I am always interested in reading Rich Rifkin’s take on the city’s fiscal and labor issues, mainly because he comes from a very different starting place than I do. And that is, I think, a problem for people attempting to demonize the pushback against employee compensation, pensions and retirement in municipal government.
Over the last twenty years, Davis has been governed almost exclusively by liberal Democrats. If you can find a defender of the current system, I will print whatever they have to say in defense of the current compensation system – unedited and in full.
He goes on to write, similarly to what I wrote, “It’s not yet clear to me that we need to fire our city attorney over this matter.”
He added, “But in retrospect, we now know that the Davis City Council, acting on the legal advice of Harriet Steiner, made a very costly decision when it moved to impose its final offer on the members of the Davis City Employees Association.”
I am not certain that it was ultimately Harriet Steiner’s call here. Curiously though, she, along with Melissa Chaney and Paul Navazio, have refused to answer my question to that effect.
But the bottom line is that the city screwed up, and if Mr. Rifkin’s calculations are correct, we owe “the DCEA members roughly $804,000 in back pay and benefits.” He is also right that “that is money the city does not have.”
He goes on to write, “Believing that DCEA was not acting in good faith, the Davis City Council, acting on the advice of Steiner, decided to impose its best, last and final offer on May 25, 2010.”
Mr. Rifkin then adds, “The PERB decided the party that had not acted in good faith was the city of Davis.”
What is interesting to me, at least, is the reaction at this point. For me, the city screwed up this process from the start. First, they did not ask enough of the first bargaining group that came before them, the firefighters. That meant they had to get a certain amount of savings – fudged accounting, as it was – in order to make ends meet.
So then they were running out of time in late 2009 and early 2010, and they had to get a contract, they were nowhere close and so they panicked and imposed their last, best and final offer before the process had played out.
Mr. Rifkin’s reaction is this: “After I read the PERB’s decision, my reaction was the City Council needs to junk Ordinance 1303. Under state law, I knew that Davis could impose its terms once we reached an impasse.”
But, as I pointed out to him, state law had changed, and so he adds, “What I didn’t know is that the unions that run our state were many steps ahead of me. Their bought-and-paid-for politicians – that is, the Democrats – already had voted to change the state law, so that now every general law city that wants to impose contract terms on its workers must go through the long, expensive fact-finding process.”
“Gov. Jerry Brown, whose campaign was funded by the public employee unions, signed this horrible law just last month,” he continued. “This presents an even greater crisis for Davis. If we are to survive as a city that provides critical services, we have to make great changes in our labor contracts. As things now stand, we are headed to insolvency and the ruin of our parks, streets and police force.”
The problem is, I support that law, because we are forgetting the culprit in all of this.
The unions are not our enemies. We are. The reason that we have a screwed up compensation system is that our leaders gave away the store over the last decade. First, with enhanced pensions, 3% at 50. Then, with huge and unsustainable raises. Then with an overly-generous retirement health compensation system.
We need to fix all of this, and we need to do it fairly quickly. We are facing a $7 million shortfall over the next three years.
If we do not get concessions from the city employees, we will have to lay many off. And that will result in a huge blow to city services.
But, I want to do that in the collective bargaining system. Imposing impasse is a temporary fix at best, it is not a solution. We need buy-in from our employees. We need them to understand the stakes.
All of that said, that is never going to happen as long as Bobby Weist is the President of the Firefighters Union, and the other unions are taking their cues from him.
Ultimately, the problems we face are about their contracts. They got the 3% at 50 retirement package, and they got the 36% raise from 2005 to 2009 that could not be sustained after the collapse of the housing bubble. By comparison, the police got a fairly modest 20% raise, and they are not the problem.
The other groups that are killing us are upper management, the people making over $90,000 in salary and over $120,000 or more in total compensation. These are not even union members and they are a huge part of the problem.
DCEA and PASEA (Program, Administrative and Support Employees Association), who are fighting for the rank and file workers, took much more modest increases of 10 to 15 percent over that time, and that’s barely more than inflation if at all. They have healthy pensions, but still they are looking at 2.5% at 55 and instead of making $150,000 in total compensation, most of their people are getting half that, at best.
The city screwed up, and they screwed up playing tough with the wrong group, and now we are going to have to pay for it.
