On Tuesday night, the council voted to ratify a new contract with the Davis firefighters that would extend for three years. It passed by a 3-2 vote amid questions about process and about the actual savings derived from the agreement.
Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek along with fellow colleague Sue Greenwald were the dissenting votes on the fire contract on Tuesday. The Vanguard had a phone interview with Councilmember Hyestek Thursday night to talk about the vote, the implications of the contract, and what the future will bring on a fiscal front.
1. What is your biggest concern about the contract that was approved for the firefighters?
The biggest problem that I have with the contract is that it does very little to address our structural challenges in any meaningful way and it sets the tone for the contracts that we are poised to consider and adopt in the very near future.
There are some issues that are specific to the Davis Firefighters Association and there are some issues that are not necessarily specific only to that group. Issues about pension and retiree medical. There is also the issue of union bank hours and overtime. But on both fronts, the issue that is specific to that bargaining unit and issues that that bargaining unit faces, that are also confronted with the other labor groups, those issues were not addressed in a significant way.
The council apparently decided to take the bait on short-term salary reductions that begin increasing once again in a matter of six months. And so on paper, an outside observer might think that we’re reaping some kind of significant fiscal benefit, when it has been demonstrated that from the first year to the last year, the decrease is minimal to none given the fact that PERS rates are going to be going up and that we are continuing to cover the medical, we’re covering PERS, we’re covering the medical benefits.
So the one thing that really concerns me on a macrolevel is that it sets a tone for contracts that are yet to come. But if you want to get more specific about what concerns me, the fact that we continue to do business the same way with DFFA as we’ve done before. It’s not clear to me that this moves the ball in any changes as to the way they do business.
In fact, we’ve put more money into the department without making any changes in the way they do business. Like the battalion chief’s model. That model is going to end up costing us more and those cost projections do not take that into account.
2. Long term what issues does it fail to address?
The retirement benefits for new hires, union bank hours, overtime, retiree medical for existing employees, the overall increased cost to the department when there are fewer people in the department, the list goes on and on, so it’s not just about one particular thing, it’s about the package of all those things.
Cafeteria cash out, much has been about the fact that they are giving us 80%, that’s obviously in the right direction. The question whether its far enough in the right direction to make it worth our while. Like I said during open session, we talked a lot about cash out and there was a lot of talk about what we would like for the cash out to be, the level. So there isn’t an argument–I don’t argument with my colleagues that they don’t want the lower cash out, or the other structural changes, but the degree to which we are willing to drive that bargain, that was questionable to me.
It’s been said during council discussion that we would like to do more, but we can’t. The question is what makes us think this is something we can’t do that we were able to do with another group. In other words, we decided to declare impasse with DCA and I don’t the answers about why we did with them and not with other groups were very good.
Things that concern me the most are those things that some of us would trust future councils to go farther on. The issues of vesting or new hires, retiree medical benefits, the sharing in the decrease in PERS rates, etc. All these things, we tell that we are going to give them a letter and tell them this is what our thinking was and this is what we would do in the future. There is nothing to guarantee that any of us will be on a future council to effect any change. So when we say that we’re going to have to count on future councils to continue and carry the torch, I can’t as much as I’d like to trust people who are following us to do that kind of work, there’s nothing that guarantees that they will do that. In fact, as we continue to play politics with certain bargaining groups, the prospect that we will drive a harder bargain will be less.
The time was now for structural change. I really believe that the moment was now and we’re not nearly where we should be or where we need to be.
3. What are your concerns down the line for the other contracts?
The lines on furlough days is troublesome for me because those things will only last in the contract, those are permanent things to recover costs unless we make it a policy for now on that we’re going to do some kind of reduction in city services that would necessitate the closure and non-operation of services and programs. My concern is that we’re going to be looking at more of the same. I think with the impasse with DCA, I think that is something that we should have considered with the other groups if we were more serious about structural reform.
What concerns me is that were rushing to recover some savings. As I said in my remarks, it is important to have dollar savings. I can certainly understand the urgency with which other councilmembers are willing to get something nailed down ASAP. But, if that’s your singular goal of saving as much money in the current fiscal year as possible, then I think that’s penny wise and pound foolish. Why would we save a few dollars when the real issue is how are we going to save on a systematic basis in the future.
