City Manager Steve Pinkerton has his playbook and is beginning to follow it. If PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) is going to force the city to return money to DCEA (Davis City Employee’s Association) – money that every other bargaining group conceded in the last round, the city is going to make up for it through layoffs.
We actually asked him if that was retribution for DCEA not going along with the city’s original budget cuts back in 2009.
“We always have the ability to reduce the workforce,” he said, if concessions do not work.
“We received the savings because of the imposition [of the last best and final offer through impasse], but if PERB rules against us because we’re on appeal, they ruled against us and we’re now appealing,” he added. “We can’t go into the next budget year [without planning for the worst case scenario]. We have to anticipate going into the next budget year with the likelihood that we would lose that appeal so we have to budget accordingly.”
DCEA could conceivably avoid some of these layoffs by taking concessions.
“The folks at DCEA at the point of time when we have to [be] making the cost-savings, people can choose to [take concessions or face layoffs], either way we have to reach that cost-savings one way or another,” Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard. “I can assure you that they are fully aware of that and fully aware that this is one of our alternatives if they’re not willing to make concessions.”
This is a new ballgame in town. No longer do we have a city manager and council that is going to be deterred. The stakes are now too high.
Read the comments that DCEA President Dave Owen gave to the Davis Enterprise, and this is going to be a war.
He took issue with the way that the city handled the layoffs.
“I find it interesting that instead of approaching us at the table and saying ‘hey we’ve got some people we need to lay off, let’s talk about how we’re going to do this,’ they just sort of blindsided us,” Mr. Owen said. “So that’s kind of a problem.”
This is just the first battle. The real war is yet to come.
Across the state this week, municipalities and other local governments are starting to face the music that they created with ten years of unsustainable labor packages – rising compensation, unfunded pension liabilities, unfunded retiree health, and unfunded infrastructure needs, dating to the loss of state and federal funding for things like road and sidewalk maintenance.
Last year, we calculated that by 2014-15, the city would have to pay an additional $7.5 million for those expenses. That is in about a $35 million budget.
We had opportunities to cushion this and forestall it. Past city management and the past council prevented that.
In 2009, the City Council, by a 3-2 vote, passed a budget that fell well short of the one pushed by Councilmember Lamar Heystek on the labor front.
Then in 2009 and 2010, the council approved a number of MOUs that failed to move the ball forward on the kinds of structural changes needed to deal with the impending crisis.
Both of those efforts passed on 3-2 votes with Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor supplying the margin.
In 2011, a new council led by Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk passed a budget that would have cut $2.5 million in personnel costs. That budget, opposed by Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald, was approved but never implemented.
The bargaining units refused to consider concessions at that time, the transition from Bill Emlen to Paul Navazio to Steve Pinkerton brought in Mr. Pinkerton on September 6 and the cuts were never really implemented.
The bottom line here is that we have squandered three years since 2009 that we could have been using to cushion this blow that we have known is coming since at least that long. We have been warning about this since 2008 and 2009.
No one in charge has taken heed. There has been no leadership from within the city or within the bargaining units. Last year, 150 employees turned out in June to protest proposed cuts.
The message needs to be sent, we are in crisis.
Dave Owen argues we cannot keep up the level of service. He says, “Our group has been shrunk by 20 to 30 employees in the last few years and all of this has had a negative impact on services. There’s no way that you can say you’re going to lose that many people and services will all remain the same, it just can’t.”
We agree. City Manager Pinkerton is working hard to reorganize government. To some extent he can cushion the blow to services by streamlining the process, making us more efficient, eliminating the duplicative middle management.
But that still means layoffs and, inevitably, the loss of service.
However, Dave Owen also at the same time argues that his employees who mostly make under $60,000 cannot take the hits on salary, pensions, health care and cafeteria cash outs.
We understand. That is why we were hoping that $2.5 million could have been implemented last year. We believed that could have been done through cuts to management salaries and reduction in the number of firefighters on an engine.
