In October of last year, Councilmember Lamar Heystek stunned many in the community and many of his closest supporters by announcing he would not seek a second term to the Davis City Council. As it turned out that would not be the end of the story for Mr. Heystek who has distinguished himself during his first term as a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility in the city of Davis while at the same time he remains graceful and civil on the dais.
Last week, the Vanguard reported that community members and supporters of Mr. Heystek had launched a “Draft Lamar” petition located at draftlamar.com that urged him to reconsider his decision not to run. Apparently those efforts have had a great impact on Mr. Heystek.
He is said to be undecided at this time as to whether to seek reelection. Late last night, he sent out a statement to the media and to many of his supporters.
He said:
“I have given a great deal of thought to the recent efforts undertaken by community members urging me to reconsider my decision not to pursue reelection to the Davis City Council. While I am truly surprised that the decision I made back in October has continued to garner so much attention, I am humbled by the discussion that has taken place regarding my place on the Council and am grateful for the support hundreds of Davisites have expressed for me both publicly and privately.”
He said he will announce his final decision at 4:30 pm on Friday March 12, but has stressed that at this time, he has made no decision either way.
“I have endeavored to give these rather remarkable efforts the respect and consideration they deserve. In light of this public call for me to enter the Council race, I believe a personal statement from me in a public setting is appropriate. Therefore, I will deliver brief remarks about my plans regarding the 2010 Council election at the Davis City Hall courtyard on Friday, March 12 at 4:30 p.m.”
Last week, a group of citizens launched the website, http://www.draftlamar.com and urged communities members to sign a petition that encourages Mr. Heystek to reconsider his decision not to seek reelection.
He told the Enterprise last week that he was “flattered” and “humbled” by the online petition and community efforts to get him to reconsider his prior decison.
“My mind is open and I want to respect the efforts of the community. Those efforts, I think, are rather extraordinary.”
The letter read as follows:
“Last fall, Councilmember Lamar Heystek announced that he would not be seeking re-election after serving only one term on the Davis City Council. We all respected Lamar’s decision and commitment to his future wife and family. At the same time, however, it is evident that the city of Davis now faces critical and unique challenges of historic magnitude. The gravity of these challenges and the obvious disfunction of city government as it struggles to cope, have become clearer in the weeks since Lamar “bowed out.” We believe with the community’s urging Lamar will reconsider.
Lamar Heystek has demonstrated leadership, honesty and integrity on the key issues that face the city of Davis. He has been a voice of civility, maturity, reason, and passion in the face of great obstacles. The city cannot afford to now lose Lamar’s experience.
We sincerely believe that Lamar is the best person for the job. We ask you to sign this petition requesting him to reconsider his decision to not seek re-election. We hope that an outpouring of community support will demonstrate to Lamar that the city of Davis needs him on the City Council.
Please fill out the form below to indicate that you are willing to endorse his candidacy, contribute money up to $100, walk a precinct, or host a neighborhood party should he decide to seek re-election.
Please join us in urging Lamar to reconsider.
Please go to www.draftlamar.com to sign the petition.”
At the time of the release, there were nearly 100 signatures, that number has tripled to 300 and includes many prominent community members and several past officials.
Friday is the deadline for Mr. Heystek to file for reelection. It appears he will make his decision or announce it just prior to the deadline. Due to the fact that the Mayor has already announced her intention not to seek reelection, the deadline will be extended until March 19, however, only new challengers may file in the five day extension period, neither of the incumbents can do so.
And so we wait to see what transpires. Mr. Heystek’s presence in the race would drastically change the dynamics. Currently the candidates are Joe Krovoza, Sydney Vergis who finished fourth in 2008, and Rochelle Swanson. It is a difficult race to handicap, but the Vanguard will continue to have the latest news and commentary in this vital election.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Lamar , you made the right decision , you truly looked happy and relieved when you made your decision , not to run for office again .
I very much differ in my assessment, and while I really do not want to get into it on a public forum, I also question your motivation given your stated positions on this site of your differences with Lamar on employee compensation issues.
For those who are in the stage in their life where they are striving to establish a career and family, a seat on our Council representing strong progressive values could be considered a quite problematic path. I would hope that those who signed the petition did so with respect and affection, fully recognizing that this decision is a difficult one for Lamar as he plans to marry and start a family… we all wish him only the best for the future.
[i]I also question your motivation[/i]
Yeah well Avatar’s motives are at least as pure as yours and Lamar’s. Whether agree with me or not, I can assure you that I have absolutely no compromised interest on the issues that you listed as the most important. My most direct involvement is that I am a homeowners and taxpayer in Davis.
I agree with Avatar regardless of his supposedly nefarious motives. Lamar’s core position on the city’s budget is either grab pensions, or cut taxes as punishment. If this is progressive, then Ronald Reagan was a progressive. And I really don’t see that he knows how to win labor concessions. He’s brilliant at wanting the city to do it, but that’s about it. His strategy to date would at best lead to blame without changes at best; at worst to labor strife that would degrade city services far more than layoffs.
