From the start, I have not been a fan of the so-called tiered cuts. These seemingly arbitrary cuts have been used by the city to cut from the budget. What they do is pick and choose positions that the city believes are not tied to core services, and get them to add up to a certain amount of money.
The problem with that approach is, first, you are not considering the system from a full perspective. I have argued against this nickel-and-dime approach even as I recognize that there is money tied into the provisions of non-core services that could be cut.
Outside of that framework, I think any new general fund expenditure at this point should be put on hold. So there is talk about the imposition of a traffic calming implementation on J Street. I am sure that is something that is very necessary. However, outside of this framework, I think it is inappropriate.
Along those lines, the position of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the Parks and Recreation has been slated, it appears, for removal.
The position is currently held by Martin Guerena, who is part-time for about $40,000, which is the projected budget savings created by eliminating that position.
Alan Pryor last week made a strong case for the necessity of the position.
He wrote, “In the case of the City’s Parks and Recreation program, IPM means eliminating the use of herbicides to the extent possible through the alternative use of weed-smothering mulch or using ground cover plants to squeeze out the invasive weeds – or, as a last resort, using herbicides that are less harmful to humans and the environment. It also means using innovative alternatives to spraying with highly toxic pesticides for insect, fungi, and bacterial plant pathogens.”
Mr. Pryor also noted that Mr. Guerena was hired to “include collaboration with UC Davis researchers to study the effectiveness of less-toxic herbicides.”
He wrote, “Martin Guerena also implemented alternative pest control and fertilization trials in parks and greenbelts using solarization and flame weeding and biological controls in turf management.”
Understand that, while some may dismiss this an a touchy-feely environmental position that we can no longer afford, the people who are the primary consumers of parks and greenbelts are also the ones most vulnerable to harmful effects from pesticides, and that is children.
Toward that end, “Mr. Guerena also initiated and implemented many innovative outreach strategies including distributing pest control information via the City’s web site, posters, handouts, signs, and press releases through community-access television, at booths at the Farmers Market and City festivals, and at volunteer training sessions.”
This allowed him to provide critical information to homeowners and school children.
Again this is a $40,000 position.
But as Mr. Pryor reported, “Mr. Guerena’s role and expertise is even more critical now given the recent release of reports about the toxicity and dangers of one of the City’s most commonly used herbicides – a product called Round-Up. Round-Up is made by that friendly and nature-loving company, Monsanto (infamous only for all of its genetically modified crops and organisms and usurious treatment of farmers whose crops are contaminated with their GMO products.)”
He adds, “Monsanto has always marketed Round-Up as an environmentally-friendly product to the extent that its promoters in the industry claim it is ‘as safe as table salt.’ However, I assume that the mounting evidence of the toxicity and potential carcinogenicity of Round-Up means that none of these promoters will likely be adding it to their wives’ or kids’ popcorn any time soon.”
While Mr. Pryor quickly gets very technical, the key point here is that one of the key ingredients of RoundUp “is a proven human carcinogen and is known to damage the liver, kidney, brain and lungs of humans.” You can read his full description later.
But the bottom line here, “Given this newfound evidence attesting to the hazards of long term exposure to Round-Up to pregnant women and fetuses and the City’s absolute reliance on it for weed control, albeit reduced during Mr. Guerena’s tenure, elimination of the use of Round-Up must be a priority of the City if they are serious about continuing to create safe, pesticide-free zones in our City parks. Although use of Round-Up in the City has been greatly reduced as a result of the persistence and research of Mr. Guerena, it does not take any imagination to see this trend reversed if the City does not have a strong IPM advocate on staff. “
It seems just from Mr. Pryor’s brief description this is a position that actually is fully utilized, and if indeed Mr. Guerena is a part-time employee, given the importance of his job, it would seem that that position should be expanded, not eliminated.
Now, others have rightly brought up the issue of cost. Every decision we make needs to be cost-neutral. So, if you add or restore a position to the budget, you must eliminate a corresponding decision.
One of the suggestions was the the IPM was a more important expenditure than the use of Municipal Art Funds to paint the water tower and decorate it with art. I could not agree more.
Unfortunately, what seems logical and practical must give way to finance laws. The city funds the Municipal Art Fund in part through a 1973 ordinance that siphons off a portion of money for public construction projects, as well as the collection of developer impact fees. That money can only be spent on specific art purposes.
Moreover, it is a small fund. You cannot fund the IPM on an ongoing basis with the $144,000 in the Municipal Arts Fund, even if you could legally do so – which you cannot.
The fund would be depleted very quickly (almost immediately in fact). But that does not mean we cannot find another position, like one of the many planners that are not actively working on development projects.
There are a number of critical places that we can cut funding without much impact on city services. This seems to be a position that does a lot that can help.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “One of the suggestions was the the IPM was a more important expenditure than the use of Municipal Art Funds to paint the water tower and decorate it with art. I could not agree more.
Unfortunately, what seems logical and practical must give way to finance laws. The city funds the Municipal Art Fund in part through a 1973 ordinance that siphons off a portion of money for public construction projects, as well as the collection of developer impact fees. That money can only be spent on specific art purposes.
Moreover, it is a small fund. You cannot fund the IPM on an ongoing basis with the $144,000 in the Municipal Arts Fund, even if you could legally do so – which you cannot.”
This is the problem with putting money in silos – it allows gov’t to spend on things that are at times outrageous, w/o any consequences to those foolish decisions. From a practical point of view, it makes no logical sense to pay to put art on an ugly tank, at a time when we have to let the IPM position go for lack of funds. Which is more important? But bc of the silo effect, the city’s hands are tied.
That said, as someone suggested in a previous post to Mr. Pryor’s article, it would seem UCD interns could be used to fill in the void of the IPM position, and the city’s parks could be used as a “laboratory”. In tough times, you use the resources you have…
City Council approved finding solutions to the steadily increasing car speeds on J Street. Two City Advisory Commissions have approved it. One big concern is that many kids cross it at Drexel on their way to school.
So now you see the problem. David Greenwald supports cutting $2.5 million from employee expenditures before our labor contracts expire next year. Since we can’t negotiate any savings in the labor contracts this year, we have to cut positions. But we can’t cut the ombudsman, we can’t cut the integrated pest management position, no one wants to cut police officers.
What positions are we going to cut that are consistent with our personnel rules — rules specifying that lay offs are in order of reverse seniority?
People who are supporting demands that we cut $2.5 million of labor costs this year should be making up lists of their own specific suggestions. It is not fair to make demands and order staff to perform magic.
It’s still difficult to understand your insistence that the city cannot get started in the way the majority voted to do. Why not ask staff to propose staffing and organizational changes to reduce personnel costs now? This is pretty much a typical exercise in any organization anticipating budget reductions. Even the “tiered” approach (10%/20%/30% levels in $ or numbers) is standard contingency planning.
I’m afraid I still don’t “see the problem.”
If we can’t afford to pay for all the staff we now have, why can’t the city cut the IPM specialist or the ombudsman or two police officers or four fire fighters or five planners? Why can’t we evaluate what savings might result from combining two sections and target the unnecessary, duplicative positions? This can be painful, but it isn’t performing magic.
Why not reduce staff using the existing personnel rules as quickly as decisions can be made about what lower priority services the city will cut back? Will the new rules make staff reductions any easier in another year when the labor cost target increases to, say, $5.5 million?
Do the union contracts really drive what other organizations would see as management decisions? For example, can’t the city decide to go to three-person crews and use the contract to determine which people lose their positions in such a reorganization?
Sue: In all fairness I have made and published my list of recommended cuts.
To JustSaying: Nicely said!