Written by: Just Wondering
On April 16, 2010, SDCERS began discussion regarding the City’s NEW attack on Pension Benefits. The so-called “Substantially Equal” theory using Charter Section 143, as a new tact to undermine what you’ve legally negotiated for over the years. The City, at taxpayer expense, hired another outside attorney group, K&L Gates, LLP, comprises over 1,800 lawyers who practice in 36 offices located on three continents as pointed out by our City Attorney in his MEMORADUM of April 2, 2010. Mr. Goldsmith goes on to praise the attorney who rendered the opinion as a lawyer who “…is among the leading experts in the area of practice.” Read about Norman Milks here.
Two items in the opinion really grabbed my attention:
The City’s pension plan is so unique that it may be one of a kind. SDCERS’ actuary, Gene Kalwarski, has stated that in his 30 years of experience he has never come across a pension system with a limitation that the employer contributes “substantially equal” amounts as the employee.” (Memorandum page 4)
And on page 5
The K&L Gates opinion concludes: “The City does not have an obligation to fund all except some small piece of the ultimate benefit, nor to make up for poor investment performance entirely on its own. Instead, the City and its employees, by substantially equal contributions, fund their respective shares of the whole.”
K&L supports their opinion by citing 1954 and 1962 opinions. The 1954 opinion is that of the Charter Section’s author, Shelly J. Higgins, the attorney who drafted the opinion at the time when section 143 had just been approved by the voters.
So the discussion has begun. Putting the discussion into the context of 2010 with the economic collapse of our Nation’s economy, the financial ruin of the City, and the billions in State deficits, I don’t hold out a whole lot of hope for the status quo. Instead, it seems only prudent to budget for a “substantially equal” increase the amount of money you will be required to contribute toward your pension.
On the bright side, SDCERS newly released annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 2009, shows SDCERS investment returns over the last ten volatile years still ranks “in the top 2% for public pension plans.”
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Fact Check This
At least once a week, Carl DeMaio AKA; the little rube, can be heard telling anyone that will listen, about the bloated pensions city employees are making. Each and every time the rube gives his spin on benefits, he tells those present we are retiring from the city with as much as 138% of our highest one year salary. Since I can remember, the rube has spun the numbers and reality of benefits from medical to retirement to salary of city employees. His goal is clear. If you have any doubt, follow his web site, Clean Up City Hall where he boasts of HIS initiative he is campaigning for and soliciting signature for. His goal is to outsource as many job functions as possible to eliminate as many city workers as possible.
In my last blog post, I ranted about Michael Stetz and his attack on fire fighters. The next day I received an e-mail from Keegan Kyle of the Voice of San Diego. Keegan wrote;
Steve,
I’d like to run a portion of your recent blog post through our Fact Check blog. Do you know where I can find background or city documents to prove the bolded statements below?
“There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years.”
Please do not hesitate to email or call me if you have any questions.
Keegan Kyle
My first thought was, "you're kidding me?" Then I wondered why. What would prompt the Voice of San Diego to "Fact Check" items in my blog and more importantly, what is to be gained when they do? I welcome the evaluation and vetting of information. I have nothing to fear and this evaluation can do nothing but add credibility to my rant. So I say bring it on.
I told Keegan he could verify the information by contacting the City and the Fire Department. I left it at that initially. I then decided to provide him the information I used to make the statements contained in my rant that Keegan indicated he was going to "fact check." In a report written by Lisa Celaya, a Fiscal and Policy Analyst with the office of the Indepentent Budget Analyst, dated May 19, 2008, (IBA Report # 08-51) Lisa wrote the City saved $3 million dollars in 2006 by paying overtime in lieu of hiring additional fire fighters. The report supported continuing the practice of hiring back for overtime to fill vacant positions in fire houses over hiring additional employees.