I do not blame Dave Owen for being angry about being lied to by the city or for resenting the hardball tactics of the city on his union, when they were not nearly hard enough from the start on the real culprits in all of this.
So yes, I understand the frustration of Mr. Rifkin when he writes, “But the city’s employees will not budge. They are relying on the Democrats to make changes in their contracts impossibly expensive. Our only hope in Davis is that the City Council will fight the good fight, and that the residents of Davis, especially the poor residents who are most harmed by the avarice of labor, will no longer stand for a dysfunctional government of the unions, for the unions and by the unions.”
We do not need to kill the unions to get the changes that we need. What we need is everyone to buy into this problem, to understand that the $7 million gap means that we must either get concessions or people will lose their jobs. There is no way around that.
In the end, we need to be tough, but we can’t expect to impose our will and go outside of the collective bargaining process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“In the end, we need to be tough, but we can’t expect to impose our will and go outside of the collective bargaining process.” One would hope that Davisites would be smart, rather than tough, all the evidence, in this matter, to the contrary . Maybe it is something in your water…
David: I had a long conversation with Don Saylor last month as he sat at his table at UC Davis. My take away from that conversation was the he would, “publicly defend the current state of compensation and past policies.”
I wonder if you could engage him in this conversation.
Don’t you just love it when jealous outsiders come on these blogs and try and put down Davis. I take it as a compliment because it just shows their envy.
“It is not simply the anti-union right that has sprung up. It is also the progressive left.”
As far as I can tell there is no difference between the two. Could you please articulate what you think the differences because I have long argued they are essentially the same.
I would put this 100% at the feet of the City Attorney, and collect the $800K from her insurance, except for one thing: if the employee group did agree to the fact finding, was that critical fact hidden from the CC, or did they know? If hidden, Steve, you should fire everyone associated with that failure to notify.
I dont think this has anything to do with right or left; it’s basic legal process that failed. Ask the City Attorney for the money, and to repay her fees while you are at it.
Mr. Harrington should, in my humble opinion, put the primary blame at the feet of the former CM & the HR director, who were probably “carrying out orders” from certain council members, one of whom advocated impasse and imposition of terms prior to the first serious negotiation meetings with the employee groups. Though discounted by PERB in their decision (tentative), the public pronunciations of a certain City Council member was toxic to the process, in my opinion.
[quote]We do not need to kill the unions to get the changes that we need. What we need is everyone to buy into this problem, to understand that the $7 million gap means that we must either get concessions or people will lose their jobs. There is no way around that.[/quote]
Do you really believe the unions are going to “buy into this problem”? Do you really believe the city is going to “buy into this problem”? From what I can tell, both sides seem to be intractable, refusing to either admit any concessions are necessary/any legal mistakes were made. Which points to the very great need of a professional negotiator, who will at least know the legal requirements for contract negotiation, will not be beholden to any union members, and will be well aware of the city’s fiscal crisis.
That said, I would like to see the City Manager and City Council start CONSTRUCTIVE discussions with the city employees, to see what concessions can be had, if any, BEFORE labor negotiations begin. Some ground work could be laid, as to how dire the city’s fiscal crisis is, and give labor groups the opportunity to decide ahead of time whether they want to engage in shared sacrifice with some concessions or just let the chips fall where they may and accept that many city staff members’ employment will probably have to be terminated. I’d at least like to give all sides the opportunity to work things out ahead of time, as the current City Council envisioned a few months ago.
The bottom line is the less city employees we have to lay off the better. The more that are laid off, the lower the level of services, and the more it contributes to the downward recession spiral. Out of work people cannot pay taxes – it is as simple as that…
[quote]Mr. Harrington should, in my humble opinion, put the primary blame at the feet of the former CM & the HR director, who were probably “carrying out orders” from certain council members, one of whom advocated impasse and imposition of terms prior to the first serious negotiation meetings with the employee groups. Though discounted by PERB in their decision (tentative), the public pronunciations of a certain City Council member was toxic to the process, in my opinion.[/quote]
I agree that much of the blame lies at the feet of former CM Bill Emlen…
Like I said, the City Attorney’s job is to advise on that statute. If she told the CC not to do the quick impasse, and they did it anyway, then she is covered. If she did not write that memo, pay up $800K. It’s easy.
And refund ALL of her fees charged for the mess, and litigation that she probably made money off of.