Yes, the city needs to save what it can in its labor contracts. I’m not secretly a city worker and I also don’t feel sorry for city workers. But just talking a big game and questioning people’s motives isn’t going to do it.
“And I really don’t see that he knows how to win labor concessions. He’s brilliant at wanting the city to do it, but that’s about it.”
I believe that he has called for an outside negotiator.
“Lamar’s core position on the city’s budget is either grab pensions, or cut taxes as punishment.”
Lamar pointed out the city’s projections were too rosy, and he was absolutey correct. Lamar suggested some modest budget cuts in light of his more pessimistic projections, which would have at least started the ball rolling on wrestling with our city’s structural budget problems. That is more than the City Council majority was willing to do. All the CC majority did was punt…
[i]I believe that he has called for an outside negotiator.[/i]
Yes, Don, just as if you’re having family problems, you can always call for an outside counselor. But the thing is, it sounds like really insightful advice to call for an outside professional, but typically it’s just dodging the question. He wants sex five times a week, she wants three glasses of sherry every day, their teenager wants a new car after wrecking the old one, and they each want a counselor to take their side.
An outside negotiator would be less loyal to the city of Davis, not more; and he would be a significant expenditure. Calling for an outside negotiator does nothing for the real question of deciding realistic expectations.
[i]Lamar pointed out the city’s projections were too rosy,…[/i]
Actually, Lamar’s position was that city’s revenue projections were too rosy, but that its service promises weren’t rosy enough.
“it sounds like really insightful advice to call for an outside professional, but typically it’s just dodging the question.”
No, it is hiring a professional to do something that would otherwise be done by city staff, who have a basic conflict of interest when it comes to negotiating between the city and their underlings. There is presently nobody within the negotiating process who is acting on behalf of the citizenry.
Again, you are distorting Lamar’s budget proposal. Here is what he actually proposed: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2839:heystek-presents-alternative-budget-proposal&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
[i]No, it is hiring a professional to do something that would otherwise be done by city staff, who have a basic conflict of interest when it comes to negotiating between the city and their underlings.[/i]
Now look, Lamar has taken the position that city services are vital and should be cut as little as possible. David has even claimed that services have been “cut to the bone”. So how can you turn around and then say that getting city workers to do their work is a “conflict” of interest? Is it a conflict of interest or a balance of interests? To the extent that “the citizenry” wants city staff to get anything done, a reputable outside negotiator would pursue exactly the same balance of interests. If an outsider negotiator only got us the same plaid carpet that we saw before, it would actually be easier to accuse him than the city of manager of disloyalty.
A disreputable outsider negotiator would be happy to disrupt labor relations entirely for the sake of his fee.
The worst kind of bureaucracy that I have ever seen is a lot of workers who hate management and don’t get anything done. Typically they aren’t paid competitively, but on the other hand many of them are overpaid at zero and can’t get other jobs.
[i]Again, you are distorting Lamar’s budget proposal. Here is what he actually proposed[/i]
I stand by the statement that Lamar, speaking through his budget proposal, said that Navazio’s revenue projections were too rosy and his service projections weren’t rosy enough. Yes, he also had some other changes there, some of which would also be hard to negotiate, but it is a fact that Lamar rejected Navazio’s service cuts as too onerous. I quote from your own link: “Second, $1.5 million in savings is wrapped up in the tier reductions, which are basically the cutting of programs and service to the public. Mr. Heystek’s budget begins to address these cuts, [b]removing some of them from the cut list[/b].”
[i]”Lamar’s core position on the city’s budget is either grab pensions, or cut taxes as punishment.”[/i]
You have every right to make up your own opinions. You don’t have a right to make up your own facts. Lamar has never said or implied his “core position on the city’s budget” is either of the things you claim. He has instead said his position is to save city services.
[i]”If this is progressive, then Ronald Reagan was a progressive.”[/i]
I am not one who gives a sh!t about labels like progressive or regressive or whatever. However, your intent is clear: you are trying, by mistating what Heystek stands for and has said, to besmirch him by associating his policies with those of someone you believe is unpopular. It’s purely an ad hominem attack.
[i]”His strategy to date would at best lead to blame without changes at best; at worst to labor strife that would degrade city services far more than layoffs.”[/i]
Of course this is total nonsense. Every claim Greg makes is based on the falsehood that there is a tight labor market and that no (real money) downward adjustments can be made without a horrific loss of quality personnel and a reaction of strikes and chaos.
[i]”But the thing is, it sounds like really insightful advice to call for an outside professional, but typically it’s just dodging the question.”[/i]
If Greg ever bothered to look this up, he would know that Davis’s comp cities use outside parties (that is, professional labor negotiators) to negotiate contracts with their personnel. It’s not “dodging the question.” It’s getting someone who is an expert at negotiating and who has no personal ties to the other side to do the negotiating. It is the very reason why the DCEA and other city associations normally hire professional negotiators to argue for them.