The number that concerns me is $42 million, how are we going to ask for greater cost-sharing there. I’m not saying that everyone has to take a vow of poverty to work for city government, but we have to recognize that it is being done in not just private organizations within our community but also the public agencies. Comparatively, working for the city of Davis, even after any of the reductions, adjustments, or cost-saving measures, is still a great career path. I’m just concerned that we’re not going to make a debt in that $42 million number. We can continue to set aside taxpayer money in the general fund and other funds, but greater cost-sharing for retirement is really the key. That’s retirement in pension and in medical.
The cafeteria cash out, taking money for benefits you don’t take, I’m not against taking a small amount of cash for a benefit you don’t take, because it does save the city money and we’re willing to pay to save a greater amount of money. But to pay an equal amount and to use that are your take home pay, and to be a cost-basis for compensating people forever more, I think that’s something that will plunge us into greater financial debt.
4. What does the city need to do to get its fiscal house in order?
We need to get tougher with our bargaining groups. We need set higher standards in our negotiations. We need to be focused on demonstrating fiscal responsibility for the taxpayers so that when we ask them to continue supplementing the city’s coffers with either sales taxes or parcel taxes. When we ask them to do that, we need to demonstrate that we deserve that kind of supplemental support. To get our fiscal house in order, the council needs to be united in backing higher goals. And we have not been united in backing higher goals. We have, I believe set our sights too low.
It begins with the council leadership in setting higher standards for fiscal responsibility. I don’t doubt that there are several aspects in the contract that move us in the right direction. In other words, we’re not taking several steps back in every aspect of the contract, but in some respects, we’re not moving at all on anything that long-term. In this fiscal environment, if we stand still, we end up losing ground at a future point.
It really depends on the council leadership and it also depends on what the community expects for fiscal responsibility. If the community doesn’t show up to ask that councilmembers act on their behalf, then there isn’t a lot of political pressure. We filled the room on whether or not people could put their yard-clippings in bike lanes on city streets. We filled the room there. I don’t doubt that’s an important issue for many in our community.
But I feel that when we’re adopting contracts, tens of millions of dollars, in size, that people should take some tangential interest on how it affects the city’s long-term financial future. I just feel that people don’t realize how the city’s finances affect their lives personally. They’re not even really aware about how it affects their lives when it comes to utility rates and even property taxes. Much of our community is made up of renters, and when renters don’t get the property tax bill or the utility bill, there is a lack information that they receive with regards to how much it really costs to live in the city of Davis. I think people need to put more pressure on the city council.
5. What impact does the short-circuiting of discussion by the mayor and the council majority have on this process?
I think any shortening of the discussion means that we don’t discuss all of the facts. As I said during my remarks in open session, the only discussions we’ve ever limited ourselves in terms of time have been about closed session topics such as labor agreements. And when we don’t give ourselves the time to discuss behind closed-doors and in front of the public we don’t make the best decisions. Even if councilmembers have heard what has already been said behind closed-doors, I think it helps when those facts and those things are said out in the open so that the members of the public can be aware. Some of the things that we heard before have not necessarily been heard by our community. When we don’t allow for a free discussion of those facts, that means our community becomes less aware. When our community is not privy to the information that we’ve discussed and heard before, then the community cannot be expected to apply any pressure in one direction or the other to improve the outcome of our discussions.
I don’t think we should set a precedent for limiting discussion on items of this magnitude because it is not a one-time decision. It’s not a decision that once you make it, you execute or implement it and then you don’t have to think about it. We have to continue to think about this decision each and every year. Each time we budget for the city, we have to think about how these contracts affect the bottom line.
Democracy, open discussion, and transparency, can often be inconvenient to a process. If our singular goal is the expedite a process, yes, I totally agree that free discussion, transparency, and sunshine are not good. But for the sake of democracy, transparency, and sunshine, we have got to let a little bit more light in when it comes to our labor agreements.
Once we do this again next time we should do an outside negotiator, we should maybe have a thirty day sunshine period and I don’t know if there is consensus for that. But that’s too late for the decisions that we have an impact on now. I think that most of the councilmembers sitting right now might not be around for those next discussions, so why say leave it to others to make these decisions. That strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
If I were the mayor, I would not have sought to cut out discussion. I noticed that some may be able to question more freely than others and some questions may be more rhetorical than others. I would just hope that everyone has a chance to say what they want to say.