Keegan said in a follow up e-mail,;
"Steve, Still working on the post. I’ll probably have something together on Monday. I will try to explain our analysis and our rating before we publish. Please don’t hesitate to send me any questions. -- KK
So keep an eye out for the results. I can't wait to see the spin put on this from the city's perspective. The fire department started closing stations in lieu of paying the overtime and stated the savings will amount to $11 million. Now lets see what the "Rating" is given of the information posted in my blog.
But while I have the attention of Keegan, I have a question for him. When is a "Fact Check" going to be done regarding the fabricated and exaggerated information being sold to the public by the little rube? The rube tells of employees retiring with 138% of their highest one years salary. Reality is that is impossible and not permitted by SDCERS. The maximum is 90%. A large percentage of employees do not even retire at that level. The press continues to print his bloated and false numbers and no one feels the need to call him on this. Why? When is the Voice of San Diego going to "Fact Check" the information being told to taxpayers by this elected politician?
In my last blog post, I ranted about Michael Stetz and his attack on fire fighters. The next day I received an e-mail from Keegan Kyle of the Voice of San Diego. Keegan wrote;
Steve,
I’d like to run a portion of your recent blog post through our Fact Check blog. Do you know where I can find background or city documents to prove the bolded statements below?
“There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years.”
Please do not hesitate to email or call me if you have any questions.
Keegan Kyle
My first thought was, "you're kidding me?" Then I wondered why. What would prompt the Voice of San Diego to "Fact Check" items in my blog and more importantly, what is to be gained when they do? I welcome the evaluation and vetting of information. I have nothing to fear and this evaluation can do nothing but add credibility to my rant. So I say bring it on.
I told Keegan he could verify the information by contacting the City and the Fire Department. I left it at that initially. I then decided to provide him the information I used to make the statements contained in my rant that Keegan indicated he was going to "fact check." In a report written by Lisa Celaya, a Fiscal and Policy Analyst with the office of the Indepentent Budget Analyst, dated May 19, 2008, (IBA Report # 08-51) Lisa wrote the City saved $3 million dollars in 2006 by paying overtime in lieu of hiring additional fire fighters. The report supported continuing the practice of hiring back for overtime to fill vacant positions in fire houses over hiring additional employees.
Keegan said in a follow up e-mail,;
"Steve, Still working on the post. I’ll probably have something together on Monday. I will try to explain our analysis and our rating before we publish. Please don’t hesitate to send me any questions. -- KK
So keep an eye out for the results. I can't wait to see the spin put on this from the city's perspective. The fire department started closing stations in lieu of paying the overtime and stated the savings will amount to $11 million. Now lets see what the "Rating" is given of the information posted in my blog.
But while I have the attention of Keegan, I have a question for him. When is a "Fact Check" going to be done regarding the fabricated and exaggerated information being sold to the public by the little rube? The rube tells of employees retiring with 138% of their highest one years salary. Reality is that is impossible and not permitted by SDCERS. The maximum is 90%. A large percentage of employees do not even retire at that level. The press continues to print his bloated and false numbers and no one feels the need to call him on this. Why? When is the Voice of San Diego going to "Fact Check" the information being told to taxpayers by this elected politician?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The "Next One"
If you have any doubts why the citizens of San Diego don't get it, you only need read another backwards diatribe by Union Tribune writer, Michael Stetz. In the Wednesday edition of this joke of a newspaper, Stetz penned an article titled, "Fire official overlooks alarming paychecks." Before you go on, take a minute or two to read what he wrote.
I will try my best to stay free of dragging everyone into my miserable world of self-loathing. But beware, I am going to share my thoughts on reality, viewed from where I stand. If in some way this bothers you, close this blog and move on. I talked about the event in a prior post that Stetz uses to again inflame readers, "Ignorance is Bliss - But Deadly". Stetz goes off on the usual tangent saying Frank De Clercq, President of the Firefighters Union, should "look at how the city fire department staff has contributed to San Diego's financial mess," which Stetz claims has helped lead to the kind of cuts that are putting citizens in grave danger.