An outside negotiator would be less loyal to the city of Davis, not more; and he would be a significant expenditure. Calling for an outside negotiator does nothing for the real question of deciding realistic expectations.
[i]”So how can you turn around and then say that getting city workers to do their work is a “conflict” of interest? Is it a conflict of interest or a balance of interests?”[/i]
You seem to be covering your eyes in order to claim you are blind.
The conflict is that the three people who are negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers are friends with the people they are being paid to negotiate against.
However, this conflict is only a part of the problem. More important are A) the direction given to them by the members of the city council who have taken tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from city workers; and B) that our negotiators are not professional negotiators and don’t have expertise in driving the best bargain possible for the taxpayers. It is for the latter reason that most cities in California the size of Davis or larger hire professional negotiators.
To the extent that “the citizenry” wants city staff to get anything done, a reputable outside negotiator would pursue exactly the same balance of interests. If an outsider negotiator only got us the same plaid carpet that we saw before, it would actually be easier to accuse him than the city of manager of disloyalty.
A disreputable outsider negotiator would be happy to disrupt labor relations entirely for the sake of his fee.
The worst kind of bureaucracy that I have ever seen is a lot of workers who hate management and don’t get anything done. Typically they aren’t paid competitively, but on the other hand many of them are overpaid at zero and can’t get other jobs.
[quote]An outside negotiator would be less loyal to the city of Davis, not more; and he would be a significant expenditure[/quote]Greg, our use of our city manager and finance director as labor negotiators has been incredibly costly, both in terms of direct cost and in terms of opportunity cost. You have no concept of the amount of time that our top administrators have devoted to haggling with their own employees. Not only were we paying their high salaries, but this was time diverted from such fiscal make or break issues such as trying to assure that our water/sewer upgrades are achieved in a cost-efficient manner and oversight of staff in order to assure that costly (in terms of litigation) mistakes, such as the cell phone poll permits, are not made.
I have been trying to get the city to use an outside negotiator for the last eight years. I succeeded for a brief period before Lamar was on the council and under a different city manager. For the first time, upon questioning I was told that we did not have binding arbitration and that, after impasse and mediation, the council could set salaries at the last, best offer.
Regardless of what you think about the wisdom of declaring impasse, this is certainly information that any decision maker should have. I don’t think I would have that information today if I had not succeeded in having a few sessions with the outside negotiator.
Shortly after explaining the difference between meet and confer and binding arbitration, the outside negotiator never returned, and staff was again doing the negotiating.
I never succeeded in getting an answer to my questions about why our outside negotiator disappeared, and we have not been able to get council majority approval to hire one since.
[i]”… our use of our city manager and finance director as labor negotiators has been incredibly costly, both in terms of direct cost and in terms of opportunity cost.”[/i]
Here is one example where I believe an outside negotiator would strike a much better bargain on behalf of the City of Davis than have our city employees struck when negotiating with their own colleagues: pension contribution payments.
Under the CalPERS system, employee pension contributions have two components: one is the portion which the employee is supposed to pay, called “Employee Contribution;” the remainder is the portion which the employer is supposed to pay, called “Agency Contribution**.”
The amount each employee has to pay is capped as a percentage of his salary, based on the formula for his pension. In the City of Davis, for example, all non-safety employees are in the 2.5% at age 55 program*. The employee contributions for them are capped at 8% of salary. However, in Davis, the non-safety “employee contributions” are 0%. That is, non-safety workers in Davis don’t pay their share of the pension bill. That will cost the City of Davis $1,748,234 this fiscal year.
Greg Kuperberg likes to brag about how expensive it would be to hire a professional to negotiate on behalf of the City. What Greg doesn’t say is that no professional would agree to a deal in which the City was being ripped off like that. The professional would know that in our comp cities the employees are all paying the employee share of their pension costs. According to the budget director in Napa (who I exchanged some emails with), he told me he was “shocked” that Davis non-safety employees don’t pay their pension contribution share. He said he had never heard of that anywhere else.
I should add, of course, that the City Council (more than our unprofessional negotiators) should be blamed for this bad negotiation outcome. They are the ones who ultimately tell the negotiators what they want and what they don’t want.
However, it remains the case that our three employees, who negotiated having non-safety employees not paying their part of the CalPERS contribution, directly benefits those three employees (and the husband of one of them). Last year, the pension payments just for those three was about $92,000.
*2.5% at 55 became the standard in our state in the late 1990s, but many agencies in the last 2 years have returned to less expensive formulas for new hires. By law, agencies cannot reduce the formulas for existing employees, but many now are offering 2% at 55. For an employee who works say 35 years, in the 2.5% formula, his pension would begin at 87.5% of his last salary. For an employee in the 2.0% formula, his pension would begin at 70.0% of his last salary, if he worked 35 years (35 x 2 = 70).
** This amount is rising dramatically due to the poor performance of CalPERS’s investment portfolio, including massive losses in real estate.
[i]He has instead said his position is to save city services.[/i]
Fine Rich, Lamar’s platform is to either grab pensions AND keep city services, or otherwise cut taxes as punishment.
