is clearly not supported by the facts.
On page 59, the Purpose and Intent of Division 12 of the Municipal Code was set forth as follows:
“Effective August 1, 1997, a health insurance program shall be offered to Health Eligible Retirees as set forth in this Division. This benefit shall be administered by the Retirement System, Notwithstanding any other interpretation of law to the contrary, it is the intent of the City Council to deem this benefit as defined and vested within the meaning of City Charter section 143.1 for those individuals who are retired on the date this benefit becomes effective and thus attain the status of Health Eligible Retirees by operation of law. Health Eligible Retirees may enroll in a City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan or participate in the plan of their choice, subject to payment and reimbursement limitations set forth in this Division. For active employees, this benefit may only be modified in accordance with provisions set forth in section 23.1204 and after a vote of approval by active Members. This City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan shall include at least on HMO plan and at least one PPO plan.”
Clearly in my mind, the City Council agreed to provide retirees Health Insurance when they enacted the above Municipal Code. “The retiree health benefit was initially created when the City withdrew from the Social Security System, effective January 1, 1982. The City Council first authorized the establishment of a City-sponsored group health insurance plan for eligible retirees on January 4, 1982. The City declared that certain benefits would be provided to employees in lieu of social Security participation including City-sponsored group health insurance for eligible retirees of the City. The City Council stated, “it is the intent of this Council to provide such coverage as a permanent benefit for eligible retirees.”
When I entered DROP, I became a “Health Eligible Retiree” if you apply the ruling in Thorning v. Hollister School District, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1598 (1992). The last paragraph of the City Attorney’s political opinion clearly makes my case. The City Attorney wrote;
“In addition to the holding in Thorning, there are several factors that support the conclusion that retiree health benefits as to retirees are vested. First, unlike active employees, retirees can demonstrate a detrimental reliance on the representations and promises made by the City in relation to the provision of the benefit. Second, unlike active employees, retirees have retired with the actual provision of the benefit. Third, unlike most active employees, retirees likely were employed in the 1981-1982 time period when the City ceased Social Security participation, and in turn promised a retiree health benefit. Fourth, unlike active employees, retirees are not represented by the employee bargaining groups that negotiate changed in the benefit. Even if the court does not find the retiree health benefit to be a vested benefit for retirees, it is likely that retirees can successfully claim that the City is estopped from eliminating or detrimentally modifying their benefit.”
The contract I signed states my benefits could not be altered for the better or worse through the collective bargaining process (meet and confer). The Retirement System recognizes me as a “retired” member; the City recognizes me as an “active employee” and subject to all changes.
The City continues to alter the DROP contract I entered into in good faith. The City Attorney opines this is acceptable and the contract I signed is not binding on them. The mayor reduces retiree medical insurance, forcing hundreds to retire before anticipated and refuses to acknowledge a twenty-eight (28) year agreement entered into when then Mayor Pete Wilson asked employees to withdraw from Social Security with the promise of a City provided retiree health insurance.
The posturing, pontificating and continued attack of employees and their benefits is unconscionable. The press, members of the city council, mayor and pundits all spin, twist, exaggerate and flat out lie about current benefits with impunity. The mayor if you remember said DROP and our other retirement benefits were “political” and he refused to tell the truth about them from the very beginning. His political career more important to him than honesty, integrity, or the men and women who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
To all of those already retired, it appears the City Attorney has put to rest any thoughts of going after any of your benefits. Rest easy and enjoy the retirement you earned and paid for. It is also clear the City Attorney has given a license to the mayor to further eviscerate retirement benefits of Police Officers.
The little rube, Lani Lutar, editorials in the Union Tribune and others continue to assail benefits earned by Police Officers as being excessive and not sustainable. The mayor made a comment at the beginning of his State of the City address that highlighted why you should all be concerned with the people who a clamoring for reductions to your benefits. The mayor was ad libbing at the beginning of the address and not following his prepared speech. He laughed and said his staff gets nervous when he goes off the script. No doubt his many handlers have been telling him he needs to satisfy the calls for further reductions and elimination of benefits.
The latest revelation the city is required to contribute an additional $19 million dollars to the Retirement System should not come as a surprise to anyone. The mayor forced hundreds of senior employees to leave city service and scare hundreds more to enter DROP, in many cases years before planned as well as refusing to allow new entries into the system and the layoffs of hundreds; all contributing to fewer dollars being contributed by members requiring the City to make up the difference. This is but a drop in the bucket of things to come because of the City’s short sighted actions.
The worst is yet to come in my opinion. I am a glass half full type of person but also a realist. With the current climate and lack of testicular fortitude to do what is right, we are left with politicians who simply lick a finger and place it in the air to gage current wind direction so they can ensure they are not heading into that wind for fear of having a rough go of it.