Stetz regurgitates the inflammatory and exaggerated salaries printed in his tabloid, attempting to bolster his pathetic argument. Stetz ignores reality and conveniently omits the reasons for the high overtime rate of firefighters in San Diego. He continues the bashing of city employee retirement benefits and attempts to lay blame to the brown outs at the feet of firefighters, as well as the increased contribution owed by the city to the retirement system, and he tosses in the city deficit for good measure.
Frank is following in my footsteps, or me his, when he points out the cuts to firefighters and the closing of the stations is a matter of life and death. "This is the first of many incidents that are going to happen" says De Clercq. Stetz attempts to downplay and minimize the cuts, at the same time justifying them saying "But what hasn't been cut? Libraries, recreation centers, beach amenities...." Then Stetz demands "real evidence that the brownout did indeed contribute to the death of Taylor before all this alarmist talk."
Stetz came to San Diego in 1997 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania where he worked for The Patriot-News. Stetz graduated from Towson State University in Maryland, with a degree in English. It is apparent from his writing, he is a company bloke, who would rather cull past diatribes for insertion into his pieces, than do any real investigation into what he writes about. San Diego lacks ANY real investigative reporter skilled in writing clear, articulate, honest and factual pieces. The Union Tribune should think about changing their name to the San Diego Star or San Diego Enquirer or something similar. The name would be closer aligned with the quality and content it publishes. There is little in Stetz's bio to indicate qualifications to take on the types of writing he is attempting.
I will allow fire personnel to provide the arguments related to the fire that claimed the life of a citizen in San Diego. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the dangers of closing fire stations in a city that is already lacking adequate stations to meet the needs of its citizens. The game of Russian Roulette being played at the taxpayers expense is criminal. But for Stetz to blame fire staff for the need to close stations is pathetic.
"Constant Manning" is a term for ensuring minimum staffing. National Standards for the safe deployment of fire personnel suggests a level of staffing for safety to the firefighter and citizen. In San Diego, the city decided years ago, it would cost less money to intentionally under-staff the fire department and staff fire trucks and engines with fire fighters working over time. Stetz and others attempt to paint fire fighters as over time whores who are in some way stealing money from the taxpayers and the cause for financial problems at city hall. No one is willing to tell the truth about this issue.
There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years. Some how this is lost in the assault of the fire fighters by politicians and the press.
The final two paragraphs of Stetz's diatribe show his true colors and make personal a political agenda being waged by him and his colleagues at the Union Tribune. Stetz writes; "Well, when the "next one" does hit, De Clercq should spend a little time examining his paycheck as a city fire captain. He made $154,184 last year in base pay, overtime and something called retro-pay. He also got a $1,350 uniform allowance. How will his pension be paid for? Higher taxes, or more cuts to city services. Including the fire department."
The "next one" will come and I guess if saying this, is somehow a weekly dose of doom and gloom, so be it. Governments priorities in San Diego are completely askew of reality. The press plays a large role in this disparity, with their continued assault of public safety employees and the unwillingness to accurately report the dangers facing citizens. Will the "next one" result in a serious injury or death? Will a fire fighter be injured or killed?
Sunday night at 2348 hours there was a collision resulting in injuries on the 56 at Camino del Sur. The ambulance arrived at 0008 hours, twenty minutes after the first sounds of the collision. The nearest station is located at Salmon River Road and Paseo Montalban, about a mile and a half to two miles away. Was this station closed Sunday also?
I will try my best to stay free of dragging everyone into my miserable world of self-loathing. But beware, I am going to share my thoughts on reality, viewed from where I stand. If in some way this bothers you, close this blog and move on. I talked about the event in a prior post that Stetz uses to again inflame readers, "Ignorance is Bliss - But Deadly". Stetz goes off on the usual tangent saying Frank De Clercq, President of the Firefighters Union, should "look at how the city fire department staff has contributed to San Diego's financial mess," which Stetz claims has helped lead to the kind of cuts that are putting citizens in grave danger.