One CC member can do nothing; it takes 3. So no, I dont blame one CC member making public statements. Maybe stupid, but not causal.
There should be an independent investigation, headed by a labor law litigator. The City Attorney should be completely excluded from that discussion, or retention.
Good luck. Joe, Rochelle, and Dan are all lawyers, and they should know what to do with this one.
ERM: you agree with me in terms of the process, and consequences, correct?
One more thing: it’s easy to kick the guy who is not in the room. Plenty of senior management staff who were probably involved in this debacle are still around, and still accountable.
Steve: you don’t own this mess, yet. It’s one more holdover, like the water project, DACHA, and the pay and pension problems. I hope you act decisively as to anyone still here who is responsible.
[i]” Over the last twenty years, Davis has been governed almost exclusively by liberal Democrats. If you can find a defender of the current system, I will print whatever they have to say in defense of the current compensation system – unedited and in full.”[/i]
I’m sorry, but liberal Democrats own this problem. They have gained and retained their power through union money and have a consistent track record for supporting pay and benefit increases for union employees, and blocking necessary reform. I know it makes us feel better to be so inclusive, but if we are going to solve problems we first need to be completely honest about what caused them.
At the state level the Democrat party has for decades successful partnered with union money, and both have operated with a strategy of starving services rather than accepting cuts. Even during our best economic years the state was running a deficit and kicking the can down the road. These fiscal problems have rolled to the cities at a time when their own spending practices were catching up to them.
State Democrats got used to winning the campaign battle using this strategy. With millions spent by the unions; teachers, nurses, police and firefighters were depicted as victimized civic heroes and misty-eyed voters opened their wallets one more time. The problem for Democrats now is that voters have nothing left in their wallets. This was an inevitable eventuality that should have had the effect of restraint, but even now we seem incapable of accepting the fiscal facts.
California is ruled by liberal Democrats. Davis is ruled by liberal Democrats. Despite what these leaders say on record, their actions are all that matter. And to date, their actions are still oriented toward the unions.
I agree that the City made the error, but I understand why they made it. Mike Harrington has already decided who is responsible for the error, but calls for an independent investigation. For what purpose, if only to punish someone he clearly dislikes? It is a further waste of money and a backward, contentious view. We don’t need this. We need forward thinking, collaborative problem solving. We need more than 3 Council members working together, we need 5 members working collaboratively. Mike Harrington and his gang can sit around and strategize how to take back the Council “majority” until the cows come home, but I think the community is looking for people who are problem-solvers, not finger-pointers and conspiracy theorists. I also think that the community wants the Unions to be part of the solution.
[quote]ERM: you agree with me in terms of the process, and consequences, correct? [/quote]
In answer to your question, I think Ryan Kelly said it very nicely:
[quote]I agree that the City made the error… Mike Harrington has already decided who is responsible for the error, but calls for an independent investigation. For what purpose, if only to punish someone he clearly dislikes? It is a further waste of money and a backward, contentious view. We don’t need this. We need forward thinking, collaborative problem solving. We need more than 3 Council members working together, we need 5 members working collaboratively. Mike Harrington and his gang can sit around and strategize how to take back the Council “majority” until the cows come home, but I think the community is looking for people who are problem-solvers, not finger-pointers and conspiracy theorists. I also think that the community wants the Unions to be part of the solution.[/quote]
[quote]California is ruled by liberal Democrats. Davis is ruled by liberal Democrats. Despite what these leaders say on record, their actions are all that matter. And to date, their actions are still oriented toward the unions.[/quote]
I cannot disagree with this statement. However, it does not take into account the mess at the federal level, and both parties (Democratic and Republican) had a hand in the housing/banking/Wall Street debacle. This financial debacle caused a domino effect that came crashing down on states and local gov’t that the state and local gov’ts were not prepared to handle, and understandably so. The entire world had not been prepared to handle such a monumental economic crisis. We need basic banking and investment reform, which seems to be slow in coming if at all. I read today where they are just now considering pulling back on the bonus compensation of the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as these housing agencies hemorrhage money and are headed for deep trouble, holding their hands out for more bailout money.
[i]”The reason that we have a screwed up compensation system is that our leaders gave away the store over the last decade. First, with enhanced pensions, 3% at 50.”[/i]
I largely agree with this, but I think you have left out a couple of big factors, here.
