One of the most contentious issues on the previous council was the approval of the new contracts for the employee bargaining groups. Councilmember Sue Greenwald, along with former Councilmember Lamar Heystek, consistently opposed the contracts. They argued that there was too little in the way of long-term concessions, insufficient short-term cuts and insufficient mechanisms to fix unfunded liabilities or pensions.
The Council has drawn the line in the sand with one employee group, the Davis City Employee’s Association (DCEA). They did so however at a contract that was roughly similar to what groups like the Firefighters already agreed to.
Once again, the city uses the baseline as a continuation of the current contract with escalators, and therefore claims a savings that in real terms does not exist.
“The final year (FY2009/10) cost of the pre-existing contract for DPOA employees was valued at a baseline annual cost of $10,487,000. In the absence of a successor contract, the provisions of the pre-existing contract would be expected to result in costs of $10,564,000 for FY2010/11 and $21,233,000 over the two-year period through FY2011/12,” reports the staff report.
“The proposed new two-year Memorandum of Understanding is estimated to result in an all-funds cost of $10,082,000 for FY2010/11, and $20,382,000 over the two-year contract term. This represents savings over the baseline contract of $482,000 (4.6%) for FY2010/11 and $851,000 (4.0%) over two-year contract term,” the staff report continues and then argues that this is roughly the share of the savings that the DPOA should have based on the previous flawed MOUs. “This level of savings is consistent with DPOA’s proportionate share of the “target” savings established by the City Council and assumed in the development of the FY2009/10 and FY2010/11 annual budgets.”
The MOU comes with operational changes as well. It is unclear however, how they believe these changes will result in the kind of savings they project unless they intend to reduce coverage. “This MOU will implement a change in staffing for the DPOA sworn employees assigned to the Patrol Division. Currently, Patrol Officers work eighty-four hours during a two-week payperiod. This MOU would reduce the hours worked from eighty-four to eighty with an approximate ongoing annual savings of $120,000. The savings are achieved through less reliance on overtime and the reduction of additional straight-time hours beyond 80 hours a pay period.”
In addition, they will have a 3% hourly rate reduction with civilian employees receiving a 1.5% hourly rate reduction. The civilian employees will also get six furlough days between now and June 30, 2011.
However, it is a one-time reduction. By next year, the sworn employees will receive a 2% COLA and another 2% salary increase in January 2012, meaning that within 16 months, DPOA sworn employees will make more than they are making now.
DPOA civilian employees will receive a 1.5% salary increase plus a 2% salary increase to offset employees picking up a portion of their CalPERS retirement benefit effective July 2011.
According to the staff report, “These modest increases were a trade-off for the large number of structural benefit changes impacting employees involved in the contract.”
Apparently these changes are roughly a tradeoff for covering more of their PERS contribution.
“All DPOA employees agreed to cover any additional cost of the FY 2009/10 PERS employer contribution rate, up to an additional 3%, for the life of the contract,” according to the staff report. “DPOA civilian employees agree to pick up 2% of the employee portion of their CalPERS Retirement benefit effective upon implementation of this agreement.”
The city also will have a vesting period for current and future employees to receive retiree medical. “Currently, there is no vesting period for retiree medical benefits if an employee is already vested in the CalPERS retirement system. The proposed change allows the city’s obligation to be proportional to the years of service an employee has working with the city of Davis,” wrote the staff report.
The cash out has become a flash-point issue, and this does very little to address it for current employees, but does reduce the maximum cash-out for new employees to $500 per month which is still relatively high. For current employees, the cash out would be reduced to 95% this year and 90% in 2011/12.
The bottom line is that this is fairly similar to other contracts, it does not in a meaningful way address the pension issue other than trading off a salary increase for employee contributions, it does not in a meaningful way address the retiree health care issue, a vesting period is not the answer, and it does not in a meaningful way address the cafeteria cash out.
The real question is whether the new councilmembers are ready to adhere to their campaign promises by rejecting these contracts and re-open negotiations with a more realistic solution. There are actually good reasons to do this, but also reasons not to do this.
There are really two key arguments against voting against this contract. First, the police officers took far less in the way of compensation increases in their previous contract than fire. Fire got nearly a 34% pay increase, police got nearly half of that at 18%.
Second, there is also a basic fairness issue, in that the police would be getting a far worse deal than their counterparts by virtue of the fact that they were a year later and might have a council that is more fiscally conservative.
On the other hand, the council ought to at least consider the fact that this contract is insufficient to address real structural change. The council could set the stage in two years for the next round of MOUs by taking a hardline with the police. Finally, if the council does not get their fiscal house in order, everyone is going to be hurting in five years: better to move on this now.