I believe, as “Just Wondering” has stated, the “opinion” is a clear play book of where the City is headed in negotiations that have just started. The city attorney’s writings will no doubt result in an “Un-Fair” labor practice complaint by the other unions when changes are imposed because the city team is unwilling to change their demands during negotiations this year. As police officers, we cannot file “Un-Fair” labor practice complaints because we are not covered by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB).
The issue most on my mind as I read the opinion is the retiree medical benefits and the changes already undertaken and changes undoubtedly coming. I entered the DROP in June of 2007. When I signed my “DROP Contract” I had to initial twenty-four (24) items agreeing to and acknowledging the terms of DROP. The title of the form; “DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP) ELECTION TO PARTICIPATE IN DROP AND AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT” is four (4) pages in length and spells out the terms.
The salient points of the agreement are in bold type. The agreement as written on the first page reads;
“Once you enter DROP, you will not be able to change your election to participate in DROP or your agreement to leave employment and retire, regardless of what happens between now and your retirement date. For example, if you elect to participate in DROP and your family circumstances change such that you would rather continue working, you still must retire at the end of your designated DROP period. Also, if any benefit improvements occur between the time you enter DROP and the date you retire, you will not be eligible for these improvements.
This Agreement is designated to help you think through your decision to participate in DROP. You should consider this decision very carefully. This Agreement asks you specific questions to ensure the Retirement Administrator and the Retirement Board that you have, in fact, carefully considered your decision to participate in DROP, and that you understand the consequences of your decision. In fact, your decision is so important that you will have 7 calendar days to reconsider your election to participate in DROP after you sign it.
Please take these questions and this Agreement very seriously. If anything is unclear, do not complete this Agreement without first speaking to a Retirement System staff for clarification.
The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts. Each is important because it demonstrates you have carefully considered your election to participate in DROP.”
The process is clear for entering DROP. Each person sits with a Retirement System staff person who explains all of the details of the agreement. On page 2 of the agreement there are ten (10) statements you must initial. The eight statement states;
“I understand that if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.”
In 2007, when I signed my DROP contract agreement, the MOU with the SDPOA for which I and the City were bound, stated I would receive retiree medical benefits; my DROP account would earn guaranteed interest in an amount equal to the amount earned by the plan (the amount to be set by the actuary as the assumed rate) and the annuity was set at 8%.
According to the agreement (contract) I signed, the city could not change these agreed upon “retirement benefits.” First the change in the amount of interest earned on DROP accounts was forced upon DROP participants; then the retiree medical insurance benefit was reduced; and finally the annuity interest rate was reduced.
According to the DROP agreement I entered into; “if benefits are improved or otherwise changed after I enter DROP, through the meet and confer or any other process, I will not be eligible for any of these benefit improvements or changes.” Remember the first line of the last paragraph on the first page of my DROP agreement; “The Retirement System and your employer will rely on the following facts.” Yet the City Attorney has opined the city can make changes at will and I am bound by these changes. So my signature on the agreement seems to only bind ME to the agreement.
Let’s take a look at what the City Attorney wrote in his latest opinion regarding Retiree Health Insurance. Beginning on page 54 of the opinion the City Attorney discussed the “RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT.” I believe the City Attorney’s opinion is clearly not supported by the facts.
On page 59, the Purpose and Intent of Division 12 of the Municipal Code was set forth as follows:
“Effective August 1, 1997, a health insurance program shall be offered to Health Eligible Retirees as set forth in this Division. This benefit shall be administered by the Retirement System, Notwithstanding any other interpretation of law to the contrary, it is the intent of the City Council to deem this benefit as defined and vested within the meaning of City Charter section 143.1 for those individuals who are retired on the date this benefit becomes effective and thus attain the status of Health Eligible Retirees by operation of law. Health Eligible Retirees may enroll in a City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan or participate in the plan of their choice, subject to payment and reimbursement limitations set forth in this Division. For active employees, this benefit may only be modified in accordance with provisions set forth in section 23.1204 and after a vote of approval by active Members. This City Sponsored Health Insurance Plan shall include at least on HMO plan and at least one PPO plan.”
Clearly in my mind, the City Council agreed to provide retirees Health Insurance when they enacted the above Municipal Code. “The retiree health benefit was initially created when the City withdrew from the Social Security System, effective January 1, 1982. The City Council first authorized the establishment of a City-sponsored group health insurance plan for eligible retirees on January 4, 1982. The City declared that certain benefits would be provided to employees in lieu of social Security participation including City-sponsored group health insurance for eligible retirees of the City. The City Council stated, “it is the intent of this Council to provide such coverage as a permanent benefit for eligible retirees.”