1) When the state legislature approved SB 400 in 1999*, the legislators were deceived (perhaps even lied to) by the leadership and lobbyists who worked for CalPERS. Helen Thomson, who was at that time our member of the Assembly, told me this herself (the one time I had coffee with her at Bernardo’s in downtown Davis). Other legislators have said the same thing.
*SB 400 is the law which authorized cities and counties and other agencies affiliated with CalPERS–
The question is why did CalPERS lie to get SB 400 passed? The answer is that the Board of Directors of CalPERS had been overtaken by members of the most aggressive public employee unions ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/business/calpers-wears-a-party-or-union-label.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm[/url]), and the unions (especially the prison guards’ CCPOA, the firefighters’ CPF and the highway patrol’s CAHP) used those new directors to instill their agenda on CalPERS and then onto the state and onto its member agencies. It was much later that it was discovered just how corrupt CalPERS had become ([url]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/14/business/la-fi-calpers-probe-20110315[/url]).
2) The second thing that David shoud point out here is that after SB 400 passed, CalPERS representatives (picked by the unions) came to affiliated agencies up and down the state, including Davis, and deceived members of city councils and boards of supervisors and so on. I don’t entirely excuse the mistaken votes of our elected representatives on enhanced retirement, but I think it is only fair to point out that they made those votes based on false or deceptive stories told to them by people who they thought were trustworthy.
[i]”Then, with huge and unsustainable raises.”[/i]
I agree that most of the fault for that lies with the council which unanimously approved those unusustainably large 2005 raises, especially the big raise to the firefighters.
But on a moral basis, I also blame the Davis firefighters: They knew they were being greedy. They first started by pouring thousands and thousands of dollars into the campaigns of select council candidates who compromised their positions as negotiators by taking that money; and then they cashed in their bought favors by squeezing their members of the council for their 36% pay hike. What Local 3494 did was not illegal. But in my opinion it was highly unethical. It was a tactic that no other bargaining groups in Davis ever did.
[i]”Then with an overly-generous retirement health compensation system.”[/i]
Yes. That is on the various city councils. I think, though, even with that, you have to agree–and I am sure David does agree–that part of the problem with covering retiree health care, employee health care, and family of employee health care is that the average annual inflation of that expense has been unimaginably high. Had inflation for medical care run no higher than inflation for food or rent or clothing, we would not be in this mess. But that has not been the case.
So the blame on the council in retrospect is how, with each succeeding contract, the City failed to share those rising costs with its employees (the way almost all private employers have). My own belief is that our country ought to have basic single-payer insurance (similar to what Canada has) which is entirely divorced from employment. But we don’t have that, and as a city we cannot change our federal laws. We have to manage our costs.
The City failed to do that and today, because of that failure, we pay way too much to cover the current costs of current employees (including cash-outs of up to $18,000 a year* for many) and we are massively in debt (around $54 million to $70 million, depending on which accountant you believe) for the unpaid bills we have coming for retiree medical care.
So at this point, we have to reform. We have to make our expenses managable for salaries, benefits, pensions, vacations, retirees, etc. And I think it is reasonable to assume, until it is proven otherwise, that the City employees are not willing to agree to these changes through collective bargaining. And therefore, we will have to follow the PERB’s guidance in order to impose terms that work for the people of Davis.
*I have not looked up the number recently. Correct me if you know I am wrong. If you just doubt me, send me an email and I will give you the precise cash-out maximum per unit.
HP: [i]”Mr. Harrington should, in my humble opinion, put the primary blame at the feet of the former CM & the HR director, who were probably “carrying out orders” from certain council members, [b]one of whom advocated impasse and imposition of terms prior to the first serious negotiation meetings with the employee groups[/b].”[/i]
HP, the fact is, that with DCEA, there were 16 formal negotiating sessions and many more informal conversations regarding their new contract, and all of that came to nothing. The position of the DCEA was hard from the start: they wanted to keep everything they had.
What Sue did was to say, in public, that if AFTER the two parties had reached an impasse, the city had a legal impasse procedure (Ord. 1303) in place and that at the end of that process, the City had the legal right to impose its last, best and final terms. Sue was entirely correct.
The reason Sue had to say that publicly is because another member of the city council, Mayor Ruth Asmundson, had said in public that the council could not impose its terms. (Notably HP never has criticized Ruth on that for her public comment prior to impasse.) Sue was specifically responding to Ruth to correct her, because what Ruth said was false.