Stetz regurgitates the inflammatory and exaggerated salaries printed in his tabloid, attempting to bolster his pathetic argument. Stetz ignores reality and conveniently omits the reasons for the high overtime rate of firefighters in San Diego. He continues the bashing of city employee retirement benefits and attempts to lay blame to the brown outs at the feet of firefighters, as well as the increased contribution owed by the city to the retirement system, and he tosses in the city deficit for good measure.
Frank is following in my footsteps, or me his, when he points out the cuts to firefighters and the closing of the stations is a matter of life and death. "This is the first of many incidents that are going to happen" says De Clercq. Stetz attempts to downplay and minimize the cuts, at the same time justifying them saying "But what hasn't been cut? Libraries, recreation centers, beach amenities...." Then Stetz demands "real evidence that the brownout did indeed contribute to the death of Taylor before all this alarmist talk."
Stetz came to San Diego in 1997 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania where he worked for The Patriot-News. Stetz graduated from Towson State University in Maryland, with a degree in English. It is apparent from his writing, he is a company bloke, who would rather cull past diatribes for insertion into his pieces, than do any real investigation into what he writes about. San Diego lacks ANY real investigative reporter skilled in writing clear, articulate, honest and factual pieces. The Union Tribune should think about changing their name to the San Diego Star or San Diego Enquirer or something similar. The name would be closer aligned with the quality and content it publishes. There is little in Stetz's bio to indicate qualifications to take on the types of writing he is attempting.
I will allow fire personnel to provide the arguments related to the fire that claimed the life of a citizen in San Diego. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the dangers of closing fire stations in a city that is already lacking adequate stations to meet the needs of its citizens. The game of Russian Roulette being played at the taxpayers expense is criminal. But for Stetz to blame fire staff for the need to close stations is pathetic.
"Constant Manning" is a term for ensuring minimum staffing. National Standards for the safe deployment of fire personnel suggests a level of staffing for safety to the firefighter and citizen. In San Diego, the city decided years ago, it would cost less money to intentionally under-staff the fire department and staff fire trucks and engines with fire fighters working over time. Stetz and others attempt to paint fire fighters as over time whores who are in some way stealing money from the taxpayers and the cause for financial problems at city hall. No one is willing to tell the truth about this issue.
There is a full time team of fire fighters (or use to be) whose full time job is to schedule fire fighter overtime to ensure EVERY fire house is adequately staffed. Much of this overtime was mandatory. The city opted to pay this over time in-lieu of hiring an additional 125+ fire fighters to ensure minimum staffing standards. This was a financial decision made by the city's management and saved the city millions of dollars over the years. Some how this is lost in the assault of the fire fighters by politicians and the press.
The final two paragraphs of Stetz's diatribe show his true colors and make personal a political agenda being waged by him and his colleagues at the Union Tribune. Stetz writes; "Well, when the "next one" does hit, De Clercq should spend a little time examining his paycheck as a city fire captain. He made $154,184 last year in base pay, overtime and something called retro-pay. He also got a $1,350 uniform allowance. How will his pension be paid for? Higher taxes, or more cuts to city services. Including the fire department."
The "next one" will come and I guess if saying this, is somehow a weekly dose of doom and gloom, so be it. Governments priorities in San Diego are completely askew of reality. The press plays a large role in this disparity, with their continued assault of public safety employees and the unwillingness to accurately report the dangers facing citizens. Will the "next one" result in a serious injury or death? Will a fire fighter be injured or killed?
Sunday night at 2348 hours there was a collision resulting in injuries on the 56 at Camino del Sur. The ambulance arrived at 0008 hours, twenty minutes after the first sounds of the collision. The nearest station is located at Salmon River Road and Paseo Montalban, about a mile and a half to two miles away. Was this station closed Sunday also?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Poor Self-Esteem or Self-Loathing
Self-loathing is an extreme form of poor self-esteem. It is the sense of loathing one’s self – a common theme of people with poor self esteem. I was shaving this morning and while looking in the mirror I kept thinking, “For 53 years old you still got it together McMillan.” Poor self-esteem?