However, city management at that time did not want to make the tough decisions and the employee groups were holding out until the bargaining sessions began.
It’s a real problem. The other real problem is that we don’t have many other options. $7.5 million is 20% of our general fund.
People want to talk about revenue enhancement, but even if the city were to build new retail, the time it would take to get them into to town would be well past the point at which we are going to get hammered on the rising costs.
Building new retail now would be literally a finger in a hole in a dike that is one foot in diameter. Target was projected to get us $600,000 in net revenue. That was probably too optimistic. But even if it were accurate, the next big box is not going to get us that kind of revenue and even a Target-sized revenue is less than one-tenth of the cost.
We agreed to bring in Target in the November election of 2006. It did not open its doors until October 2009, nearly three years later. Then it took until the following year to actually have the tax revenue, so nearly four years from approval to tax revenue.
That is not nearly fast enough.
As a longer term strategy, we do need to develop economically, but that is not going to save us today.
The workers across this city are going to have to take concessions or face far more than the nine layoffs that were handed down on Wednesday.
The campaign may be over, but this battle is just now heating up. The city faces a crisis that could cripple its ability to provide even the most basic of services. The fault lies both in the past leadership and the voters who were asleep at the wheel.
Now we will all pay for that oversight.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”People want to talk about revenue enhancement, but even if the city were to build new retail, the time it took to get them into to town, would be well past the point at which we are going to get hammered on the rising costs.
But even if we do that, it is literally a finger in a hole in a dike that is one foot in diameter. Target was projected to get us $600,000 in net revenue. That was probably too optimistic. But even if it was accurate, the next big box is not going to get us that kind of revenue and even a Target-sized revenue is less than one-tenth of the cost.
We agreed to bring in Target in the November election of 2006. It did not open its doors until October 2009, nearly three years later. Then it took until the following year to actually have the tax revenue, so nearly four years from approval to tax revenue.
That is not nearly fast enough.
As a longer term strategy, we do need to develop economically, but that is not going to save us today.”[/i]
David, all the above wording is totally extraneous to the rest of the article. I’m surprised your editor didn’t suggest to you that you remove it from the article. It doesn’t add anything to your message and actually detracts from the solid focus of the rest of the piece.
I strongly suggest you delete it now. The article will be better for the deletion . . . as will the discussion here in the Comments section.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The fault lies both in the past leadership and [b]the voters who were asleep at the wheel[/b].
Now we will all pay for that oversight.”[/i]
You lost me. I understand how leadership was asleep at the wheel, but don’t understand how the voters were as well. Care to elaborate?
Interesting that the City Manager acknowledges that city did not follow their own impasse rules, and his response is to fire the employees whom the PERB board determined were affected by this screw-up. Those truly accountable (the city attorney)appear to have come out of this $800,000 dollar blunder unscathed. The one person who had built up trust between the city and it’s employees, and had the people skills to navigate through our fiscal mess is now running the show in Woodland. Thanks a lot Council.
Ps. Where are the Management positions he refers to in the 9 layoffs?
“It doesn’t add anything to your message and actually detracts from the solid focus of the rest of the piece. “
Don’t hold out much hope for his editor. Once David picks a fight, it’ll pop up anywhere…for some time to come.
Matt and Just, i am mainly a proofreader, although I also do some fact checking and i question the content to some extent. I usually have time to do one quick run-through (which may not catch everything), but I am not always available even to get to the articles once, as i have a job, also – and the articles are posted before i do anything to them (in other words, you are viewing them at the same time i am).
Regarding the content that you discuss, i have to offer an opinion, which i usually do not do. I agree with David that economic development does not appear to offer a promising way out of this crisis, in the short term. That appears to me to be a relevant point to make in a discussion about the budget.
“You lost me. I understand how leadership was asleep at the wheel, but don’t understand how the voters were as well. Care to elaborate? “
We spent a decade getting into this mess, the voters did not see it coming at all until 2008, and even now I believe many don’t understand what is to come. Is this really a point in question?