And what Sue said was proper and 100% true.
What was terribly wrong was that, upon the advice of our city attorney, city staff (according to PERB) did not follow all of the impasse procedures required by our ordinance. Who do you blame for that, HP?
No one can fairly blame that on Sue Greenwald. When she said we had the right to impose terms, it was clear she was saying that we still had to follow the proper procedures.
If you read the PERB decision, you will see it discusses Sue’s public comments and it also finds no fault with what she said.
What I find most disturbing in HP’s slap at Sue Greenwald, which he has made multiple times, is that HP appears to think it is okay for the DCEA or its members to speak out on questions of impasse and the like, but it was wrong for an elected member of our city council to state the facts about our options on impasse. That is a bizarre and unfair double-standard.
Does anyone know if there is a chart comparing Davis city worker compensation (salary+benefits) with other similar size cities? How far above the norm are we?
[i]”I cannot disagree with this statement. However, it does not take into account the mess at the federal level, and both parties (Democratic and Republican) had a hand in the housing/banking/Wall Street debacle.”[/i]
Elaine, there is no doubt that both parties had a hand in fiscal irresponsibility related to the housing bubble. However, economies are always cyclical: boom and bust, up and down. The problems at the state and local level are structural and the recession only accelerated the day of reckoning.
But let’s say for the sake of argument looking back that both Parties are equally responsible for our current state of fiscal dysfunction. What we see today is the Democrats struggling to keep these same practices in play; attempting to protect the bloated and over-compensated PEUs from having to accept necessary concessions. Meanwhile most of the Republicans get it. Note the rise of the Tea Party. Regardless of your distaste for some of the more extreme elements of the Tea Party, they are the faction demanding a return to fiscal reality.
It doesn’t so much matter what you did except for that it is a point of reference. What matters is if you learn from your mistakes and improve. I don’t see any evidence that the Democrats have learned anything. The most savvy of them join the chorus complaining about deficit-spending and unbalanced budgets… but where is the beef?
ELAINE: [i]”Like I said, the City Attorney’s job is to advise on that statute. If she told the CC not to do the quick impasse, and they did it anyway, then she is covered.”[/i]
Alas, she is not covered.
For reasons of prolixity, I cut out part of my column* from the PERB report on just what Harriet Steiner did and said.
Here is PERB quoting (see bottom of page 19) Ms. Steiner’s words: [quote]The City has a set of rules on the process to follow after impasse. The City and DCEA bargaining group have met with a mediator without success. The next step is to come to City Council or go to fact-finding arbitration; Council may impose a last, best final offer [u]on a unilateral basis[/u] if it believes further process is unavailing. Staff recommendation is to impose a last, best final offer as rules apply to DCEA. …[/quote] The PERB report (see top of page 20) then characterized Ms. Steiner’s views: [quote] City Attorney Steiner stated the City feels strongly that it conducted good faith negotiations throughout the entire process and now is the time to start implementation on the last, best final offer. [/quote] I can add one more thing: the view among some staff to move to end the fact-finding process before it was completed was not shared by everyone on the staff behind closed doors, according to my source(s). Steiner was the one whose opinion ended the argument. She is the one who decided the City could act unilaterally when it did.
*I normally write columns which are from 850 to 950 words. This column was over 1,800 words after the first draft. I cut it back to about 1,050 words, which in my view is still too long. But I needed extra space to include long quotes from Ord. 1303 and a few quotes from the 31 page PERB report.
If the city outsourced functions such as pool and park maintenance, and the company that performed the maintenance made crazy benefits promises, it would go bankrupt. And the city would not be left in the lurch without funds for essential services.
The city needs to lay off workers and outsource whatever it can.
[quote]Does anyone know if there is a chart comparing Davis city worker compensation (salary+benefits) with other similar size cities? How far above the norm are we?[/quote]
Its funny you should mention that because there is. The city conducts a salary survey prior to the expiration a contract for that very purpose. The information is in the MOUs and below are the organizations per each bargaining unit. I could not find one for DPOA. This is a total compensation survey which includes salary and benefits (cafeteria, retirement, retiree medical, etc.) They base their total compensation package on the average of these organizations. I have not seen the actual results that from the 2009 surveys (although I’m sure they’re available via a request), but I was told that for many if not most of the positions Davis was actually below the norm.