[i]If Greg ever bothered to look this up, he would know that Davis’s comp cities use outside parties (that is, professional labor negotiators) to negotiate contracts with their personnel. It’s not “dodging the question.”[/i]
Rich, I’m not saying that it would be a disaster to have an outside negotiator. The analogy I gave was to a marriage counselor, and they do sometimes accomplish something. I stand by my statement that it is dodging the question in the sense that you shouldn’t expect an outside negotiator to work wonders.
I also am willing to “bother” to look it up, but you’re not helping me since you didn’t provide any references for which cities actually do use an outside negotiator. I checked Vacaville, where my first impression is that they use their city manager.
[i]You have no concept of the amount of time that our top administrators have devoted to haggling with their own employees.[/i]
Really, Sue? To hear some people tell it, it should be smooth sailing because they’re all pals.
Well, if our top administrators are spending countless hours on labor negotiations, then obviously it’s high time to bring in private consultants instead. Rich himself has told me how economical they are.
[i]For the first time, upon questioning I was told that we did not have binding arbitration and that, after impasse and mediation, the council could set salaries at the last, best offer.[/i]
Did he tell you that that opens the door to pickets, labor strikes, sickouts, and work to rule?
[i]”Lamar’s platform is to either grab pensions AND keep city services, or otherwise cut taxes as punishment.”[/i]
What do you mean by “grab pensions”? And what exactly do you think would happen if the City did this?
[i]”… after impasse and mediation, the council could set salaries at the last, best offer.”[/i]
[b]”Did he tell you that that opens the door to pickets, labor strikes, sickouts, and work to rule?”[/b]
To my knowledge, there has only been one example in which ALL of a city’s labor contracts in California in the last 5 years have been set by the “last, best offer.” (There are many others in which one hold-out union had its contract imposed in this manner.) The example comes from Palo Alto.
Now, if you believe Professor Kuperberg’s nightmare scenario, in which this tactic would result in “pickets, labor strikes, sickouts, and work to rule,” we should have seen this in Palo Alto. We did not. No walk-outs. No strikes. No pickets. Alas, Professor Kuperberg’s phantasm is all in his head. It is all based on a great falsehood: that the labor market is stretched thin and that if worker’s are made to give an inch, they will go nuts.
I believe it is illegal for public safety employees to strike in California.
Don, yes. But it is legal for non-safety to strike.
[i]I believe it is illegal for public safety employees to strike in California.[/i]
That is true, Don, but (a) we’re not just talking about public safety employees, and (b) they can still do the other things.
[i]Now, if you believe Professor Kuperberg’s nightmare scenario, in which this tactic would result in “pickets, labor strikes, sickouts, and work to rule,” we should have seen this in Palo Alto. We did not.[/i]
Oh okay, Rich, if Palo Alto won its game of chicken by ripping out the steering wheel, then of course that’s what we should do.
SIEU did in fact threaten to strike in Palo Alto. They took it right to the brink. But since they pulled back at the last minute, in Palo Alto, Davis has nothing to worry about.
Also they did have a “volunteer furlough day” which the city called a strike. But maybe we should accept SIEU’s terminology. Is Davis ready for volunteer furlough days? It doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
[quote]Fine Rich, Lamar’s platform is to either grab pensions AND keep city services, or otherwise cut taxes as punishment.
[/quote]Greg, neither Lamar nor I have ever, ever suggested “grabbing” pensions. That is a gross misrepresentation. Personally, I strongly support defined benefits. I support the 2% at 60 formula which used to be the norm, with contributions sufficient to qualify as fully funded under realistic rate of return assumptions. I support earlier retirement for public safety, if and only if it is reflected in lower salaries, since a 50 year old has the option of continuing in a physically less demanding job his/her department, or getting a job elsewhere. I would support the same concept for non-public safety jobs that are physically very demanding if it were possible, i.e., if the employees wanted reorganize themselves into physically-demanding vs. non-physically demanding bargaining groups.
I should add that our old 2% at 60 formula maxed out at almost 2.5% at 65. That formula was quite generous. That formula could have been sustainable if CALPERS had not allowed agencies to decrease the amount they paid in during the good years, thus allowing a much bigger cushion for the bad years. I have also long argued that CALPERS should have been been assuming a 6% average rate of turn, which is the global historic average, rather than the 7.75% rate of return, which is the U.S. historic average.
Greg, are you afraid to answer my questions: “What do you mean by ‘grab pensions’? And what exactly do you think would happen if the City did this?”
[i]”Oh okay, Rich, if Palo Alto won its game of chicken by ripping out the steering wheel, then of course that’s what we should do.”[/i]
Only in your dreams is it a “game of chicken,” Greg. You believe this. I don’t think you are making up this nonsense. But then again, other people believe in lot of quackery. You have never once shown why a paralyzing or other negative outcome is likely to be the result of our following a sensible policy on long-term employee compensation.