Matt: Highbeam’s job is to copy edit not suggest massive changes to the article. That language is in here because it was raised in response to about every article I have had on budget cuts.
“Don’t hold out much hope for his editor. Once David picks a fight, it’ll pop up anywhere…for some time to come. “
You disagree with the point?
“Interesting that the City Manager acknowledges that city did not follow their own impasse rules, and his response is to fire the employees whom the PERB board determined were affected by this screw-up.”
Where are you expecting the city to make up $800,000?
[i]That is why we were [b]hoping[/b] that $2.5 million could have been implemented last year.[/i]
Hope is wasted on the new City Manager. Living up to his historical namesake organization, and by his actions so far, he fully intends to privatize every City position possible. He will hire firms who simply pay the lowest possible wages, provide no benefits, and issue 1099’s to their ‘subcontractors’, all the while pointing to the ‘bottom line’.
Highbeam, first, thank you for doing what you do. It is very much appreciated, and my comment wasn’t meant to be critical of you at all.
Now with respect to this piece of content, David is absolutely the only person in all of Davis who perceives that anyone has made an argument that economic development can impact this crisis [u]in the short run[/u]. It is his obsession, and his obsession alone. This crisis is immediate, which is the epitome of in the short run. Therefore when David says in his article [i]”People want to talk about revenue enhancement . . . [/i] in the context of everything else said in the article, those words are 1) an non-sequitur, and 2) the “people” to whom David is referring have a population of one . . . specifically David Greenwald.
Bottom-line, economic development has a time horizon that is “in the long run” and [u]the crisis is in the short run[/u], so why even bring up such an extraneous issue. It detracts from the focus of the artice.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”You disagree with the point?”[/i]
Whether s/he agrees or disagrees with the point doesn’t change the fact that the point is extraneous to the short-term issue/situation that the article is focused on.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”We spent a decade getting into this mess, the voters did not see it coming at all until 2008, and even now I believe many don’t understand what is to come. Is this really a point in question?”[/i]
The voters can only vote for the candidates who actually choose to run. Can you point to a single election in this century where the voters actually had a better choice on this issue than the one they chose by virtue of their actual votes.
“Regarding the content that you discuss, i have to offer an opinion, which i usually do not do. I agree with David that economic development does not appear to offer a promising way out of this crisis, in the short term. That appears to me to be a relevant point to make in a discussion about the budget.”
At the risk of sounding “wishy washy” I think that both Matt and David have valid points here.
The labor issue as headlining this article is certainly a major component of the economic challenges facing the city and should remain the main focus of this particular article. However, since the labor issues would not exist without the financial crisis, and since the more visible portion of the business community made the economy the centerpiece of their effort to promote their candidates and interests, I think a mention that economic development will not be adequate to address the current crisis is valid. I would prefer to have seen it as essentially a one liner in this article, but do not think it should be completely deleted.
The “chatter” regarding whether parts of the message is “off-point”, is taking the discussion further off-point. [yeah, now I’m an ‘enabler’]
In 2010 was there a better choice for the voters?
Joe Krovoza – 8,696 – 37.7%
Rochelle Swanson – 6,428 – 27.9%
Sydney Vergis – 5,401 – 23.4%
Jon Li – 1,379 – 6.0%
Daniel Watts – 1,165 – 5.1%
In 2008 was there a better choice for the voters?
Don Saylor – 7,893 – 21.3%
Stephen Souza – 7,512 – 20.3%
Sue Greenwald – 6,598 – 17.8%
Sydney Vergis – 5,698 – 15.4%
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald – 4,878 – 13.2%
Rob Roy – 4,504 – 12.1%
In 2006 was there a better choice for the voters?
Ruth Asmundson – 6,751 – 24.52%
Lamar Richard Heystek – 6,628 – 24.08%
Mike Levy – 6,351 – 23.07%
Stan Forbes – 6,283 – 22.82%
Rob Roy – 1,517 – 5.51%
In 2004 was there a better choice for the voters?