6. How should we improve the process in the future?
I would say, getting the Finance and Budget Commission involved, having a thirty day review period, building that into the process and not being afraid to consult an outside negotiator. The administrators who are making programmatic decisions about that the effect the bargaining unit aren’t also making labor agreements with them. It becomes a very difficult thing to do when you’re dealing with those two different sets of issues. So outside negotiator and a thirty day waiting period would help.
I just wanted to add that I don’t think that anyone involved is trying to act in a way that’s nefarious. Whether the best judgment is being exercised is one thing. Everyone has his or her own point of view. I reserve my right to disagree strongly with my colleagues. But I hope that we don’t take that political disagreement and turn it into a personal animus. I’m afraid that when we have these very difficult discussions that’s what can happen and what has happened. People want to say that this is personal and it’s not, there is nothing personal about it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The City of San Francisco has allowed these unaffordable contracts for a long time and their budget is not close to being workable. The residents with jobs are fleeing.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s#Comments
Councilmember Heysteck spoke like a statesman and not a politician here. Most of his suggestions make sense to me, but I am skeptical about whether they can be implementated. I am also less charitable about the motives of some of his colleagues. This quote in particular is interesting:
“It really depends on the council leadership and it also depends on what the community expects for fiscal responsibility. If the community doesn’t show up to ask that councilmembers act on their behalf, then there isn’t a lot of political pressure. We filled the room on whether or not people could put their yard-clippings in bike lanes on city streets. We filled the room there. I don’t doubt that’s an important issue for many in our community.”
Lamar is saying two realy important things here:
1. We need better leadership. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but the Mayor is our leader and her leadership has been dreadful.
2. People need to realize how important this issue is and vote accordingly. Showing up to meetings is nice but voting in a new City Council majority is even better. We need to connect the dots forfolks and show them the connection between camapign money and fiscal irresponsibility.
[i]We need to be focused on demonstrating fiscal responsibility for the taxpayers so that when we ask them to continue supplementing the city’s coffers with either sales taxes or parcel taxes. When we ask them to do that, we need to demonstrate that we deserve that kind of supplemental support.[/i]
Words of wisdom from Lamar Reagan Heystek: Davis has a crummy government that doesn’t deserve our tax dollars.
I think you are misconstruing his statement there. He’s suggesting that we ought to demonstrate that we are using taxpayer resources wisely, that’s very different from Reagan arguing that Government was the problem–Lamar very much believes that Government can be a solution, but part of that means we have to spend our money wisely or we help no one.
Lamar crossed the line from warning us about a taxpayer revolt to buying into one. This cause is indeed a mixed marriage of Nader and Reagan.
I’m not following your reasoning here (nor buying it).
I don’t think there is necessarilly a contradiction between being a fiscal conservative and thinking government can work, though the two do not tend to go together. It should also be pointed out that Reagan increased the federal governments share of GDP (Clinton reduced it) and it wasn’t just defense spending.
We should all demand that government spend out tax dollars wisely regardless of our other political views.
Is anyone in favor of government waste (other that the special interests who benefit)?
It is also interesting that the two most “progressive” CC members, Sue and Lamar, are also the ones most concerned about our budget.
I too think that more can be done. I am very pro-labor, and Lamar was a shop steward when he belonged to UFCW, but what I fear is that the firefighters and others can be short sighted in terms of their own interests and the interests of the community. Destroying the fiscal health of the city is bad for everyone. As cities go into bankruptcy they are going to abrogate all of their labor contracts. There is also the question of fairness vis-a-vis other city employees, and the folks working non-professional jobs in the city. Frankly I think Sue’s suggestion that cash back for those opting out of health care should be set at 25% is very generous – it works out to $4,500. Personally it saves the city money to provide some incentive for folks to opt out, but I think that we need to reaffirm that the basic goal is to provide health care and not just and addition to salary.
I do not believe that the firefighters could garner a lot of public support for their compensation package, particularly if we are saying that we won’t reduce pensions already promised, only those going forward (if firefighters don’t like two tier, they could negotiate a solution with the city for a common pension benefit that would save comparable money.)