My educated guess is that the new councilmembers are not going to make waves on this issue and they will punt the issue down two years for the MOUs. This would be defensible from a fairness standpoint and put a huge burden on the next council to get things right or face possible bankruptcy.
That said, it looks like this council is less likely to be an agent of true change than their campaign rhetoric seemed to indicate. But we shall see over the long run how those promises hold up against the reality that they find themselves in. Now could be the time to draw the line in the sand, and if they did, the council and city staff would have to change very quickly the way they do business.
—David M. Greenwald
Over the two year term the DPOA still takes a one percent hit: down three, up two. If you truly want to see reform you’ll need to convince the Council to hire a labor negotiator. You should know better than most that it requires professionals on *both* sides of the table.
None of the current Council members – nor any of Davis’ top management – qualifies.
I agree with you, it takes a professional negotiator, the new councilmembers have supported this proposal. Again, ball’s in their court.
Most people who work for the State have had essentially stagnant wages for five years (declining when one accounts for inflation) plus a furlough last year which may be re-instituted during the budget impasses in Sacramento. At best these guys should get inflation, period.
So the idea of a 34% increase to already overpaid firefighters is offensive; 18% for police is also too high–and then this is passed off as “cost savings”–how Orwellian. Is this savings estimate prepared by the same staff that also works for the City and seems to have its own agenda?.
But I agree the Council is more likely to punt–but lets see.
[quote]First, the police officers took far less in the way of compensation increases in their previous contract than fire. Fire got nearly a 34% pay increase, police got nearly half of that at 18%.[/quote]
Key phrase, previous contract.
In your article, you talk about DCEA, then jump to immediately discussing DPOA without background context, which is a bit confusing since you don’t define either one or differentiate between the two. I’m assuming DCEA (Davis Classified Employees Association?) is still negotiating its contract, the DPOA (Davis Police Officers Association?) is up for renewal and discussion at today’s CC meeting.
And, given that the CC meeting where this was to be discussed in closed session doesn’t start for 20 minutes, how were these details released? By City negotiators? DPOA? CC members? Anonymous sources? Shouldn’t transparency be transparent?
BTW… I have no problem with the info being “out there”, but given the current ‘rules’, I am a little surprised…
Ms Musser: DCEA = Davis City Employees Association… mainly skilled trades, “field”, etc. Used to be everyone who wasn’t Fire, Police, Mgt. or Department Heads were DCEA. Professional/clerical/office folks bailed years ago as they thought they could get better “deals” if they separated from the “unwashed masses” (their characterization, NOT mine).
My column in this Wednesday’s Davis Enterprise will analyze the new police contract.
I think the fact that the current City Council voted to approve this deal, 4-1, with Sue dissenting, says everything you need to know about who Rochelle Swanson is and who Joe Krovoza is.
I did not mention this in my column, but I also am very sure now that come January, when Don Saylor leaves the council, Stephen, Joe and Rochelle will pick the new member*. Sue will likely not make that a unanimous choice.
And in that Stephen is the senior member of that trio, I expect they will pick him to serve as our mayor from January 2011 until July 2012 when Joe is slated to be mayor.
*It may or may not be Sydney Vergis. However, I would bet it is someone who shares Sydney’s point of view on labor contracts and on most other civic matters. My take is that with the June 2010 election we traded away one Lamar and one Ruth and got two Ruths back. A third Ruth (perhaps one named Sydney?) will join the council majority next year.
Police . worth every penny !
The same Sydney Vergis who came in third in the recent voting? I’d rather see someone experienced, maybe a “senior states-person” who would serve the community on an interim basis and not be beholden in order to get elected. And, speaking of pubic service, has anyone check lately with Mayor Don to see if he’s reconsidered resigning soon so we can save $300,000 or whatever and elect his replacement?
The police have the best strong arm business going. Paying for protection. If there is one function of municipal government that could be economically contracted out it is police. Let private security companies bid competitively against DPOA.
Biddlin , so you want a rent a cop , go shop at a mall and see what ya get , then decide if you can still stand behind what you just said .
I’m not that impressed by what I’ve got now. There is a big difference between rapid response security and mall cops. A professional security company employs sworn officers and can have higher performance and fitness standards than a civil service force. The DPOA needs some competition.
[i]”… speaking of pubic service, has anyone checked lately with Mayor Don to see if he’s reconsidered resigning soon so we can save $300,000 or whatever and elect his replacement?”[/i]
I don’t know if it’s a [i]fait accompli[/i], but my understanding is there will be no special election when Don steps down in January. So you need not worry about $300,000 or any other amount for an election. The four members of the council will pick a replacement member to hold the fifth seat.
[i]” I’d rather see someone experienced, maybe a “senior states-person” who would serve the community on an interim basis and not be beholden in order to get elected.”[/i]
I agree with you on picking someone old, experienced and energetic, but not interested in running for office in 2012. (I asked Terry Whittier if he’d give it a try, but he’s not interested.)