[i]”SIEU did in fact threaten to strike in Palo Alto. They took it right to the brink. But since they pulled back at the last minute, in Palo Alto, Davis has nothing to worry about.”[/i]
That is right. We would have nothing to worry about, because we are paying our current employees more in total comp than we can sustain. We have much more to worry about if we continue on the Kuperbergian path we are on.
Further, you have never made clear why it is you think a work stoppage is such a terrible nightmare? You have never compared that with the benefit of having labor deals we can afford? Why do you always take such a tendentious position, Greg?
[i]Greg, are you afraid to answer my questions: “What do you mean by ‘grab pensions’?[/i]
Not really. What I mean by a pension grab is exactly what it usually means in political discussions: Unilaterally reduce benefits for current subscribers. I was hedging only because I wanted to double-check that that description completely fits Sue’s and Lamar’s intentions. I have seen Sue, at least, argue for unilateralism, and argue to reduce benefits, and argue against only cuts for new employees. I wasn’t sure if I had seen all three together.
[i]And what exactly do you think would happen if the City did this?[/i]
I would expect highly acrimonious labor relations, which in the end might lead to degraded or disrupted city services, or binding arbitration.
[i]Further, you have never made clear why it is you think a work stoppage is such a terrible nightmare?[/i]
I don’t, Rich. But then, I never said that services have been cut to the bone, did I? I understand the need to save money. But there is a general principle of labor negotiations that it is cheaper to let sleeping dogs lie; or if you do have to wake them, keep them tied up. So, number one, some of the unions already did agree to compensation cuts for new employees, which should be important for this “sustainability” question. Number two, if we’re not supposed to be scared of a work stoppage, then surely layoffs are a safer alternative.
In asking your question, you really start to sound like you’re spoiling for a fight. You and David both sound that way, since as it happens his wife Cecilia works for the same union that Palo Alto muscled down, SEIU. I would be really surprised if David thinks that the city’s unions wouldn’t fight back against ultimatums.
[i]You have never compared that with the benefit of having labor deals we can afford?[/i]
If you’re spoiling for a fight with unions, then you can’t know that that is what you will get in the end. You might sometimes end up with binding arbitration instead.
There you go again (and again), Greg. Whenever Lamar’s name comes up, your comments seem to repeat the same three criticisms in almost the same words as in earlier posted topics. Although your descriptions conflict with history, are subject to other interpretations or repeatedly have been corrected in these columns–and obviously all are exaggerations (at the very least), you go on. There must something really bugging you about Lamar that isn’t apparent from your posts. Even if your three criticisms were valid, they would be minor considerations by comparison with demonstrated shortcomings of our other City Council members. None is perfect. And you protest too much.
No, JustSaying, the main statement is well-supported by Don Shor’s link. Lamar did indeed imply that Paul Navazio’s revenue projections were too rosy, and that his service projections weren’t rosy enough. Everyone agrees to the first half of that statement, and I gave a direct quote from David in support of the second half.
Likewise for a phrase like, “pension grab”. That phrase has always meant reduced pension benefits; Google it and you’ll see for yourself. So there is nothing inaccurate about this phrase either.
What other people in this discussion disagree with is not the substance of these phrases, but their tone. I don’t see how people can even call them exaggerations. Well, truly good ideas can survive a sarcastic tone, just as beautiful people still look without makeup.
[quote]What I mean by a pension grab is exactly what it usually means in political discussions: Unilaterally reduce benefits for current subscribers. I was hedging only because I wanted to double-check that that description completely fits Sue’s and Lamar’s intentions. I have seen Sue, at least, argue for unilateralism, and argue to reduce benefits, and argue against only cuts for new employees. I wasn’t sure if I had seen all three together.[/quote]Greg, that is utter nonsense. I have never argued for reducing benefits for current subscribers because it is legally impossible to reduce benefits for current subscribers.
I argued unsuccessfully not to INCREASE the pension formula, for the very reason that we can’t unilaterally decrease the formula; we are stuck with it for generations whether or not we can afford it. I predicted at the time that increasing the benefit formula would result in a two-tiered system, where young workers with lower benefits would be supporting a generation or two of retired employees with much higher benefits than they will ever receive. I said that I don’t think this is fair, and I still don’t think that this is fair.
[quote]If you’re spoiling for a fight with unions, then you can’t know that that is what you will get in the end. You might sometimes end up with binding arbitration instead.[/quote]How many times do I have to explain that we don’t have binding arbitration?
[i]Greg, that is utter nonsense. I have never argued for reducing benefits for current subscribers because it is legally impossible to reduce benefits for current subscribers.[/i]
Well okay, as I said, I was hedging a bit because although I did see all three ingredients, I was waiting to see them in combination. But the story still seems kind-of fishy, to make such a big deal of how unaffordable the benefits are, and then say, of course you’re not for decreasing benefits, you just don’t want to increase them.
What sounds fishy is that I haven’t heard what this so-called increase in the benefits is. I have heard about increased costs, but I haven’t heard that anybody recently approved an increase in the actual defined benefits.