Sue Greenwald – 8,284 – 17.3%
Don Saylor – 7,503 – 15.7%
Stephen Souza – 6,997 – 14.6%
Stan Forbes – 6,384 – 13.3%
Mike Harrington – 6,348 – 13.3%
Donna Y. Lott – 6,305 – 13.2%
Lamar Heystek – 4,539 – 9.5%
JJ Charlesworth – 1,349 – 2.8%
In 2002 was there a better choice for the voters?
Ruth Uy Asmundson – 8,474 – 31.3%
Ted Puntillo – 8,381 – 31.0%
Pam Gunnell – 5,516 – 20.4%
Russell W. Snyder – 3,011 – 11.1%
J. Charlesworth – 865 – 3.2%
William Diemer – 745 – 2.7%
In 2000 was there a better choice for the voters?
Susie Boyd – 9,015 – 18.6%
Mike Harrington – 6,953 – 14.4%
Sue Greenwald – 6,527 – 13.5%
Tansey Thomas – 6,157 – 12.7%
Jerry Kaneko – 6,082 – 12.5%
Stan Forbes – 5,902 – 12.2%
Joe Boyd – 5,590 – 11.5%
Peter Carroll – 2,055 – 4.2%
“You disagree with the point?”
I’m just tired of looking for opportunities to bash the chamber at every turn, and that’s the way it comes across. I agree with Matt that your commentary suffers for the extraneous material, even if (as you suggest) it’s kind of a preemptive strike to deal with the doofus commenters who keep suggesting that long term measures also should be considered as the city leadership takes on its crisis.
Matt:
2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 all had better options in Tansey Thomas, Stan Forbes, Pam Gunnell, Russ Snyder, Stan Forbes, Michael Harrington, Stan Forbes, and Cecilia. Not sure what your point is here.
JustSaying: That was actually directed at arguments put forth by posters who are likely city employees.
DG. Where are you expecting the city to make up $800,000?
I expect the city not to make simple procedural errors that cost the citizens $800,000. I expect for the city’s legal council to pay a price for their incompetence. I expect for DCEA to get over the past and help the city get out of this fiscal abyss, and lastly, I expect the layoffs or reductions to be decided on need, not revenge.
I agree with points A and B, but I disagree that the layoffs here are due to revenge, they need to cut $800,000. DCEA could make some concessions to avoid the layoffs, to date they have not.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 all had better options in Tansey Thomas, Stan Forbes, Pam Gunnell, Russ Snyder, Stan Forbes, Michael Harrington, Stan Forbes, and Cecilia. Not sure what your point is here.”[/i]
Drill down into your list and look at why each of those candidates were not elected. It is very simple. In the 2000 and 2002 where Thomas, Forbes1, Gunnell and Snyder were candidates, housing and land use were the paramount issues in the elections. Budgetary concerns took a back seat, one might even say a rumble seat. 2004 had Forbes2 and Harrington’s reelection, and here too the focus (and the events) of the election were on issues other than the budget.
So you really have only Forbes3 and Cecelia that have even a remote chance of being examples where the voters were asleep at the wheel. That is my point. You are slinging mud at the voters without doing due dilligence about the facts.
“Highbeam, first, thank you for doing what you do. It is very much appreciated, and my comment wasn’t meant to be critical of you at all.”
I thought Matt was trying a humorous approach (since David, unlike most reporters, has no editor to help with issues like emphasis, attribution and documentation), presumably because he pays Highbeam such a high salary for her excellent proof reading work.
I’d certainly prefer Highbeam’s part of the process would occur before David’s work is published–since it incorporates the first of the undocumented changes in Vanguard stories and of its on-line history. But, her efforts are critical to the professionalism level of the Vanguard.
[quote]I expect for the city’s legal council to pay a price for their incompetence.[/quote]
On the long list of life’s unmet expectations, entries like this one occupy all the top spots.