PASEA
City of Citrus Heights
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Lodi
City of Napa
City of Rocklin
City of Roseville
City of Vacaville
City of Walnut Creek
City of West Sacramento
City of Woodland
UC Davis
Management
Campbell
Roseville
Citrus Heights
San Rafael
Fairfield
Vacaville
Folsom
Walnut Creek
Napa
West Sacramento
Pleasanton
Woodland
DCEA
City of Antioch
City of Fairfield
City of Folsom
City of Lodi
City of Martinez
City of Napa
City of Rocklin
City of Roseville
City of Vacaville
City of West Sacramento 11
When it comes to economic woes everyone in the country is having them. I would argue that most, if not all of these organizations are either as bad off as Davis or worse. How many of these organizations have been able to balance their budgets? How many of them have a 15% reserve in bank? So the question is why is Davis unable to keep up? I think David’s reasoning is only part of the puzzle. I think the rest falls on the way Davis is financially structured and on our mindset. We have a city that lacks enough business especially retail. Our sales tax revenues depend primarily on vehicle sales revenues. As part of the economic turndown these took a serious and coupled with a housing market slump it was a one-two punch. I guess it’s true what they say about putting all of your eggs in one basket. With regards to our mindset most of us seem to want all of the benefits of a small town while at the same time expecting all of the amenities of a big city. For the most part I think we discourage retail growth and hinder it.
I agree with David that everyone needs to be part of the solution. When it comes to the baraining units there is not only a large variation it total comp between them but when it comes to the rank and file groups there is considerable varation within them as well. The terms of the MOU for a group will apply to all of the members. Despite what anyone thinks, some of these people are barely scraping by but if you want to argue that go to the city website, look at the job descriptions and educate yourselves. You can’t get blood from squeezing a turnip. So before the city even approaches the rank and file groups, especially those who have already made concessions, the should probably get them from those who have not first before the ask for more. Also, it really doesn’t help the city’s position that they have a 15% reserver in teh bank, gave the city manager a raise, and increased the council’s budget. With all of that in mind, if my employer came to me with their hand out and told me they were hurting and needed me to make some more sacrifices, I think I’d be a little resistant too.
Oops, DCEA list was incomplete and I forgot to include Firefighters:
DECEA cont.
City of Woodland
UC Davis
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Sacramento Regional Sanitation District
Contra Costa Sanitation District
Mt. View Sanitation District
Napa Sanitation District
Fire Fighters
City of Fairfield
City of Napa
City of Roseville
City of Sacramento
City of Vacaville
City of West Sacramento
City of Woodland
Sac. Co. Fire Protection Dist.
University of California at Davis
El Dorado Hills Protection District
“Also, it really doesn’t help the city’s position that they have a 15% reserver in teh bank, gave the city manager a raise, and increased the council’s budget.”
I understand what you are saying, but the reserve is one-time money and the increased costs are ongoing, the raise is trivial compared to the increased costs, and not sure what the council’s budget went up by, but it too is trivial. I understand that it doesn’t help the city’s position, but most of that is simply symbolic.
[quote] I understand that it doesn’t help the city’s position, but most of that is simply symbolic. [/quote]
Maybe so, but when we’re talking about a group of people who traditionally have been the first approached to make sacrifices despite having the least to sacrifice; in their minds it’s more than simply symbolic, it’s unfair. And when these kind of things continue to happen time and time again, eventually it becomes unacceptable. Sometimes symbolic gestures go a long way – in either direction.
I guess I’m less inclined to buy into that reasoning
First, there is the structural matter that 80% of general fund costs go to compensation – that necessarily means any time you have to cut spending, you automatically are going to have to seek sacrifices from employees. Fair or not, that’s the math.
But that said, they were not the first people to be asked to make sacrifices. The first cuts were by attrition – retirement and sacrifice. Public was asked to sacrifice by having cutbacks on services hours. In recent years, the public has been asked to pay an additional sales tax, endure cuts to recreation programs, and pay a parks tax. That’s a far cry from being the first to sacrifice.
The other problem is that the current crisis we face is the result of compensation increases to employees in the last decade. So what I hear from you is that employees should reap the benefits of an up economy in the form of salary increases, retirement, and enhancement pensions, but not pay when the economy heads down – that makes no sense and belies the notion of sacrifice that you have argued.