I went back and re-read my last post and the first comment from someone who made the observation I am in some way making an effort to “drag everyone down into your miserable world of self-loathing.” WOW. I always subscribed to the tenant; things in life work out better when you pay attention to and accept the way things are. But what creates tension with this philosophy is so many of these “things” can be changed and do not need to be accepted, if you are willing to say or do something.
Many of these “things” can be changed for the better if one is willing to take a chance. As an example; Paul does not like the grey creeping into his hair, making him look older, so he can have his hair colored to keep his appearance looking younger. But for the woman who is head over heels in love with the man she has been dating for the past year and friends begin to point out his not keeping promises; disrespecting her in front of her friends and family; bringing up seeing him with others and their belief he may be fooling around behind her back; she makes excuses for his actions and pretends their relationship is strong, when in reality she knows the truth and is hurting inside. Making a change does not come easily and pretending things are OK is not wise.
Some would say a helpful way of dealing with troubles is to accept the realities that must be accepted and change what you believe would be most practical and advantageous to change. Like the poker player sitting on a short stack; accept that you have to play the cards dealt. You need to weigh the odds, your position at the table and how much is riding on the hand. You may be able to strategize how you play your cards by bluffing all in, but reality is, sometimes you are going to get dealt some tough hands and no matter how much you hate the cards in your hand, they are your cards and you have to play them.
As police officers we are trained to see what is wrong with a given incident. Human nature is to look at things and see what is wrong. We are not adept or experienced at seeing what is right. There is a Buddhist parable I read a while back that tells of the blind men who came across an elephant in the jungle. One of the men describes his discovery at a tube, flexible and cylindrical and suspended in air; another described his discovery as a boulder suspended over the path while another insisted it is a pillar and not suspended at all. The reality is, like these men, we do not see the fullness of reality, we only see parts of it and from different perspectives, reality is different.
Self-Loathing? Miserable world? Embarrassing? “The sky is falling” and “The world is coming to an end” pessimism? I am asked to give it a rest.
Let’s try something and see where it leads. This may be asking a lot of some. First let us recognize there are different ways of looking at things. Accept that you tend to bump into elephants from a different perspective than me. Think about changing your perspective and view the elephant from the perspective of the person opposed to your perspective and remember this new perspective is just as real. You can even change your perspective again and therefore your reality. Your ability to remain comfortable with these different perspectives will no doubt result in fear, confusion, and an unsafe feeling as well as a feeling of anger. You will no doubt be more comfortable with the perspective that is shared by those closest to you. But don’t condemn me and others for having a differing perspective because we view reality from the shoes we fill, not those worn by you.
I need to lose some weight, my teeth could use a whitening and my hair is need of a trim. I should laugh more and read more than I have been writing. I should volunteer more at Abraxis High School mentoring children struggling to fit in. I should get my taxes done and finish the job of overhauling the front yard at my daughters house. While I am at it a remodel of the master bath is long overdue. Self-Loathing? Miserable World? Not even close.
I went back and re-read my last post and the first comment from someone who made the observation I am in some way making an effort to “drag everyone down into your miserable world of self-loathing.” WOW. I always subscribed to the tenant; things in life work out better when you pay attention to and accept the way things are. But what creates tension with this philosophy is so many of these “things” can be changed and do not need to be accepted, if you are willing to say or do something.
Many of these “things” can be changed for the better if one is willing to take a chance. As an example; Paul does not like the grey creeping into his hair, making him look older, so he can have his hair colored to keep his appearance looking younger. But for the woman who is head over heels in love with the man she has been dating for the past year and friends begin to point out his not keeping promises; disrespecting her in front of her friends and family; bringing up seeing him with others and their belief he may be fooling around behind her back; she makes excuses for his actions and pretends their relationship is strong, when in reality she knows the truth and is hurting inside. Making a change does not come easily and pretending things are OK is not wise.