I see the firing of nine lower pay level employees as punishing their union for the botch job of the City Attorney in not following the impass rules
No guts..
Let’s see some cuts from the really expensive positions, such as the four member FF crews
Meanwhile…..[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/stockton-bankruptcy_n_1576230.html[/url]
After reading the Davis Enterprise article I am appalled to see that parks positions were cut the day after Measure D cut. According to a post on the Vanguard yesterday it was the last 2 employees of the tree crew. How does this make any sense when the City appears to be quite “top heavy” with very large salaried administrators? I for one am greatly appreciative of the beautiful parks and particularly trees which take so many years to come to maturity.
Davis to stay “green” must have a tree crew particularly after windy days like today and yesterday not to mention the care needed to maintain a healthy urban forest that we are fortunate to have currently. Once the trees become diseased and/or overgrown the expense and the loss of the trees would take decades to replace. P, G and E learned this the hard way years ago when they tried cutting back significantly on their tree crew maintenance (and just reduced their crews, not eliminate them). The costs came back in spades to P, G and E due to the overgrowth and damage done by trees to lines and trees coming down.
Think of the protective canopies lost and the need for more energy that will be needed to cool homes. There is no question that the City needs these 2 tree crew positions reinstated and start cutting the “fat” from the top.
Sorry but I left out the last part of my first sentence. It should have read:
After reading the Davis Enterprise article I am appalled to see that parks positions were cut the day after Measure D passed with so much (84.1%) public support.
Matt
“housing and land use were the paramount issues in the elections. Budgetary concerns took a back seat, one might even say a rumble seat. 2004 had Forbes2 and Harrington’s reelection, and here too the focus (and the events) of the election were on issues other than the budget. “
I would like to offer another interpretation of your comment. It seems like this is a statement in support of the assertion that the “voters were asleep at the wheel” rather than a negation. As individuals, we have a responsibility to look ahead financially both when we are in good times and in bad and plan accordingly for our families. Likewise, just because there are other issues to consider does not mean that the public can just forget about public financial concerns. As citizens, we have the responsibility to act in a financially responsible manner both within our private and public lives. David, for one, has been talking about our financial difficulties as a city for years before I, and I am sure many others, started developing a significant awareness of the issues. I know that I was asleep with regard to city issues while dealing with more pressing issues in my personal life. I suspect many others find themselves in the same situation.
DS Stockton’s property tax, sales tax and other revenues have seen significant declines in recent years while expensive investments the city made in reinvigorating the downtown failed to produce the desired windfall.
Don, do you know who was in-charge of the failed 120 million + waterfront redevelopment project you are quoting?
COME AND JOIN US FOR A FUN! FUN! FUN! CELEBRATION to WELCOME the NEW DAVIS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!
MEET DAN WOLK, LUCAS FRERICHS, BRETT LEE, JOE KROVOZA AND ROCHELLE SWANSON THIS MONDAY!
5:30PM – 8:00PM, MONDAY, JUNE 11TH, JOHN NATSOULAS GALLERY
LIVE MUSIC!
APPETIZERS PROVIDED!
NO HOST BAR!
ORGANIZED BY THE DAVIS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
SPONSORED BY THE DAVIS BUSINESS COMMUNITY
-Michael Bisch, DDBA Co-Prez
PRO: It’s a long history, with developer T.W. Starkweather the primary actor. But you will find the familiar name Pinkerton in the story as well:
[url]http://www.comstocksmag.com/Archive/1107_F_Cityscape–On-the-Waterfront.aspx[/url]
Some history: [url]http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091223/A_NEWS0803/912230310/-1/a_news08[/url]
“I expect for the city’s legal council to pay a price for their incompetence.”
“On the long list of life’s unmet expectations, entries like this one occupy all the top spots.
This decision was unanimous on the part of our city council. Given the way the past council operated with Harriet, I can understand why Sue and Stephen might have wanted to keep her firm in place (to keep the “institutional memory” quiet). But, why the three newer council members supported such a failed, expensive way to deal with the many legal issues facing the city is just beyond comprehension.