[quote]What sounds fishy is that I haven’t heard what this so-called increase in the benefits is. I have heard about increased costs, but I haven’t heard that anybody recently approved an increase in the actual defined benefits.[/quote]Greg, you are engaging in an argument but you are not listening (i.e., reading). I have explained over and over again that I argued in the PAST against enhancing our early retirement benefits.
Shortly before I was elected to the council, in l998 or 1999, the city lowered the retirement age from 60 to 55. Then, shortly after I was elected in the year 2000, the non-public safety employee groups started asking to raise the formula for retirement at 55 from 2% for every year worked to 2.5% for every year worked. I opposed this as bad policy through two bargaining cycles.
The first time I prevailed, but the second time I lost. Again, I warned at the time that the change would be permanent, whether we could afford it or not.
[i]Again, I warned at the time that the change would be permanent, whether we could afford it or not.[/i]
Well yes, then it is a confusing message (even though in this case it is more you than Lamar). We have a change that is now permanent, but on the other hand you make fresh warnings that it’s not affordable. So what you really saying? If it’s permanent, it’s permanent. Is there a policy decision here, or is it just an “I told you so” argument?
Yes,Greg, it is definitely is an “I told your so” story, with the goal if trying to get the council majority to stop and listen to me and to others who are counseling against similar mistakes.
Correction: Yes,Greg, it is definitely is an “I told your so” story, with the goal of trying to get the council majority to stop and listen to me and to others who are counseling against similar mistakes.
Okay, I stand corrected on one major point. I know that Lamar has brought up this issue of CalPERS being unsustainable. But the idea is not to grab pensions of current subscribers, because that would be illegal. The idea is to have current subscribers bear these costs. It is in effect a salary cut.
The rest of it looks like a safer description of the truth. Lamar did propose to cut salaries AND keep services, and he did propose cutting taxes in retaliation.
[i]”Greg, are you afraid to answer my questions: “What do you mean by ‘grab pensions’?”[/i]
[b]”Not really. What I mean by a pension grab is exactly what it usually means in political discussions: Unilaterally reduce benefits for current subscribers.”[/b]
This is an absolutely amazing answer. You have been attacking other people relentlessly and (in my opinion) with a very mean-spirit and [i]this[/i] is the basis of your attack?
First, it’s entirely false. No one in Davis — not Sue, not Lamar, and no one else — has actually called for “reducing pension benefits for current subscribers.”
Second, it would be illegal! What you have so slobberingly charged over and over again that Lamar has called for — even when he never has — is something which cannot be done by state law.
What I have called for (many times) is for new hires to have the same pension formulas for safety and non-safety which Davis employees had up until 1999. That would be 2.0% at 60 for non-safety; and 2.5% at 55 for cops and fire.
You seriously owe Lamar and others an apology for your false and baseless accusations.
Well alright, I apologize for calling it a pension grab.
[i]”But the story still seems kind-of fishy, to make such a big deal of how unaffordable the benefits are, and then say, of course you’re not for decreasing benefits, you just don’t want to increase them.”[/i]
This is another distressingly dishonest answer. You are purposefully conflating two separate things in a way which only serves to confuse matters and sheds no light.
You specifically attacked Lamar for a “pension grab” and said this meant he wanted to reduced pension benefits for current subscribers. You were pulling this lie out of your tushy, because not only did Lamar never say this, but it cannot legally be done.
But without taking a breath, you jumble your argument by here noting that I have “(made) such a big deal of how unaffordable the benefits are.” Why is that so wrong of you to make that argument? Because now you are discussing a completely different set of benefits, ones which we have control over and can legally change and one for which I and many others have said needs change.
That is a terribly dishonest approach to discourse, Greg.
Once again, if you read Kuperberg’s argument from beginning to end, it is one based entirely on his biases. I should note that Greg started this discussion some time ago by calling Sue tendentious, but he really was describing himself.
He has based his argument on falsehoods and because of that his arguments lack integrity. He makes meritless attacks against others, over and over again, and when he finally opens his eyes, he says, “Oh, never mind. The rest of the sh!t I have been spewing out of my mouth still stands, though.”
This is the second time in a row Greg has done, this. He made a huge deal about the police officers and firefighters going on strike. He repeated that line, too. And then when he was told (by me) that they cannot legally strike, he repeated the line more times until he decided to change his line to other unions.
He also will never explicitly state what must be the basis of all of his diatribes on labor deals: that he believes that the labor markets are very tight and that if we downwardly adjust our long-term compensation packages, the inevitable result will be a great drain of talent away from Davis.
Greg also claims to know that the city employees will respond to a cutback in (non-pension) benefits by striking. But Greg has no idea what he is talking about. He can’t explain why he is so sure this will happen. His best argument is, “Well, they thought about a strike once in Palo Alto.” Ooooh.
[i]”Well alright, I apologize for calling it a pension grab.”[/i]
How about apologizing also for saying Lamar called for a pension grab when he never did? How about apologizing for your ad hominem attacks based on falsehoods that you dreamed up?