When I entered DROP, I became a “Health Eligible Retiree” if you apply the ruling in Thorning v. Hollister School District, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1598 (1992). The last paragraph of the City Attorney’s political opinion clearly makes my case. The City Attorney wrote;
“In addition to the holding in Thorning, there are several factors that support the conclusion that retiree health benefits as to retirees are vested. First, unlike active employees, retirees can demonstrate a detrimental reliance on the representations and promises made by the City in relation to the provision of the benefit. Second, unlike active employees, retirees have retired with the actual provision of the benefit. Third, unlike most active employees, retirees likely were employed in the 1981-1982 time period when the City ceased Social Security participation, and in turn promised a retiree health benefit. Fourth, unlike active employees, retirees are not represented by the employee bargaining groups that negotiate changed in the benefit. Even if the court does not find the retiree health benefit to be a vested benefit for retirees, it is likely that retirees can successfully claim that the City is estopped from eliminating or detrimentally modifying their benefit.”
The contract I signed states my benefits could not be altered for the better or worse through the collective bargaining process (meet and confer). The Retirement System recognizes me as a “retired” member; the City recognizes me as an “active employee” and subject to all changes.
The City continues to alter the DROP contract I entered into in good faith. The City Attorney opines this is acceptable and the contract I signed is not binding on them. The mayor reduces retiree medical insurance, forcing hundreds to retire before anticipated and refuses to acknowledge a twenty-eight (28) year agreement entered into when then Mayor Pete Wilson asked employees to withdraw from Social Security with the promise of a City provided retiree health insurance.
The posturing, pontificating and continued attack of employees and their benefits is unconscionable. The press, members of the city council, mayor and pundits all spin, twist, exaggerate and flat out lie about current benefits with impunity. The mayor if you remember said DROP and our other retirement benefits were “political” and he refused to tell the truth about them from the very beginning. His political career more important to him than honesty, integrity, or the men and women who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
To all of those already retired, it appears the City Attorney has put to rest any thoughts of going after any of your benefits. Rest easy and enjoy the retirement you earned and paid for. It is also clear the City Attorney has given a license to the mayor to further eviscerate retirement benefits of Police Officers.
The little rube, Lani Lutar, editorials in the Union Tribune and others continue to assail benefits earned by Police Officers as being excessive and not sustainable. The mayor made a comment at the beginning of his State of the City address that highlighted why you should all be concerned with the people who a clamoring for reductions to your benefits. The mayor was ad libbing at the beginning of the address and not following his prepared speech. He laughed and said his staff gets nervous when he goes off the script. No doubt his many handlers have been telling him he needs to satisfy the calls for further reductions and elimination of benefits.
The latest revelation the city is required to contribute an additional $19 million dollars to the Retirement System should not come as a surprise to anyone. The mayor forced hundreds of senior employees to leave city service and scare hundreds more to enter DROP, in many cases years before planned as well as refusing to allow new entries into the system and the layoffs of hundreds; all contributing to fewer dollars being contributed by members requiring the City to make up the difference. This is but a drop in the bucket of things to come because of the City’s short sighted actions.
The worst is yet to come in my opinion. I am a glass half full type of person but also a realist. With the current climate and lack of testicular fortitude to do what is right, we are left with politicians who simply lick a finger and place it in the air to gage current wind direction so they can ensure they are not heading into that wind for fear of having a rough go of it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Have You Seen a Pay Telephone Lately?
Have you attempted calling a co-worker with the police department lately only to find the number has been disconnected or is no longer in service? How many of you working various assignments have had your department issued cellular phone taken away? Sex Crimes detectives are the latest to fall victim to the budget cutting, cost savings by the department. Many have already forfeited their department telephones and more are yet to be eliminated.
It is hard for anyone to argue the need to cut costs and save money. The department was running a cellular telephone bill in the area of over $700 thousand annually. The goal is to reduce this bill to no more than $250 thousand annually. The telephones were in small part a handout facilitated by a project with Qualcomm. The PDA telephones were a project to get more PDA devices in the hands of working police officers to make their jobs more efficient.
Times have changed and we need to take several steps back in time. To a time when there were few cellular telephones and communications dispatchers relayed information for us. Remember pagers? Old school yes but better than nothing? Oops; I forgot, they are all gone also. What are we going to do? We surely won't be able to be as efficient as we were when we had a department cellular telephone in our pockets or on our belts. Have you tried lately to find a pay telephone? Good luck!
Now I am not going to try and make a case for the department providing a cellular telephone for very member. I'm not sure I could do that with a straight face and at the same time defend my logic. Heck, the doctors in Haiti are doing surgery without all the high tech instruments, machines and equipment they were use to before the earthquake. This is a pathetic comparison I know. But the point I am making is we were able to do the job before cellular telephones and we will be able to do it now. The sad part is there are many detectives out there who never did the job before cellular telephones and have come to rely on them for their primary source of communication with their office, informants, victims, witnesses, their supervisors, partners and allied agencies. We will re-adjust and simply go back to the old way of doing things; less efficiently and with less expediency. We will get the job done but the boss will have to wait until 10-19 to get updated information on incidents. This will not go over well. Do you have your own cellular telephone? Will you be willing to use it for department business? The old *51 number (I first put *56 oops) used for not being charged minutes for calls into the department is gone. I know there are some puzzled looks right now and people reading this asking what the hell "*51" is. Ask an old timer and he or she can explain it to you.