Some would say a helpful way of dealing with troubles is to accept the realities that must be accepted and change what you believe would be most practical and advantageous to change. Like the poker player sitting on a short stack; accept that you have to play the cards dealt. You need to weigh the odds, your position at the table and how much is riding on the hand. You may be able to strategize how you play your cards by bluffing all in, but reality is, sometimes you are going to get dealt some tough hands and no matter how much you hate the cards in your hand, they are your cards and you have to play them.
As police officers we are trained to see what is wrong with a given incident. Human nature is to look at things and see what is wrong. We are not adept or experienced at seeing what is right. There is a Buddhist parable I read a while back that tells of the blind men who came across an elephant in the jungle. One of the men describes his discovery at a tube, flexible and cylindrical and suspended in air; another described his discovery as a boulder suspended over the path while another insisted it is a pillar and not suspended at all. The reality is, like these men, we do not see the fullness of reality, we only see parts of it and from different perspectives, reality is different.
Self-Loathing? Miserable world? Embarrassing? “The sky is falling” and “The world is coming to an end” pessimism? I am asked to give it a rest.
Let’s try something and see where it leads. This may be asking a lot of some. First let us recognize there are different ways of looking at things. Accept that you tend to bump into elephants from a different perspective than me. Think about changing your perspective and view the elephant from the perspective of the person opposed to your perspective and remember this new perspective is just as real. You can even change your perspective again and therefore your reality. Your ability to remain comfortable with these different perspectives will no doubt result in fear, confusion, and an unsafe feeling as well as a feeling of anger. You will no doubt be more comfortable with the perspective that is shared by those closest to you. But don’t condemn me and others for having a differing perspective because we view reality from the shoes we fill, not those worn by you.
I need to lose some weight, my teeth could use a whitening and my hair is need of a trim. I should laugh more and read more than I have been writing. I should volunteer more at Abraxis High School mentoring children struggling to fit in. I should get my taxes done and finish the job of overhauling the front yard at my daughters house. While I am at it a remodel of the master bath is long overdue. Self-Loathing? Miserable World? Not even close.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ignorance is Bliss - but Deadly
I have spent some time over the last few days reading the comments to the last post and watching the goings on in San Diego. The response to my last post was amazing in that people outside our realm are starting to ask the right questions. The mayor is having trouble controlling the spin and clearly is feeling the heat. His policy of controlling who can speak to the press and what is said is beginning to create questions as other public safety incidents occur.
Friday, a man died in a fire at an apartment building at the corner of 22nd and Broadway. The fire station a couple blocks away was closed as a result of the city mandated "Brown Out," as a budget savings mechanism. The first fire engine to arrive came from Barrio Logan, not the Golden Hill station a couple blocks away. The first "fire truck" to arrive, was on scene within a minute of dispatch. The trucks operator could not get the ladder to work (one of the young, enthusiastic new fire fighters?) and was not capable of getting water on the fire (fire trucks carry ladders and equipment for rescue ONLY). The second truck (Fire Engine) arrived about four and a half minutes later and began the assault of the fire (fire engines carry hoses and pumping abilities to put water on the fire). The inability of the first truck to get a ladder to the roof, slowed the ability to vent the roof and fight the fire. Response times across the city are on the rise and in time a fire fighter will end up getting seriously injured or killed as a result. The spokesperson for the department did his best to belay blame and down play the lack of an engine company in Golden Hill. The president of the Fire Fighters Union was not so protective of the city.
The events of the last few weeks are but the beginning of what is sure to be more deaths and serious injuries to members of the public. The ignorance created by false and misleading information from politicians; a lax press and a public in denial, will take years to undo. The mayor's failed policies and destruction of public safety has single handily turned San Diego from one of the safest cities in America, to one that is no longer a safe place for anyone. The systematic elimination and removal of officers from task forces; the elimination of support personnel; the reduction of investigative positions; the exodus of over 400 experienced members of the department; and the lack of any real hiring, has rendered the men and women of the San Diego Police Department incapable of doing the job expected of us. This is not due to a lack of ability, desire or willingness, but more a result of no longer being able to do more with less. Don't you hate hearing that phrase; "Do more with less?"