Public employee unions are necessary, but they are also in a unique position of negotiating with policy makers that they can help get elected, and with managers who almost always get the same as what they negotiate. They need to be constrained in their greed or there will be a significant and indiscriminant backlash, much like that attempted by the Governor when he attempted to eliminate all defined benefit pensions for public employees..
David: First, after Reagan was elected, he could no longer consistently say that the government, which he then led, was “the problem”. Instead, he would argue that we needed to cut “Congress’s allowance” to improve its spending habits. In that sense, this business with the sales tax renewal is a Reaganite pushback against the city government.
Moreover, Lamar is a main advocate of not renewing the sales tax. It is disingenuous to warn people of fiscal collapse, and then try to bring it on with tax cuts. It means that the real point is not sustainability, but to prove that every cent from taxpayers is sacred. This is also a Reaganite principle. After all, no one will file for bankruptcy from a half percent sales tax.
[i]Is anyone in favor of government waste (other that the special interests who benefit)?[/i]
I’m against jerking the city around with inconsistent accusations and warnings. For instance, if fiscal health is the problem, then DACHA should never have happened.
[b]LAMAR: [/b] [i] “We need to be focused on demonstrating fiscal responsibility for the taxpayers ….” [/i]
[b]GREG: [/b] [i]”Words of wisdom from Lamar Reagan Heystek … “[/i]
Calling Lamar’s [i]fiscal responsibility[/i] language Reaganite could not be further from the truth in an empirical sense. Reagan inherited a small budget deficit and turned that into (for the time) huge amounts of debt. Reagan, as president, was anything but fiscally responsible. (Arguably, the blame goes to the Congress, since they really control the purse strings. But it was our massive overspending on the military* as requested by Reagan which caused most of the deficit spending in the 1980s.)
*I have never bought the notion that our massive overspending on the military won the Cold War. It was irrelevant.
My read of history is that Soviet Communism was always a terrible economic system; and that over the decades everyone living behind the Iron Curtain was growing (on a relative basis) poorer and poorer. When Gorbachev came into office, he knew their economic system needed to be opened up; and in doing that and easing up on the brutal repression in Eastern Europe, the entire system of repression — that is, Soviet imperialism — came apart. It needed an iron fist to hold it together. Gorbachev released its grip. And that ended 70 years of hell. Insofar as Reagan’s policies deserve any credit, it was his classical liberal economic policies, which freed up our economy, allowed the U.S. economy to grow at a faster pace, and thus helped separate our quality of life from that on the wrong side of history.
[quote]It is also interesting that the two most “progressive” CC members, Sue and Lamar, are also the ones most concerned about our budget. [/quote] My take is that those two also care the most about delivering all the services that government can deliver and that the people of Davis would like delivered. I don’t think that is fiscal conservativism*; it’s fiscal responsibilism. Insofar as the City of Davis is not responsible for spending its money wisely, it will not be able to provide many of the services we are paying for. Lamar and Sue, I am sure, want the City of Davis to have the money available to do things like provide Community Transit for disabled people. But if we give, for example, an $18,177.76 a year cash out to 25 year old firefighters making a salary (with OT) of about $100,000 a year, soon enough we won’t be able to provide such services. We won’t be able to repair broken sidewalks or to fill potholes. If you ride a bicycle on the terribly maintained Howard Reese Memorial bike path, you know the city is not able to keep up with all of its service obligations. If you ride your bike to West Sacramento, you know, for example, that it would be much safer if the Dave Pelz overcrossing connected to the old Highway 40 bike path. But because of our fiscal irresponsibility, there is no money to pay for that connection. And you know that if we continue down the fiscally irresponsible path we have been on for about 15 years — where, for example, we have added about a dozen new top management positions, all of which make base salaries over $100,000 a year — just about every service provision in the City, including police and fire — is going to be much worse.
*A fiscal conservative doesn’t just believe in balancing the budget. He believes in less government. Liberals like Sue and Lamar believe Davis needs to use our money wisely so government can do more and more. But if we are irresponsible, Davis will pay the same in taxes but get less and less. (I would also add, having spoken with Sue countless times, that she has a strong bias in favor of not making Davis too expensive for older, poorer residents who cannot afford endlessly higher utility bills. That, arguably, is fiscal conservativism. But it is not a bias in favor of cutting taxes on the rich — or on Rich.)