[i]”DCEA could make some concessions to avoid the layoffs, to date they have not.”[/i]
Unions (almost) never operate this way: They would rather allow 10% of their members lose their jobs than have 100% of their members take a 10% cutback. Is the DCEA any different than the DTA?
In this case, the DCEA folks who won’t get laid off can make a principled argument: That the City of Davis erred with regard to its own ordinance by its unilateral stoppage of the fact-finding. And that there are other city employees whose mistakes or perhaps excessive pay makes them better candidates for this cutback.
For 90% or more of the DCEA, they lose nothing by those layoffs. And they don’t have to give up their principles. But, of course, 9 people will be devastated by those principles. And city services will suffer.
“Unions (almost) never operate this way”
That’s not exactly true, many unions and bargaining units (in this case) have done precisely that to avoid layoffs.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I would like to offer another interpretation of your comment. It seems like this is a statement in support of the assertion that the “voters were asleep at the wheel” rather than a negation. As individuals, we have a responsibility to look ahead financially both when we are in good times and in bad and plan accordingly for our families.”[/i]
Fair argument, but in the end each voter is voting for the person, not for the issue, and each person represents the weighted total of their positions on the issues. Further, if one issue is effectively dominating the stage and taking up over 50% of the interest of the voters, as Covell Village/Measure X did, and Measure J did before it, the end result in the polling booth is that even if the voters were 100% awake about another issue, that issue was not going to change their vote . . . and David was saying that the actual votes were a proxy for the wakefullness of the voters. That is a logical fallacy often referred to as reverse accident or destroying the exception, where one argues from a special case to a general rule.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Likewise, just because there are other issues to consider does not mean that the public can just forget about public financial concerns. As citizens, we have the responsibility to act in a financially responsible manner both within our private and public lives. David, for one, has been talking about our financial difficulties as a city for years before I, and I am sure many others, started developing a significant awareness of the issues. I know that I was asleep with regard to city issues while dealing with more pressing issues in my personal life. I suspect many others find themselves in the same situation.”[/i]
I completely agree with your statement, but take exception to David’s assertion that the results of the elections is evidence that the voters either forgot (your term) or were asleep (his term).
[quote]”Unions (almost) never operate this way”
“That’s not exactly true, many unions and bargaining units (in this case) have done precisely that to avoid layoffs.”[/quote]Any local history or inclination of this?
Matt
With the unusual exception of the single issue voter, I agree with your points.
Rich:
As a former union longshoreman and chief steward i thought i should point out it was always hard to see a fellow employee laid off or terminated, you worked with these people everyday. That being said one should point out
DCEA is not a union, and ask when was the last time the DCEA members got a raise? Other bargaining groups got colas. What do you know about how the DCEA membership feels about losing those 9 people? And why the 10% analogy? Is it 10% the city is asking for?
Bet not.
Shot across the bow? More like full broadside. David, you asked him if this was retaliation. We’re you hoping he was dumb enough to say yes? Or we’re you just giving him a public forum for his denial?
I’m coming late to the discussion, but frankly I don’t get the argument the city’s economic mess is the fault of the voters bc they somehow “don’t get it” and/or voted incorrectly; or the fault of those proponents in favor of promoting economic development. The city’s economic mess is the result over the years of overpaying city workers when economic times were good, buying into the argument that the city had to pay as much or more than other cities to get/retain the best talent; and the result of the national and state economic meltdown. Put blame where it properly belongs…
JBrown[i]”ask when was the last time the DCEA members got a raise?”[/i]
I don’t know how much the DCEA members’ salaries have grown over the last 10 years. If you tell me it is only 3% per year compounded, I would believe you, but I would be quite surprised. My guess is that for the same job title in say, 2002, and compare that with the 2012 salary, I would guess that the growth has been closer to 5% per year or more.