[i]You specifically attacked Lamar for a “pension grab” and said this meant he wanted to reduced pension benefits for current subscribers.[/i]
If you want to keep lobbing accusations about this, as I said I apologize for misinterpreting the proposal as a pension grab. The action proposal was to reduce the take-home salary of city employees in order to have both lower revenue and higher services.
So this part I am certainly not ready to throw out. Lamar wanted more rosy services in the face of less rosy revenue as compared to Paul Navazio. When this proposal was not adopted, Lamar felt that we should retaliate with a tax cut.
[i]This is the second time in a row Greg has done, this. He made a huge deal about the police officers and firefighters going on strike. He repeated that line, too. And then when he was told (by me) that they cannot legally strike, he repeated the line more times until he decided to change his line to other unions.[/i]
It is true, Rich, that I am an error-prone person even though I am also a huge fan of Google, Wikipedia, etc. But this was a mistake that I did not make as far as I know. I never said that firefighters and police in Davis could go on strike. I know that they did in Vallejo in 1968. That event contributed both to binding arbitration for Vallejo, and to eventual legislation that outlawed public safety strikes.
If police and firefighters can no longer strike in California, other unions can. And ultimatums in labor negotiations can cause many other kinds of trouble with any union, including police or firefighters. Certainly one outcome that I didn’t think about until recently is “work to rule”. That’s when the employees of a union do the bare minimum specified in a contract. If anyone really thinks that services in Davis have been cut to the bone, work to rule would be a very bad case of osteoporosis.
….. still didn’t get that knot out of his shorts.
[i]”The action proposal was to reduce the take-home salary of city employees in order to have both lower revenue and [s]higher[/s] services.”[/i]
It’s nice to see you are consistent. This is false, too. Lamar never called for [i]higher[/i] services. His hope as stated was to try to retain our current level of services and if we have to cut to minimize the number of cuts.
No doubt when you decide to lob out another lie, you will apologize for this one. I won’t hold my breath. You usually make this bogus claims 20 times before you apologize.
Let me clean that up:
[i]”The action proposal was to reduce the take-home salary of city employees in order to have both lower revenue and [u]higher[/u] services.” [/i]
It’s nice to see you are consistent. This is false, too. You have pulled yet another Kuperberg.
Lamar never called for [b]higher[/b] services. Never. His hope was to try to retain our current level of services and if we have to cut to minimize the number of cuts.
No doubt when you decide to lob out another lie, you will apologize for this one long after the fact. I won’t hold my breath. You usually make bogus claims many times before you finally apologize.
[i]This is false, too. Lamar never called for higher services.[/i]
Higher as compared to the city proposal. That is what I meant, and also exactly what I said in the next sentence of the same post.
Greg, since you are parroting an extremist union line*, let me ask you a question. I hope you will come down off your high horse and answer it:
If the City of Davis has X-amount of money for labor compensation costs, how is it more beneficial to City employees to fire 75 employees and concentrate all of that money on say 275 highly paid employees as opposed to retaining all 350 of our employees at a lower rate?
Obviously, for the ordinary citizens, the latter is better because all of the services provided by 350 will continue. Obviously, for the 275 who are not fired, they are better off with the former choice. But since (in this not far-fetched example) 3 in 14 “workers” will be disemployed** and lose 100% of their salaries, healthcare, etc., does it not seem strange to call that plan “pro-labor”?
*This from a guy who claims others are biased and he is neutral. Hah!
**Some of the disemployment will be achieved by attrition. However, in “class” terms, there is no difference, because that simply means outside people who would have taken those jobs will be jobless.
[i]Greg, since you are parroting an extremist union line*, let me ask you a question.[/i]
This is a strange request after accusing me of habitually lying. When I truly think that other people are liars, I don’t ask them questions. Maybe you should chill out a little.
[i]If the City of Davis has X-amount of money for labor compensation costs, how is it more beneficial to City employees to fire 75 employees and concentrate all of that money on say 275 highly paid employees as opposed to retaining all 350 of our employees at a lower rate?[/i]
75 is rather a wild number for the question, so let’s say that we’re laying off [i]n[/i] employees for some [i]n[/i]. Then it may or may not be more beneficial for employees, depending on what happens afterwards. If the employees who are laid off find other jobs, then obviously the workers as a group could be better off with layoffs. Unions have voted both ways on this.
Another answer is that I don’t really care what is best for the workers, I care what is best for the city. The advantage of layoffs as a tool in labor negotiations is that it makes it harder to for the union to accuse you of bad faith or go on strike. It makes other strike-like actions more difficult as well, since people have in mind police and firefighters. Look at how Yudof played his hand. Relations between UCOP and several of the unions could hardly be worse, but where were the strikes? UCOP knows how to avoid them.
[i]”This is false, too. Lamar never called for higher services.”[/i]
[b]”Higher as compared to the city proposal. That is what I meant, and also exactly what I said in the next sentence of the same post.”[/b]
More nonsense. Your attack on Lamar has been that he called for “higher services.” Now you backtrack. Now you say you are only comparing the level of services which Lamar believed we could afford — a level which is NOT HIGHER than we now have — with the amount that Bill Emlen said we could afford.