Rich:
That’s a pretty good summary of their position and mine as well. My major concern is the provision of services by the City and as compensation costs rise and are unsustainable that is harmed.
My opposition to the sales tax is that if we are misusing people’s money or wasting it, I’m not going to continue to ask them for it so we can continue to waste it.
By the way … in case anyone who reads this blog and reads the Enterprise is interested, I have responded to the letters to the editor published on Wednesday which attacked my column on the severely mentally ill. You can read my response here ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2009/12/at-least-they-are-reading-my-column.html[/url]).
Because these attacks are repeats of the 2007 attacks — one of which in 2007 came from David Greenwald for my use of politcally incorrect language — none of them surprised me. But I do find the writers, most of whom describe themselves as “psychotherapists” and none of whom are medical doctors or speak for psychiatrists*, entirely disingenuous. They have a strong ideological bent; and that seems to cause them to make incorrect inferences as to my motivation and my position.
*It is my understanding that psychiatrists on the whole favor changing our laws so that patients with severe disorders can legally be held and treated against their will, even if they are not deemed to be an “imminent danger.” Moreover, speaking as a family member of a patient with severe paranoid schizophrenia, I am quite certain that all families which have a loved one who is not receiving treatment because the patient “chose” to go off his medications believe exactly the same as I do. …. Yet if you read the letters to the editor againt me, you will note that they claim to speak for “mental health professionals.” I doubt their credentials. They don’t know what they are talking about. They don’t have the education that psychiatrists have. I don’t make any claims as to my expertise in medicine. My call is for a change in the law. The same change in the law that I understand most psychiatrists favor.
I’m still not in agreement with you, but I didn’t find it offense like I did your 2007 piece.
[quote]My opposition to the sales tax is that if we are misusing people’s money or wasting it, I’m not going to continue to ask them for it so we can continue to waste it. [/quote] I think that is a good argument for not having passed the tax in the first place. I argued in vain against passing it when we did. However, I don’t see how a No vote now will help the City of Davis. I think the result will be one which scares me: Many dozens more city employees will be laid off* and the provision of services we will get worse. I think the more responsible answer is to elect more responsible members of the City Council.
*In his comments on Tuesday night, Don Saylor talked about how he did not want to cut out the cash-out provision by more than 20% because these firefighters have mortgages and they need the money because they have such obligations. I understand his point. But does not that apply to the people who work for the City who in a few years will be laid off and lose 100% of their (lower) incomes? I see this as a parallel to the DTA. I understand why they did not want their members to lose a portion of their pay. But I don’t understand why they think a good trade-off is for a some to then lose ALL of their incomes. I think that is far less fair and far less decent.
Rich:
How about the people who are going to have their water rates doubled or tripled? It seems a selective argument and we are talking about people making $120,000 or more in pay.
In terms of the tax, the original thinking was to force the council to deal with the fiscal issues. It is conceivable that if we defeated the tax (unlikely) that the council would have to address the fiscal issues in order to come back with a broader coalitions to pass it. In reality, it’s a symbolic measure of protest against the current problems.
For the record (and see above) I did not state that Sue or Lamar were fiscally conservative and I would agree with many of Rich’s comments above, though this blog today seems to be bogged (or should I say blogged) in semantics.
My main point is that many of our Council members need to go as they are not fiscally responsible. To me that is a necessary condition to be a CC member.
AS far as the sales tax issue, I agree with Lamar’s logic. One should give the City a chance to get its house in order. Having failed to do that, extending a tax increase only give the City a chance to waste more taxpayer dollars. If the City does not get its fiscal house in order, there will be a reckoning and it would be better to do it before raising taxes. Its seems clear that this City Council will not deal with the City’s issues and plans to kick the problem down the road to the next fiscal year. That is what one should expect from most politician’s these days (regardless of party) but I hope (and still expect, perhaps naively) more from Davis.
[quote]I’m still not in agreement with you, but I didn’t find it offensive like I did your 2007 piece.[/quote] I’m disappointed you don’t agree with me.