The plan as I understand it is to have "duty" cellular telephones for every division or unit to pass around. The phone will be used for call outs and department business. The times of every detective and supervisor having a telephone provided by the department is in the past. The department's goal of saving half a million dollars is admirable and understandable. The question in my mind is how much will this cost the department in the long run in terms of time and lost productivity? Time will tell.
Today I had a "Twitter Joust" with the little rube. Well, maybe better said; I challenged the little rube on four of his five "Pension Reforms" he is touting around town. The little rube uses Twitter more than all the other politicians in this City put together. He uses every medium he can to deliver his twisted and distorted messages. Left unchecked he will no doubt win over many unknowing voters.
Below is the exchange I had with the little rube today on Twitter. I would urge you all to sign up for Twitter and follow the various politicians and other so called "leaders" in San Diego so you can become educated and involved in what they are doing.
It is hard for anyone to argue the need to cut costs and save money. The department was running a cellular telephone bill in the area of over $700 thousand annually. The goal is to reduce this bill to no more than $250 thousand annually. The telephones were in small part a handout facilitated by a project with Qualcomm. The PDA telephones were a project to get more PDA devices in the hands of working police officers to make their jobs more efficient.
Times have changed and we need to take several steps back in time. To a time when there were few cellular telephones and communications dispatchers relayed information for us. Remember pagers? Old school yes but better than nothing? Oops; I forgot, they are all gone also. What are we going to do? We surely won't be able to be as efficient as we were when we had a department cellular telephone in our pockets or on our belts. Have you tried lately to find a pay telephone? Good luck!
Now I am not going to try and make a case for the department providing a cellular telephone for very member. I'm not sure I could do that with a straight face and at the same time defend my logic. Heck, the doctors in Haiti are doing surgery without all the high tech instruments, machines and equipment they were use to before the earthquake. This is a pathetic comparison I know. But the point I am making is we were able to do the job before cellular telephones and we will be able to do it now. The sad part is there are many detectives out there who never did the job before cellular telephones and have come to rely on them for their primary source of communication with their office, informants, victims, witnesses, their supervisors, partners and allied agencies. We will re-adjust and simply go back to the old way of doing things; less efficiently and with less expediency. We will get the job done but the boss will have to wait until 10-19 to get updated information on incidents. This will not go over well. Do you have your own cellular telephone? Will you be willing to use it for department business? The old *51 number (I first put *56 oops) used for not being charged minutes for calls into the department is gone. I know there are some puzzled looks right now and people reading this asking what the hell "*51" is. Ask an old timer and he or she can explain it to you.
The plan as I understand it is to have "duty" cellular telephones for every division or unit to pass around. The phone will be used for call outs and department business. The times of every detective and supervisor having a telephone provided by the department is in the past. The department's goal of saving half a million dollars is admirable and understandable. The question in my mind is how much will this cost the department in the long run in terms of time and lost productivity? Time will tell.
Today I had a "Twitter Joust" with the little rube. Well, maybe better said; I challenged the little rube on four of his five "Pension Reforms" he is touting around town. The little rube uses Twitter more than all the other politicians in this City put together. He uses every medium he can to deliver his twisted and distorted messages. Left unchecked he will no doubt win over many unknowing voters.
Below is the exchange I had with the little rube today on Twitter. I would urge you all to sign up for Twitter and follow the various politicians and other so called "leaders" in San Diego so you can become educated and involved in what they are doing.
- carldemaio said; Pension Reform #1: Eliminate "terminal leave" -- did you know city employees earn pension credits on their vacation days after they retire? stevemac1956 said; your last is patently untrue. When on "Terminal Leave" ALL accruals STOP. Check your facts!!
- carldemaio said; Pension Reform #2: Eliminate Offsets: We pay more than $10M each year of "employee" contributions to pensions. Not vested. stevemac1956 said; Again you spin truth. "Offsets" were INLIEU of pay raises and cost city LESS money. Learn the history Carl
- carldemaio said; Pension reform #3. SPSP Waiver: Eliminate the city match to the "second" pension plan. We did this with MEA, need to do with others (No comment - not our fight)
- carldemaio said; Pension Reform #4. DROP Neutrality. City muni code require cost neutrality. Vested benefit has to conform. Let's implement now. stevemac1956 said; It is better than cost neutral. But mayor refuses to do study because he knows this. You should also
- carldemaio said; Pension Reform #5. Finish the job of reforming pensions for "new" hires. Electeds, public safety still have high pensions. stevemac1956 said; You need to know facts Carl. DC will cost city 35% more than current DB. Safety retirement is not the problem. Again FACT check
- carldemaio said; These 5 Pension Reforms can all legally be done -- no vesting problems. Only thing missing is candor/leadership. stevemac1956 said; The only thing missing are honest politicians who blame others for problems THEY created. YOU simply compound problems with lies
- carldemaio said; I'm appearing on KUSI Good Morning San Diego tomorrow at 7:30 am to talk pension reform
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sanders Love Affair with Goldsmith
I have been lounging around today enjoying the rain catching up on my reading. “Just Wondering” has posted numerous, on-point comments in the past couple of weeks. Predictions I made months back are starting to rear their ugly head. We have not hit bottom and the worst in my opinion is still to come.