Here is what a nominal 3% indexed growth in salary looks like compared with a 5% compounded annual growth:
2002: 100
2012: 141 (3% per year)
2002: 100
2012: 163 (5% per year)
Salary is only one component of total compensation. Even if DCEA salaries have been flat since 2008-09, the cost of funding DCEA pensions has nearly doubled in the last 4 to 5 years. Moreover, the cost of your cafeteria benefits has increased at about 10% per year for more than 10 years, including the last 5 years. Further, the cost of your (earned, but not yet used and largely unfunded) retiree medical benefit has been rising in cost at the same rate that medical premiums have been going up. So, yes, maybe your salaries have not inflated greatly. But the problem is that your total comp has been skyrocketting at rates the City can not afford. (I am not blaming the DCEA for these cost increases. I am just pointing out that they account for why the City is going bankrupt.)
[i]”What do you know about how the DCEA membership feels about losing those 9 people?”[/i
I don’t know what the feel. If I implied I know their feelings, I am sorry for that and withdraw that comment. However, I do believe that if the DCEA members really want to save those jobs, the DCEA could choose to make a deal right now with Pinkerton, saying, “We will drop our PERB case and not ask for the $800,000 payback, if you save those 9 jobs.” But if the DCEA chooses to not take that course, then it seems to me that gives a good indication of the priorities of the DCEA.
[i]”… ask when was the last time the DCEA members got a raise? Other bargaining groups got colas. .”[/i]
I just found my copy of the June 19, 2006– June 30, 2009 contract with DCEA. I was not surprised to find that it included big increases in pay, including COLAs. However, there is later language in the contract which exchanges some of the cost of living increases for a higher valued pension. That is, DCEA moved during that period up to the 2.5% @ 55 pension, which costs a lot more money to fund. So some of the extra funding cost was taken back with the exchange for COLAs in that period.
Moreover, the raises were not limited to COLAs. Some DCEA positions received what are called “market adjustment raises.” Those increases were quite steep. Here is the most expensive example:
[u]WWTP Lead Operator indexed salary[/u]:
2004-05: 100
2005-06: 107
2006-07: 116
2007-08: 125
2008-09: 129
So in five years that job title got a 29% increase in nominal salary (though some was exchanged for the much richer pension benefits) and due to medical inflation and pension funding inflation, total comp likely increased by 50% to 70% over the period.
“market adjustment raises” are referenced to the last total comp salary survey which included agreed upon cities by the DCEA and the city, when concluded the city brought the DCEA up to a competitive market level.
[quote]”‘market adjustment raises’ are referenced to the last total comp salary survey which included agreed upon cities….”[/quote]An interesting concept. What cities and their pay scales were we chasing? During what years were we working to gain comparability?
Who were sitting in the room when these agreements were made? What would have happened if the city/taxpayer side didn’t agree to the pay and benefit increases?
Rifkin I don’t know what the feel. If I implied I know their feelings, I am sorry for that and withdraw that comment. However, I do believe that if the DCEA members really want to save those jobs, the DCEA could choose to make a deal right now with Pinkerton, saying, “We will drop our PERB case and not ask for the $800,000 payback, if you save those 9 jobs.” But if the DCEA chooses to not take that course, then it seems to me that gives a good indication of the priorities of the DCEA.
Rich, I think this is a GREAT idea, but with one caveat. The city attorney (who caused this mess) should split the cost with DCEA. My guess is that DCEA would be more than willing to accept that deal.
Every other bargaining unit in the city took the deal that was imposed on DCEA, why is DCEA entitled to half because they didn’t agree to the contract like the other units?
Dave Owen argues we cannot keep up the level of service. He says, “Our group has been shrunk by 20 to 30 employees in the last few years and all of this has had a negative impact on services. There’s no way that you can say you’re going to lose that many people and services will all remain the same, it just can’t.”