As you know, I find the idea of letting people who are severely sick with mental problems live on the streets or being locked up in prisons for their “crimes” [i]offensive[/i]. I find the civil libertarian attitude most offensive of all. And yes, I find anyone who gets side-tracked by the use of non-PC language offensive. The crisis is not our language. The crisis is for folks who are not getting proper psychiatric treatment. Apparently, that matters far less to some “psychotherapists” whose larger concern is about perceptions of prejudice, which they have wrongly branded on me.
I am more worried about cases like this one ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2009/12/set-to-be-executed-mental-patient-didnt.html[/url]), where we are executing the mentally ill whose “crimes” would never have occurred if we stopped listening to the civil libertarians.
I’ll flesh this out more when I’m not trying to type one-handed, the former system of institutionalization was a form of tyranny. We could probably add more safeguards than we had prior to thirty years ago, but I still question our ability to protect the rights of individuals, we don’t do a great job in the criminal system. I’m also extremely reluctant to put people away based on what they might do based on some notion and prejudicial preconception about mental illness.
In short, I agree with you that we need to help individuals get treatment, I agree that allowing them to live on the streets or being locked up in prison is a problem, but I’m not with you on the solution.
Rich: to tie this back into this piece, I think Lamar’s comment, “Democracy, open discussion, and transparency, can often be inconvenient to a process,” applies here as well. Democracy and the protection of rights under the law are inherently inconvenient and at times dangerous, but necessary.
[quote]the former system of institutionalization was a form of tyranny.[/quote] There were some bad hospitals in the 1950s and before. Most of the problem was that we lacked good treatment options back then. However, today, pharmacological advances have relieved that problem for most severely ill patients. It is the exception when the meds just don’t work. But medicines that are not taken never work. And the problem with putting seriously mentally ill patients in charge of their care and not allowing their families any power to force them to take their meds is that VERY OFTEN they spin out of control and no one can legally do anything until it is too late. [quote] … I’m also extremely reluctant to put people away based on what they might do based on some notion and prejudicial preconception about mental illness. [/quote] That, David, sounds to me like the same spin as the psychotherapists who are attacking me in their letters to the Enterprise. I have much more faith in medical doctors than I have in them. Board-certified medical doctors don’t make serious decisions based on “prejudicial preconceptions about mental illness.” That is just ACLU nonsense.
Problem is you still need a system of adjudication and despite your expressed confidence in doctors, they often do not act quite so honorably in the court system.
Just for the record, you guys are waaaaaaay off topic.
Maybe Rich would consider reposting his blog response on the Vanguard?
Yeah guilty Don. It’s Friday (that’s my poor excuse for being a bad role model).
I think WDF has a good idea or I can post a response to Rich’s op-ed.
[quote]Maybe Rich would consider reposting his blog response on the Vanguard? [/quote] No. I linked it in this thread. It really doesn’t belong on the Vanguard. I appreciate David’s generosity in not removing my link. I doubt many Vanguard readers will care to read my reply, but I hope a few do. It is repetitive and overly long, because I replied to everything the three letters said. …
FWIW, it bums me out that I cannot write a letter to the editor myself. I don’t want to use my biweekly column for that, since I don’t want to go on too much on any single topic*. I think the fact that I get 800 words and they only get 300 makes my doing so indulgent and unfair. I had my say. They had theirs. I think they were unfair in their criticisms of me — suggesting I am antipathetic to the mentally ill when in fact it is just the opposite — and I think they are wrong about the entire issue surrounding people with severely debilitating psychoses because these people are not looking at the issue from a realistic perpective like I do, because I have had personal experience trying to get a very sick relative help, only to realize over and over and over again how broken our system is and how helpless such people are because of the civil libertarian approach.
*I do, however, have a thought as to one more column on this topic. I have a few relatives who are psychiatrists; and through them I am hoping to get in touch with some local M.D.’s who will share with me their views on how broken our system is in dealing with many people with severe mental illness. I will then try to write a column based on what real experts have to say. (Also, I have read a couple of great books, both mentioned on my blog reply, which give the psychiatric view of this terrible situation. It’s just a ####ing shame that the folks from NAMI who wrote in to attack me never acknowledge how broken our system is for the severely ill, but instead focus on this side issue of “stigmatization,” which is all a lot of lefty PC nonsense.)