The City Attorney is giving a “State of the City” address on Wednesday. The Voice of San Diego carried a piece on January 14, 2010, titled, “Sanders Hearts Goldsmith” that was written by Liam Dillon. In the piece, the mayor is quoted as saying, “I think you'll see that he's producing legal opinions now that are foundational for a lot of the things that are important for the city," citing Goldsmith's role in future pension reform as well. Someone care to enlighten me as to why the City Attorney is giving a “Political” address to the citizens of this city? It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?
It appears the City Attorney is playing all sides in these debates. His record of legal research and the ability to simply provide legal opinion is not the best. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say Wednesday about pension reform, bankruptcy and outsourcing. I hope for everyone’s sake his research is better than past published material.
The latest revelation the city’s pension payment is at least $20 million more than forecast is going to play in the City Attorney’s address, you can rest assured. This will add fodder for the little rube and his minions as they plot further initiatives. The forecast will no doubt add to the budget shortfall and require additional cuts. So it appears the mayor’s statement during his “State of the City” address, “We are beginning 2010 on strong footing” is another of his smoke screens. If this is firm footing, I sure would not want to hike Everest with the mayor.
During all of this, the mayor is headed off to testify at the hearing for Prop 8. I fail to see how his testimony is relevant or necessary. I do see it as another attempt at inserting himself in issues to bring attention to himself. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, how has this become an issue for San Diego’s mayor?
Wednesday will shed light on the direction the mayor will take us related to pension reform as well as retiree medical insurance.
The City Attorney is giving a “State of the City” address on Wednesday. The Voice of San Diego carried a piece on January 14, 2010, titled, “Sanders Hearts Goldsmith” that was written by Liam Dillon. In the piece, the mayor is quoted as saying, “I think you'll see that he's producing legal opinions now that are foundational for a lot of the things that are important for the city," citing Goldsmith's role in future pension reform as well. Someone care to enlighten me as to why the City Attorney is giving a “Political” address to the citizens of this city? It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?
It appears the City Attorney is playing all sides in these debates. His record of legal research and the ability to simply provide legal opinion is not the best. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say Wednesday about pension reform, bankruptcy and outsourcing. I hope for everyone’s sake his research is better than past published material.
The latest revelation the city’s pension payment is at least $20 million more than forecast is going to play in the City Attorney’s address, you can rest assured. This will add fodder for the little rube and his minions as they plot further initiatives. The forecast will no doubt add to the budget shortfall and require additional cuts. So it appears the mayor’s statement during his “State of the City” address, “We are beginning 2010 on strong footing” is another of his smoke screens. If this is firm footing, I sure would not want to hike Everest with the mayor.
During all of this, the mayor is headed off to testify at the hearing for Prop 8. I fail to see how his testimony is relevant or necessary. I do see it as another attempt at inserting himself in issues to bring attention to himself. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, how has this become an issue for San Diego’s mayor?
Wednesday will shed light on the direction the mayor will take us related to pension reform as well as retiree medical insurance.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
State of the City - Really?
Did you have an opportunity to catch the mayor’s “State of the City Address?” There were no real surprises and few; scratch that, no new revelations. Some of the comments I heard from various observers;
"We will finish the job" is a telling statement. If there was ever any doubt where you stand as an employee of this city make no mistake; you are simply a debt that must be eliminated. The mayor's words leave little doubt of what can be expected during negotiations related to retiree health care benefits.
This is the mayor's fifth address and by many accounts his worst. He again made the comment, "We are beginning 2010 on a strong footing. Our employees are working harder and doing more with less than at any time in City history." I wanted to jump up out of my seat and yell out some very strong expletives. When people refer to us as "Civil Servants" they mean just that. They expect us to be "Servants" in the literal meaning of the word. The mayor made this even more clear during his address. Work harder and do more with less is the expectation.
The press and pundits will weigh in on the words and text of the mayor's address. Those who understand will point out the short comings of his address. Michael Stetz in a January 13, 2010, Union Tribune article, "Mayor's speech pattern wears thin" was printed long before the first word was spoken by the mayor and yet his every point. The last two paragraphs of the piece hit a home-run. "But he wasn't drafted to do the job. He campaigned for it. He even probably voted for himself (well, at least the first time)." "It's time for Sanders to stop looking to the past for blame - he does it quite eloquently, so it might be tough to give up - and realize something. He's in his fifth year as mayor. He must be responsible for something by now, right?"
No comments about public safety were made and no mention of managed competition directly. There is more to come on these and other issues and you can bet the cuts to benefits and jobs were simply the beginning of more to come.