The public expects the same level of service they have become accustomed . The problem is simply a matter of having our hands tied and our limbs cut off. Take as an example; a service area that five years ago had a Detective Sergeant, five Detectives, and Investigative Aide to investigate reported crime and no less than five patrol officers and a patrol Sergeant in the field at any given time; now being policed by two detectives and often no more than three officers and a field Sergeant. The service area shares a Detective Sergeant; the Investigative Aide has been replaced with a volunteer (can't wait for the first court appearance) and three detectives who retired or transferred were never replaced. This service area is a growing area where there is still new housing being built and the population has grown by leaps and bounds over the past seven years.
We have eliminated our horse patrol and harbor unit; reduced the number of canine units and moved patrol officers from field duties into positions whose duties were performed by the now eliminated civilian support person. The smoke is thinning out and the mirrors quickly loosing their luster as critical incidents occur and the ability of public safety in San Diego to respond, exposed. Minimum staffing for patrol officers has been cut to unsafe and unacceptable levels throughout the city. The fire department has resorted to rolling brown outs, closing up to eight (8) fire stations daily to save money. Life Guards are now filling the hole left by the loss of the SDPD Harbor Unit, at the expense of life guards in towers and available for water and surf rescues, expanding their area of responsibility to as much as 50% on some beaches.
If history is any indication, as we move closer to the summer months, crime will increase and the level of violence will escalate. While many will have the public believe crime is at an all time low, reality is, crime is increasing. The apathy of victims, coupled with the inability of officers and citizens to connect in a timely manner, have resulted in fewer crimes being reported. Residential and commercial thefts of all type (Burglary, Grand Theft, Petty Theft, Embezzlement, Extortion, Auto Burglary) are epidemic in virtually every community of San Diego. Citizen apathy has resulted in many to just clean up the mess and move on. Many will tell you they believe nothing will come of reporting their crime, while others will tell you they do not want to report the crime to insurance for fear of higher premiums. Then there are those who will attempt to make a report only to fail in their attempts. The victim will be referred to the telephone Report Unit, where they will be placed in the Que, which at any given time could contain 300-500 victims waiting ahead of them. After waiting several days, the victim moves on and no report is completed.
The elephant in the room right now is the fear of many officers; who is going to be the officer killed because of these cuts? The lack of adequate and safe staffing and the lack of experience has in the past contributed to more officer deaths in San Diego than any city in America. In the 1970's and 80's we lost 12 officers in rapid succession. We spent years building a department that provided for a safe citizenry and at the same time expanding and improving training that allowed for fewer officer injuries and deaths. The use of canines, SWAT, air support, less than lethal weapons and adequate staffing of experienced officers, contributed to this safety and security. We have fewer experienced officers in the field; fewer canines; and now we hear one helicopter is grounded for required maintenance the city is balking at paying for. The fuse has been lit and we are all waiting for the result.
When is the public going to understand the dangers facing them as a result of the cuts to public safety in San Diego? Ignorance is bliss until someone dies. Who will it be?
Friday, a man died in a fire at an apartment building at the corner of 22nd and Broadway. The fire station a couple blocks away was closed as a result of the city mandated "Brown Out," as a budget savings mechanism. The first fire engine to arrive came from Barrio Logan, not the Golden Hill station a couple blocks away. The first "fire truck" to arrive, was on scene within a minute of dispatch. The trucks operator could not get the ladder to work (one of the young, enthusiastic new fire fighters?) and was not capable of getting water on the fire (fire trucks carry ladders and equipment for rescue ONLY). The second truck (Fire Engine) arrived about four and a half minutes later and began the assault of the fire (fire engines carry hoses and pumping abilities to put water on the fire). The inability of the first truck to get a ladder to the roof, slowed the ability to vent the roof and fight the fire. Response times across the city are on the rise and in time a fire fighter will end up getting seriously injured or killed as a result. The spokesperson for the department did his best to belay blame and down play the lack of an engine company in Golden Hill. The president of the Fire Fighters Union was not so protective of the city.