By hand-picking Sydney or anyone else with personal ambition for elective office, the council will be giving that individual a great advantage to win election in 2012.
If they choose someone other than Sydney, my guess is they might look at one of the trustees now on the school board. Those folks are all running for re-election. But I could imagine one of them would quit the school board race for a chance to be a member of the CC.
[i]”If there is one function of municipal government that could be economically contracted out it is police.”[/i]
I very much disagree with this notion. The Davis PD is a good, professional force, doing a very hard job, very well most of the time. They not only have to put their lives on the line every day and go through a lot of physical training with weapons and various dangerous situations, but they have to learn a great amount about all the laws passed by the state and city governments to uphold those laws. And then when a witness tells the cops that a girl caused a hit and run in a parking lot in South Davis, the cops get accused of being racists because the girl’s family is wealthy and Muslim. There is no reason to think that we would do better with mall cops doing that most difficult job.
I think as far as salary goes, our cops are fairly compensated*.
But as with all other employees for the City of Davis, the retirement benefits for the police and their other non-salary benefits — such as cashing out up to $18,141 in unused medical benefits, massive amount of holiday and vacation time, etc. — are a ridiculous rip-off to the taxpayers which we can no longer afford. When we go bankrupt in 2018, even the DPOA will say, “Rifkin was right.”
*For obvious reasons of corruption, the firefighters make more money; and based on what they really do, that is not justified.
“I think the fact that the current City Council voted to approve this deal, 4-1, with Sue dissenting, says everything you need to know about who Rochelle Swanson is and who Joe Krovoza is.”
I do not agree that this demonstrates anything more than the fact that they are deferring to the decision approved by the previous Council Majority and staff, given that they have just become our reps and have little or no knowledge of the complexities of the contract negotiations. As to Vergis getting the appointment,my understanding is that the 2 new Council members feel that Vergis’ rejection twice by the Davis voters for a Council seat has removes her from consideration for appointment. I am confident that we will see more independent thinking on their part as they acquire knowledge and ezperience in Council matters in the months ahead and it will be reflected i;n their choice for a potential Council seat appointment in Jan. 2011.
Come on Rich,”put their lives on the line every day ” Tree trimmers have a more hazardous job according to the US Dept. of Labor. So do about eight or nine other occupations.
Biddlin , Police and Firefighters always in the top 10 .
[i]”Tree trimmers have a more hazardous job”[/i]
When was the last time a tree trimmer got shot at on the job?
[i]”they have just become our reps and have little or no knowledge of the complexities of the contract negotiations”[/i]
Little knowledge?
If THAT is their excuse, it’s lame. They just spent most of the last 12 months learning about all the fiscal problems of the city. Ro stressed that she voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin because she was a “fiscal conservative.” Jo talked about how out of balance our contract terms are when we get a hundred applications for every available public safety job. These two have no excuse to not understand how unsustainable our labor contracts are.
When it came time to make comments or ask questions about the DPOA contract, neither one said anything of substance or asked any tough questions. The staff is selling this contract by saying it helps solve our problem with unfunded retirement benefits, when it clearly does not. Neither Jo or Ro expressed doubt about that mendacity.
D2, never mind that in their first important vote Jo and Ro joined the Saylor faction, and never mind that they had previously approved the plan which denied Sue all the positions she wanted as a council liason, but I find it strange that you, of all people, want to give the benefit of the doubt, citing naivete, to two people who voted in favor of Covell Vilage.
Sorry to bust your bubble, Rich, but according to the bureau of labor statistics commercial fishers, timber cutters, pilots, structural metal workers, taxicab drivers( who have a fatality rate of 46.6/1000, 70% by homicide v. police 16.6/1000,47% by homicide), construction laborers, roofer, electrical power installer, truck drivers and farm occupations all have higher fatality indexes than police. I don’t hate police. I don’t think they’re worth what most cities pay and having worked in three of the more hazardous occupations, I hate that,”put their life on the line” propaganda.BTW Ava, firefighters don’t make the top 15.
[i]”Sorry to bust your bubble, Rich”[/i]
Not my bubble.
Biddlin , how soon you forget all the police and firefighters who died on 9/11 , doing there job to protect people like you , plus all those police and firefighters who died before and after 9 / 11 .
Avatar –
No disagreement re: the danger of being a police or fireman in a major metropolitan area like NYC, Wash DC, LA, SF, Atlanta, Chicago etc. Davis RFD is a completely different beat. Not without its dangers (those UCD public intoxication busts can be difficult) , but a completely different beat.
I think about everyone who lost their lives in that horror, all of them doing their jobs.