- Did he (mayor) just punt health cost reduction onto city attorney?
- Biggest disappointment with speech; no mention of further pursuit of real pension reform.
- Elected (mayor) to protect taxpayer and restore fiscal integrity; yet we’re DONE with pension reform? That’s inconsistent!
- Projects (Convention Center expansion, Downtown Library, City Hall and Charger Stadium) must be built without sacrificing present quality of life.
- I guess we are the dog in the pig and pony story?
- Sidestepping the real issues; what did he (mayor) mean when he said before 18 months is over he will come back with a plan to resolve the City’s structural deficit?
- No meat and potato’s tonight; just more rhetoric.
There were several sideways comments about further cuts to employee benefits. The mayor said, “Last year, when we adopted new contracts with our employees, we took strong steps to clamp down on costs in our retiree health care benefits, the final piece of the pension puzzle. We are now working with our employees to establish logical funding sources and levels. And with the help of our new city attorney, we will finish the job.”
"We will finish the job" is a telling statement. If there was ever any doubt where you stand as an employee of this city make no mistake; you are simply a debt that must be eliminated. The mayor's words leave little doubt of what can be expected during negotiations related to retiree health care benefits.
This is the mayor's fifth address and by many accounts his worst. He again made the comment, "We are beginning 2010 on a strong footing. Our employees are working harder and doing more with less than at any time in City history." I wanted to jump up out of my seat and yell out some very strong expletives. When people refer to us as "Civil Servants" they mean just that. They expect us to be "Servants" in the literal meaning of the word. The mayor made this even more clear during his address. Work harder and do more with less is the expectation.
The press and pundits will weigh in on the words and text of the mayor's address. Those who understand will point out the short comings of his address. Michael Stetz in a January 13, 2010, Union Tribune article, "Mayor's speech pattern wears thin" was printed long before the first word was spoken by the mayor and yet his every point. The last two paragraphs of the piece hit a home-run. "But he wasn't drafted to do the job. He campaigned for it. He even probably voted for himself (well, at least the first time)." "It's time for Sanders to stop looking to the past for blame - he does it quite eloquently, so it might be tough to give up - and realize something. He's in his fifth year as mayor. He must be responsible for something by now, right?"
No comments about public safety were made and no mention of managed competition directly. There is more to come on these and other issues and you can bet the cuts to benefits and jobs were simply the beginning of more to come.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Predictions for January 13, 2010
There is not an economic indicator today that paints a positive picture. The State continues to bleed; politicians at all levels refuse to develop structural fixes to the budget mess; pundits and politicians chose to blame employees and unions; and no one is willing to do what is needed to seek long term solutions. Reductions and cuts to services, wages, benefits, and jobs continue with no end in sight. There is seldom a day that passes in which some individual; be it a politician, columnist, reporter, advocate or “expert” will promulgate “facts” about municipal employee benefits that contain more lies and spin than reality and truth.
On January 13, 2010, the mayor will give his “State of the City” address. We will no doubt hear him advocate for expansion of the Convention Center; building a new Taj Mahal – City Hall; building a new downtown library; finding a solution for a new Charger Stadium; suggestions for jobs and services to be contracted out; new “sacrifices” or reductions and cuts to employee benefits “to be sought through negotiations” as the mayor again places the solutions upon the shoulders of the City’s employees. There will be a proclamation for new fees and increases to others but no new taxes. The mayor will attempt to sell the public a bill of goods of an improving financial picture for the city and nary a problem with the public’s safety.
The mayor will again fail to acknowledge the sacrifices employees have made and tell the taxpaying public he is looking after their welfare by reducing and eliminating retirement benefits and eliminating retiree medical insurance. During the last state of the city addresses the mayor did not acknowledge a single worker for the city. He simply laid blame at our feet for the deficit and the mounting costs to operate the nation’s 7th largest city. His address on the 13th will be no different.
There are several comments on my last post from “Just Wondering” that offer a hint of what is to come in 2010. Take some time and read this person’s comments and follow the various links offered. Pay special attention to the comment posted 1/12/2010 at 7:16 pm titled, “All of you Public Safety Employees are EVIL” and follow the link “read the story here” which links to “reason.com” The moments and posting on this site will make many of you angry and cause the blood pressure to increase. Keep in mind this is the mindset of the current mayor of this city and the “little rube” as well as Kevin Faulconer. The attacks on public employees (they want us to be servants) is a national campaign that appears to be centered in California and strongest in southern California.
Looking to the future; I think what we have endured over the last several years is nothing compared to what is in our future. The current mayor has three more years to push his agenda of eviscerating employee wages and benefits and taking employees back 30 years. Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines and grumble as you do nothing. We need to make our voices heard and we need to combat the miss-information (outright lies) being provided to the taxpayers.