[quote]What matters is if you learn from your mistakes and improve.[/quote]
AGREED!
[quote]ELAINE: “Like I said, the City Attorney’s job is to advise on that statute. If she told the CC not to do the quick impasse, and they did it anyway, then she is covered.” [/quote]
This was NOT my quote!
[quote]”Also, it really doesn’t help the city’s position that they have a 15% reserver in teh bank, gave the city manager a raise, and increased the council’s budget.” [/quote]
[quote]So what I hear from you is that employees should reap the benefits of an up economy in the form of salary increases, retirement, and enhancement pensions, but not pay when the economy heads down – that makes no sense and belies the notion of sacrifice that you have argued.[/quote]
To some extent I think you both are correct…
[i]”This was NOT my quote!”[/i]
I’m sorry. That was Mike Harrington. And while I don’t know anything about her financial liability in giving bad advice, where Mike says “If she did not write that memo, pay up $800K,” I cannot see how anyone but Steiner deserves the bulk of the blame in this matter. The city staff and later the City Council followed her legal advice.
uote]First, there is the structural matter that 80% of general fund costs go to compensation – that necessarily means any time you have to cut spending, you automatically are going to have to seek sacrifices from employees.[/quote]
Since I myself don’t know, with regards to any of the comparison cities or any other cities for that matter, do you or anyone else know what percentage of their general fund (or what their equivalent of a general fund is) is spent on compensation? How far off is Davis by comparison?
Also, I’m not necessarily arguing with you on the second part of this quote. I just feel that the city’s approach to this has traditionally been a bottom up one where a top down approach might server them better. I would also argue that the pain needs to be shared equally, even by the city manager and the council. I believe that the playing field needs to be leveled before advancing to the next round. As you have mentioned in previous articles, the upper management has yet to make sacrifices and now with the reversal of the imposed DCEA contract the equilibrium of the sacrifice amongst the rank and file groups has been destroyed. You suggest that the other bargaining groups might be emboldened by this but I would suggest that for some, angered might be more accurate. Whatever share of this burden falls upon the employees it has to be shared amongst them either proportionately or at very lease equally.
[quote] Public was asked to sacrifice by having cutbacks on services hours. In recent years, the public has been asked to pay an additional sales tax, endure cuts to recreation programs, and pay a parks tax. That’s a far cry from being the first to sacrifice. quote]
Actually I was referring to when sacrifice is sought from the employees it is usually from the lower ranks first. They also have been and will be the first and hardest hit by layoffs. But admittedly, this is not exclusive to Davis and is pretty much prevalent throughout both the public and private sector.
[quote] So what I hear from you is that employees should reap the benefits of an up economy in the form of salary increases, retirement, and enhancement pensions, but not pay when the economy heads down quote]
Not at all, I would simply say that things are tough all over. If other similar organizations are able to provide a certain level of total compensation that Davis is not, someone needs to be asking why. Someone needs to acknowledge it as part of the problem instead of overlooking it or just plain ignoring it. Because until someone does, it will continue to continue to pose a burden that is expected to be shouldered in large part by the employees and will pose employment issues for the city organization. If Davis offers you a job and Woodland or West Sac offer you that same job but with better compensation – where will you go? You have a target in mind on where we need to get to, while we may differ in our opinions on where that target might be I’m more arguing the approach. You implore that we have to engage the warp drive and get there in one single leap. I don’t necessarily believe that to be the case. I see that concessions are being made by some of the groups and progress toward the goal is being made. I understand that you don’t believe it’s enough or that it’s happening quickly enough. You would suggest that the city cannot afford to achieve this goal in this manner, I would suggest that the city workers cannot afford not to. If someone gradually hand you a 100 lb. rock I’m sure you could take on the burden without too much issue – if someone simply dropped it in your arms you’d probably drop it on your feet.
Sorry looks like the quotes got messed up.
Something is happening with the tags today. I think I fixed it.
“Believing that DCEA was not acting in good faith, the Davis City Council, acting on the advice of Steiner, decided to impose its best, last and final offer on May 25, 2010.”
AND, folks, this is the City’s attorney who says that the referendum re water rate increases is NOT legal! HEY, has anyone made a FOIA request re her contract with the our city? Just asking . . . .