And you painted Lamar as an extremist for that? Because a city employee’s judgment as to how deep the cuts in services should be is deeper than an elected official’s judgment on that question?
Even someone as loose with the facts as you must concede that the more we restrain our long-term labor costs the more of our city services we will be able to retain. So all you are attacking Lamar for — minus the errors, falsehoods and bombast — is that Lamar thinks we should try harder to restrain the long-term cost of labor.
And you HATE this idea, because you have an ideology: Your ideology tells you that two things will surely come about if we follow Lamar’s path: 1) that there will be a strike and somehow this strike will destroy our city it is going to be such a terrible thing; and 2) we will end up with low-caliber employees who are nincompoops and incompetents because other cities with “pro-labor” policies will bid away our people.
Your ideology, alas, is misleading you even more than your falsehoods. Your strike notions are baseless. You’ve thrown them out there like a monster hiding in a dark closet; and you second foundation ignores the realities of the current government labor market; it ignores the realities of how much greater total comp for Davis workers is and will be compared with private sector employees; and it ignores this truth about human nature: that regardless of what we pay, some very ambitious upward climbers will leave for greener pastures, while at the same time, most people we hire who are perfectly competent will choose to stay because they like living here and like their jobs.
“This is a strange request after accusing me of habitually lying.”
Yes, it is strange. But you have been habitually lying and only later retracting and changing.
Rich: Now you say you are only comparing the level of services which Lamar believed we could afford — a level which is NOT HIGHER than we now have — with the amount that Bill Emlen said we could afford.
Lamar’s budget differed from what Navazio presented, in that Lamar had some ideas for revenue increases, changed some of the service reductions, and made somewhat more pessimistic assumptions. If I recall, the council actually adopted a budget that was somewhat between the two proposals. I don’t think Lamar’s proposals were radical or irrational. I was impressed that he had reviewed the budget in detail and had some concrete suggestions for changes. Similarly, Sue has made various suggestions about the overall budget picture over the years (mostly to little avail, it seems).
I don’t doubt that the other council members have reviewed the budget, but I’ve never seen evidence that they would differ from the staff proposals in significant ways. I just get a sense of greater diligence by Lamar and Sue. Perhaps that isn’t fair; I don’t watch or attend the council meetings, so maybe Steve and Don and Ruth have asked hard questions. It just isn’t my impression from what I’ve read and seen.
I did sign the petition urging Lamar to reconsider. But I hope he is fully weighing the impact of continued council service on his career and family. He would very likely be the top vote-getter, adding the mayoral duties in a couple of years. So I will certainly understand if he decides to stay with his original decision.
It’s kind of sad. This blog has degenerated into a bitch format for about 4 people who have TOO MUCH TIME on their hands. Hey, what’s up, don’t you people have a life? How about the fact that Lamar demonstrates respect for the democratic process, speaks the truth as he sees it, and acts with integrity, whether you agree with him or not. (And I often doe not.) I hope he decides to do whatever he believes will bring him and his loved ones happiness, but if he does decided to run again, we, as a city, will be well served.
Ms Greenwald appears to put “spin” on FACTS… fact: City had 2@60 plan until mid-80’s, when 2@55 was adopted. fact: since prior to 1978, final salary was based on final year, until this year when CC “got” a concession for average of highest 3 years… how she can say that she is not trying to reduce pensions, but just trying to stop increases, alludes me, given her proposal for 2%@60. Argue as much about what the city can afford… but please do so with facts…
hpierce: I have a question for you: Why is it unreasonable for non-safety employees to retire at age 60? Sue is not talking about current employees but rather future hires.
If someone starts his career, say in our Community Development Department at age 25 and works there until age 60, under the plan Sue advocates, he would get a pension which starts at 70% of an average of his “highest 3 years” plus other benefits. Our senior employees (not counting department heads) of that type make about $110,000 a year. So their pensions would start around $77,000 a year, after having contributed NOTHING toward their pension plans. Does that seem like a big rip-off to you?
Quit while you are ahead Lamar.
Rich: Under the old “2% at 60” formula, employees received almost 2.5% if they worked until age 64, so your employee who started at age 25 and worked until 65 would receive 100% of salary. Since an employee who retires at age 64 can probably expect to live 20 or 30 more years, you can see that the old formula is far from stingy.
Lamar , it’s going to rain tomorrow , the political Gods are giving you a sign , get married and have babies , be the best dad you can be !
Lamar,
If you’re reading here, just wanted to wish you the best with whatever you decide. Sitting on the Davis City Council, with its extensive, underfunded campaigns and near non-existent pay is certainly a self-sacrificing act worthy of commendation, and I’m certain your reasons are noble. That said, there are few things more noble than shifting your life to take care of your family and raise young children to be the best they can be.
All the best wishes to you, I’ve enjoyed the discussions we’ve shared on policy issues, and have great confidence in your future in politics or in private business.