Talk to your SDPOA Board members and ask them what you can do to help. Get involved and become educated about your benefits so you can correct the lies on the spot and not allow someone to walk away believing the lies they were told. When someone tells people city employees are leaving after 30 years and making “as much as 130%” in retirement; yell at the top of your lungs if needed the truth. The truth is 90% is the maximum an employee can receive upon retirement after 30 years and that only applies to safety personnel. Know your benefits and how to explain them factually to taxpayers and friends alike.
Tomorrow I will post my thoughts on the mayor’s speech and see how close I was to predicting his words. Be safe and enjoy the day.
On January 13, 2010, the mayor will give his “State of the City” address. We will no doubt hear him advocate for expansion of the Convention Center; building a new Taj Mahal – City Hall; building a new downtown library; finding a solution for a new Charger Stadium; suggestions for jobs and services to be contracted out; new “sacrifices” or reductions and cuts to employee benefits “to be sought through negotiations” as the mayor again places the solutions upon the shoulders of the City’s employees. There will be a proclamation for new fees and increases to others but no new taxes. The mayor will attempt to sell the public a bill of goods of an improving financial picture for the city and nary a problem with the public’s safety.
The mayor will again fail to acknowledge the sacrifices employees have made and tell the taxpaying public he is looking after their welfare by reducing and eliminating retirement benefits and eliminating retiree medical insurance. During the last state of the city addresses the mayor did not acknowledge a single worker for the city. He simply laid blame at our feet for the deficit and the mounting costs to operate the nation’s 7th largest city. His address on the 13th will be no different.
There are several comments on my last post from “Just Wondering” that offer a hint of what is to come in 2010. Take some time and read this person’s comments and follow the various links offered. Pay special attention to the comment posted 1/12/2010 at 7:16 pm titled, “All of you Public Safety Employees are EVIL” and follow the link “read the story here” which links to “reason.com” The moments and posting on this site will make many of you angry and cause the blood pressure to increase. Keep in mind this is the mindset of the current mayor of this city and the “little rube” as well as Kevin Faulconer. The attacks on public employees (they want us to be servants) is a national campaign that appears to be centered in California and strongest in southern California.
Looking to the future; I think what we have endured over the last several years is nothing compared to what is in our future. The current mayor has three more years to push his agenda of eviscerating employee wages and benefits and taking employees back 30 years. Now is not the time to sit on the sidelines and grumble as you do nothing. We need to make our voices heard and we need to combat the miss-information (outright lies) being provided to the taxpayers.
Talk to your SDPOA Board members and ask them what you can do to help. Get involved and become educated about your benefits so you can correct the lies on the spot and not allow someone to walk away believing the lies they were told. When someone tells people city employees are leaving after 30 years and making “as much as 130%” in retirement; yell at the top of your lungs if needed the truth. The truth is 90% is the maximum an employee can receive upon retirement after 30 years and that only applies to safety personnel. Know your benefits and how to explain them factually to taxpayers and friends alike.
Tomorrow I will post my thoughts on the mayor’s speech and see how close I was to predicting his words. Be safe and enjoy the day.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The End of 2009 – NOT the End of the Pain
The final hours of 2009 are ticking down and none too soon as far as I am concerned. Dwelling on the events of this past year will simply cause the removal of even more enamel from my teeth and renewed tension to my mandible. Many contemplate resolutions for a new year. By March, these resolutions will be gone from memory and people will revert to the comfort of the past. Politicians will use this time to pontificate and proselytize their agenda, disguised as "New Year's Resolutions." The first to hit the air waves is none other than the "little rube."
Disguised as an "Opinion" piece in the Union Tribune; "Resolutions for San Diego City Hall" the little rube continues his attempt to sell the taxpayer on his vision for policies, "that help create jobs, a truly balanced budget, reductions in unfunded pension and health obligations, and improvements in the water rate structure." The little rube said, "I'd like to suggest four self-improvement resolutions for my fellow city leaders and I to focus on in 2010."
The first of four resolutions; jobs friendly policies that promote putting San Diegans back to work. The little rube boasted of "holding a 'small-business' summit where he compiled a laundry list of examples where city government has been a hindrance rather than a help to job creation." Does the label "Hypocrite" ring true to anyone else? This carpet bagging, spin master, has gone out of his way to ensure the un-employment lines in San Diego continue to grow. His goal is to eliminate as many positions within the city as possible so he can grease the way for his cronies in the name of "Managed Competition." If you think for one second, his resolution of "jobs friendly policies" is altruistic, I would suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. The little rube continues to rail against raising revenue, demanding City leaders reject tax and fee increases, so he can ensure the city continues to face budget deficits. He can then continue to blame employees and sway the taxpayers to eliminate pension and retiree health benefits earned over the past thirty years.