The events of the last few weeks are but the beginning of what is sure to be more deaths and serious injuries to members of the public. The ignorance created by false and misleading information from politicians; a lax press and a public in denial, will take years to undo. The mayor's failed policies and destruction of public safety has single handily turned San Diego from one of the safest cities in America, to one that is no longer a safe place for anyone. The systematic elimination and removal of officers from task forces; the elimination of support personnel; the reduction of investigative positions; the exodus of over 400 experienced members of the department; and the lack of any real hiring, has rendered the men and women of the San Diego Police Department incapable of doing the job expected of us. This is not due to a lack of ability, desire or willingness, but more a result of no longer being able to do more with less. Don't you hate hearing that phrase; "Do more with less?"
The public expects the same level of service they have become accustomed . The problem is simply a matter of having our hands tied and our limbs cut off. Take as an example; a service area that five years ago had a Detective Sergeant, five Detectives, and Investigative Aide to investigate reported crime and no less than five patrol officers and a patrol Sergeant in the field at any given time; now being policed by two detectives and often no more than three officers and a field Sergeant. The service area shares a Detective Sergeant; the Investigative Aide has been replaced with a volunteer (can't wait for the first court appearance) and three detectives who retired or transferred were never replaced. This service area is a growing area where there is still new housing being built and the population has grown by leaps and bounds over the past seven years.
We have eliminated our horse patrol and harbor unit; reduced the number of canine units and moved patrol officers from field duties into positions whose duties were performed by the now eliminated civilian support person. The smoke is thinning out and the mirrors quickly loosing their luster as critical incidents occur and the ability of public safety in San Diego to respond, exposed. Minimum staffing for patrol officers has been cut to unsafe and unacceptable levels throughout the city. The fire department has resorted to rolling brown outs, closing up to eight (8) fire stations daily to save money. Life Guards are now filling the hole left by the loss of the SDPD Harbor Unit, at the expense of life guards in towers and available for water and surf rescues, expanding their area of responsibility to as much as 50% on some beaches.
If history is any indication, as we move closer to the summer months, crime will increase and the level of violence will escalate. While many will have the public believe crime is at an all time low, reality is, crime is increasing. The apathy of victims, coupled with the inability of officers and citizens to connect in a timely manner, have resulted in fewer crimes being reported. Residential and commercial thefts of all type (Burglary, Grand Theft, Petty Theft, Embezzlement, Extortion, Auto Burglary) are epidemic in virtually every community of San Diego. Citizen apathy has resulted in many to just clean up the mess and move on. Many will tell you they believe nothing will come of reporting their crime, while others will tell you they do not want to report the crime to insurance for fear of higher premiums. Then there are those who will attempt to make a report only to fail in their attempts. The victim will be referred to the telephone Report Unit, where they will be placed in the Que, which at any given time could contain 300-500 victims waiting ahead of them. After waiting several days, the victim moves on and no report is completed.
The elephant in the room right now is the fear of many officers; who is going to be the officer killed because of these cuts? The lack of adequate and safe staffing and the lack of experience has in the past contributed to more officer deaths in San Diego than any city in America. In the 1970's and 80's we lost 12 officers in rapid succession. We spent years building a department that provided for a safe citizenry and at the same time expanding and improving training that allowed for fewer officer injuries and deaths. The use of canines, SWAT, air support, less than lethal weapons and adequate staffing of experienced officers, contributed to this safety and security. We have fewer experienced officers in the field; fewer canines; and now we hear one helicopter is grounded for required maintenance the city is balking at paying for. The fuse has been lit and we are all waiting for the result.
When is the public going to understand the dangers facing them as a result of the cuts to public safety in San Diego? Ignorance is bliss until someone dies. Who will it be?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Latitude 33.051047 Longitude -117.076578
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)