If the city had followed their own impass rules they would owe DCEA nothing. There should be a price to pay for incompetence. As the above quote states. The city has been systematically reducing the ranks of line workers in DCEA for sometime. The most recent layoffs removed the last two tree crew memebers. (there is no tree crew left) The layoffs are disporportional compared to any other bargining unit. If one is to be intellectually honest you can not make an arguement that this isn’t retrobution. Remember this latest salvo occured the day after the Park Tax election. Followed by a not so suttle e-mail threat to the other bargining units.
Sounds good in principle, but the city needs to get the money from somewhere and that means either layoffs or concessions.
“The city attorney (who caused this mess) should split the cost with DCEA.”
You do understand that they could not legally do this – right?
“
You do understand that they could not legally do this – right?”
Not as stated, however, would there be anything to stop Harriet Steiner’s law firm from admitting less than optimal advice and being willing to refund the city for harm done ? Ok, I realize that sounds way too much to ask, but is it legal ? Because, in my opinion, it would certainly be the ethical thing to do.
Talk about a “playbook”… the new CM has had a job announcement out for a new Dept. Head (to replace 2+ existing). The “filing date” was 3 months ago, but position is ‘open until filled’. I’ve looked, but could not find, any CC action to approve the position. Following is the link:
anbhttp://www.ralphandersen.com/jobs/detailed_job_pdfs/davis_gm_utilities_dev_and_operations_brochure.pdf
Compensation includes the employee paying 8% towards PERS, but also provides a severance package, nature of which is not disclosed.
Did you know about this, David?
medwoman
Not as stated, however, would there be anything to stop Harriet Steiner’s law firm from admitting less than optimal advice and being willing to refund the city for harm done ? Ok, I realize that sounds way too much to ask, but is it legal ? Because, in my opinion, it would certainly be the ethical thing to do.
I couldn’t have said it any better.
[quote]Because, in my opinion, it would certainly be the ethical thing to do.[/quote]
I think you’ll find that your definition of “ethical” and that of BB&K are two very different things.
“Did you know about this, David?”
I believe we had a story on this maybe in March or so.
[quote]Talk about a “playbook”… the new CM has had a job announcement out for a new Dept. Head (to replace 2+ existing).[/quote]
They will also be opening another position as well. Probably near the end of July. Asset Manager.
The G.M.U.D.O. position has been offered and accepted, they will start in July.(Will it be a crony, as the people of Manteca predicted?)
If you are keeping score at home, that’s +2 for the high priced managers, and -9 for the service providers.
Maybe the managers can be trained to prune trees.
“Not as stated, however, would there be anything to stop Harriet Steiner’s law firm from admitting less than optimal advice and being willing to refund the city for harm done ? Ok, I realize that sounds way too much to ask, but is it legal ? Because, in my opinion, it would certainly be the ethical thing to do.”
I’m not sure why we’d question the legality of such a donation to the city. Harriet’s law firm could even get a tax benefit. But, I’d bet my own money her firm didn’t even give us a discount when we got billed for this sloppy work, let alone a complete refund or credit for future legal services.
Most contractors get rehired based on the quality of their past work for an agency. Given the many expensive screwups Harriet and her colleagues have imposed on our municipality, it’s a wonder all five council members were enthusiastic enough to vote her outfit in for another contract. What a mystery.
(Of course, we did get a new unit charge for her attendance at meetings. Probably it won’t be much of a savings since the council seems to be getting a handle on meeting management and won’t be running past midnight very often.)
Don…. they’re pruning staff, so should not be hard to cross-train… looks like they are more familiar with a chainsaw than a scalpel.
[quote]I believe we had a story on this maybe in March or so. [/quote]Vanguard had a story re: recruiting for a position for which there was no CC approval? Must have missed that one…
Sorry February 10: article ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5077:new-city-position-shows-the-upside-and-downside-of-reorganization&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Btw, hpierce, yours was the first comment
You are correct. Yet, neither your previous article, nor your responses to date, address the fact that the job was advertised, interviews held, and (apparently) an offer made and accepted, without going through the motion of having the job description, compensation, etc. approved by the CC. Probably a minor oversight by the CM & HR Administrator.