The second resolution; a real balanced city budget, is the little rube's continued cry for managed competition in the name of "structural change." This is the where the spin machine kicks into high speed. The 15 percent to 25 percent cost savings the little rube says will be achieved through managed competition is simply; NOT REALISTIC. Government was not set up, nor is it in the business of "making" a profit. The only part of the little rube's continued diatribe related to this issue I will agree with is the need to conduct a performance audit and ensure the benchmark for performance meets private sector performances for all city services. This not only makes sense but is something good government does as a routine. Many of these audits have been completed and structural changes have already been implemented. When managed competition is employed, minimal savings is realized in the short term, and then experience has shown the companies providing the services realize the need to turn a profit and begin to make changes to meet this goal. The result of this selling of government services to the lowest bidder will be higher cost to the taxpayer and inadequate service in the long term.
The third of the little rube's New Year's resolutions; pension, health benefits reform, is buoyed by his playing loose and free with reality and facts. The numbers this pathetic politician uses to inflame taxpayers is nothing but short of criminal. His use of numbers, facts and spin have created a hysteria and hatred toward city employees and their wages and benefits that are all part of a larger scheme. The little rube uses facts and figures out of context to fit his argument and bolster his false claims. An example is his statement, "Over the years, city leaders granted employees generous pension packages and free taxpayer-funded health care coverage for life." His omission of how the retiree health care benefits came to be is egregious. He refuses to acknowledge the deal Pete Wilson put together to save the city money in 1981, to have employees withdraw from Social Security/Medicare with the agreement of providing city sponsored retiree health care insurance. The City saved money and in theory used the savings to provide these promised benefits.
2010 should be the year city leaders and employees join together and craft a solution to the pension and retiree health care insurance problem. Creating a tiered plan for retiree health care insurance for pre 1986 employees, honoring the decade's old agreement, is imperative to doing what is right. This should, at a minimum, include fully paid medical care insurance for those employees hired before 1986 who lack sufficient quarters to participate in Medicare. Workers who are eligible for Medicare should be provided retiree health care insurance until such time as eligible for this benefit. Working together to create solutions for long term retiree health care insurance, include implementing a shared retiree medical trust for funding adequate benefits is a must. Developing a sustainable Defined Benefit Retirement for Safety members and General members will require sacrifice. Recognizing the gains earned over the past decades, at this time, are not sustainable, we must roll back the retirement of workers. To do this fairly and with minimal impact on the quality of life for the city's employees; a tiered system need be explored for retirement. Participants with less than ten years of service (Safety and General hired after 2000) should be considered for a reduction to the benefit received at retirement which might include; an increase to the age of retirement (53 years for Safety; 62 years for General); a maximum benefit of 2.5% per year of service for the first 20 years and 2.75% for the remaining years of service, with a maximum benefit of 85 percent of the highest one year for Safety employees; and 2% per year of service for the first 25 years and 2.25% per year for the remaining years of service, with a maximum benefit of 85 percent of the highest three years for General employees. Employees and the City will contribute an additional one percent to retirement until the funding level rises above 90%; elected office holders will not be eligible to participate in the City's Retirement program but can participate in a City Matching 401K program up to a six percent match of contribution. DROP should be made available to ALL Safety Members who provide a minimum of 25 years of actual service upon retirement.
The suggestions above will no doubt be met with resistance from both sides. The City will say the changes do not go far enough and employees will say they go too far. I am not advocating these suggestions are the fix all, end all to the City's fiscal problems. I am simply offering suggestions to begin the dialog for obtaining sustainable and realistic retirement benefits for all employees that are acceptable to the taxpayer without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The forth of the little rube's resolutions; reform water rates, is one that lacks detail or vision. Simply showing resolve to create a new water rate structure to provide "financial incentives" to those who conserve is a shallow approach to a critical problem. Pursuing a secure long term water supply has been a dismal failure, due to a lack of vision and action by our elected officials. Suggesting the city expands hookups to recycled water for irrigation without the implementation of the "toilet to tap" program will not provide sufficient increases to meet the needs of our children. Working aggressively to move desalination forward and seeking federal support for this endeavor is paramount.
The little rube actually closes his piece with some truth; "As with any effort to keep faithful to a new year's resolution, city leaders will need someone to act as a constant coach and conscience – and that's where the public comes in." The taxpayer needs to become involved and hold city leaders accountable for their actions or lack thereof. To sit idly by while the city and its employees are decimated is not an option. With the New Year upon us, we need to make a resolution of our own to get involved and make a difference. We must educate the taxpayer to the realities of what we can safely provide and inform them of our true benefits. We can no longer allow the little rube and others to spin reality without providing context and honest, true facts disputing their lies.
I wish to thank all those who offered support to me and my family during 2009. Your prayers and words carried us through the days when we felt so helpless. To those who retired in 2009, after sacrificing countless years of your lives, to protect the citizens of San Diego, I want to thank you for all you gave. My hope is for a better year, filled with good health, joy and love. As we enter 2010, I will leave you with a quote I read this evening on Charles Kindred's Facebook;"We find no real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve" Maxwell Maltz.
We have many obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve in 2010. The real satisfaction and happiness in our lives are our responsibility and cannot be left to others to provide.
Happy New Year Everyone!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)