It was an odd night, going late into the evening, when the Davis City Council in the last meeting with Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald almost reluctantly passed a budget. It was a budget that puts the city on the road to sustainability, but the public’s comments focused largely on the elimination of tree trimming positions.
Councilmember Dan Wolk, in his final meeting before becoming Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, voted for the budget but admonished his colleagues while playing to the crowd that “we can do better than this.”
While Councilmember Souza, in just about his final act on the council, said he was not about to leave the dais without passing a proposed budget and then, in typical Stephen Souza fashion, explained and emphasized the difference between a proposed budget and an actual budget.
He then told his soon-to-be former colleagues, “Please don’t balance the budget on the backs of the employees for the needs that aren’t generated by the employees.”
At the end of the night, the city had a budget with a substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, passing unanimously.
Her motion was to support the staff recommendation approving the urgency ordinance on the budget, and she added, “Staff bringing back a full staff report regarding our urban forest, specifically options for an ordinance that would allow our citizens to be able to hire certified arborists.”
City Manager Steve Pinkerton presented this as a “truly long-term sustainable budget” in which there were “no one time sources used for ongoing operational costs.”
He discussed the issue of OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits; retiree health) and argued that of our current liabilities, almost two-thirds of it is for our existing retirees.
“We have some daunting obligations for the 200 plus employees who are already receiving benefits,” he said.
The good news is that the city under this budget reaches full funding right now, which is 20% of our payroll. The bad news is that is a huge chunk of payroll and is still not going to be enough.
“Unfortunately 20% of payroll is probably not going to cut it in the future,” he said. “We’ve been ramping this up, the council has been responsible and doing the right thing for the last three or four years by beginning to take on retiree medical, ramping it up each year from 6% to 8% to 10%, last year it was 12% of payroll, the original plan was to go 14%…”
“We’re recommending based on some input we got earlier this year to go all the way up to 20%,” he continued. “The reality is that you’re probably going to see a discussion soon where we’re going to have to ramp it up eventually to closer to 23-24 percent.”
Think about that, nearly one-quarter of payroll going to pay for the health insurance of those who are retired.
The city also needs to take an aggressive stance on PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System).
“Even though PERS is not implementing new rates based on their lower assumed rate of return (ARR) until the 13-14 fiscal year, we still believe that there will be a point where PERS re-evaluates what their payment should be and instead of having the payment shock a couple of years down the road, we’re recommending we start saving for the payment shock so we don’t end up having to do cuts in the future that could have been mitigated if we’d saved for that rainy day that we all know is coming,” he said.
There was a general agreement both from the city manager as well as people like Councilmember Dan Wolk, that in addition to the short-term fix with cuts, the city needs to be looking at additional revenue.
“We have to look at new revenue sources down the road,” City Manager Steve Pinkerton said.
Sue Greenwald initially argued that the substitute motion did not address the concerns of the citizens.
“Many citizens,” she said, “want a wider discussion of the issue than an ordinance to allow people to trim their own trees.”
Rochelle Swanson noted that there were multiple parts to the motion, including an evaluation of the urban forest management plan that she believed addressed Councilmember Greenwald’s concern.
Councilmember Wolk said it was worth having a discussion as to what the best level of service is. He argued for the staff to bring back to council an array of options in terms of the level of service.
Councilmember Wolk noted, “This budget cuts those tree trimmers starting July 1.”
He asked the city manager to explain “exactly how the service levels are going be affected,” by these cuts.
City Manager Pinkerton said that while some of this is difficult given the nature of the employee contract negotiations, he said, “I can tell you there will be no diminution in service during that time.”
The comment triggered snickering among city employees in the audience.
Rob from the city said, “Depending on when the discussion happens and continues, I think we can keep the service levels where they are now with the different options we have presented tonight.”
“I’m finding it difficult to understand from this budget how you can eliminate 29 FTEs and still maintain service levels,” Dan Wolk said.
City Manager Pinkerton responded by laying out the tremendous amount that needs to be accomplished to achieve sustainability, and argued that unmet needs were driving some of this concerns, along with the real problems facing the city on pensions and OPEB.
He said he has tried to address these problems while keeping service levels high. Eventually we will have to look into new revenue sources.
“We have gone through a downsizing that has been difficult but I think to the community, they probably haven’t noticed it that much,” Mr. Pinkerton said.
Dan Wolk acknowledged the revenue hits that the downturn of the economy has created through the loss of property tax and sales tax revenues, along with the difficulties faced by the city on the PERS and OPEB front.
“I commend you for making this serious proposal,” he said. “The fiscal imbalance that we face really threatens that foundation to the community that my kids are going to grow up in.”
He argued that some of these things are really important to look at as part of the budget.
“To me it makes it a better way of moving forward,” he said. “This budget, essentially it’s not very creative. It doesn’t feel very community driven. It takes maybe a more adversarial stance toward the employee groups than I think we necessarily need to take.”
“It took us years to get into this situation and it took us years to get out,” he said. “We don’t necessarily have to accomplish everything with this one budget.”
He argued that part of shared sacrifice was sacrifice by the community.
“This community could embrace as long as it were coupled with structural changes, I think this community could accept additional revenues measures. I think this community could accept an increased parks tax,” he continued.
He concluded, “I think we can do better as a budget.”
He added, “The budget reflects your community’s values and I think we can do better than this.”
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson said, “I commend that we’re at a place where we’re not talking about tier cuts anymore. That we’re at a place where we’re not talking about living off of one-time spending where that’s how we decided we’re going to repair our streets or bike paths.”
“We’re not looking for grant funding anymore, we’re looking for how we can do it with the buckets of money that we have,” she added.
“I agree we need to increase our revenue, right now we’ve been stuck with how we’re going to decrease our expenses,” Mayor Pro Tem Swanson said in her last comments as Mayor Pro Tem.
She said, “That’s what happens when the can gets kicked down the road. At some point somebody has to stand and say stop so we can actually grow and move forward and have a real conversation within real dollars.”
Councilmember Souza, as indicated, in his final comments said, “Please don’t balance the budget on the back of all of our employees for the needs that are not generated by those employees. By that, it’s our infrastructure, that’s our responsibility as citizens in my opinion.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza commented, “I do think this has been quite a year in the history of budgeting in the city of Davis.”
We had large challenges in last year’s budget, he said. “Arguably we were pointed and too aggressive in some of the things that we tried to do last year.”
“We did back off at the request of our city manager last September, being more draconian if you will, or aggressive if you will, but we gave very very clear direction that we wanted to get it to a real budget here at the end of June that was going to require some creativity, it was going to require some attrition which we’ve had and it might require some cuts,” the Mayor said.
He noted that they reshaped the basics of the budget.
“We’ve got a real budget, it’s not done on gimmicks,” he said. “We are very fortunate as a city to be where we are. We have made service preservation our top priority.”
He did acknowledge that they may not be there in every single aspect, but that is their overall goal.
In a response of sorts to Dan Wolk, he noted, “A long-term sustainable budget is the greatest gift that we can give to our employees – because it’s going to create permanent employment and good salaries where people don’t have to worry about their jobs because they know that the city is on solid footing.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The die is cast”.
[quote]”This community could embrace as long as it were coupled with structural changes, I think this community could accept additional revenues measures. I think this community could accept an increased parks tax,” he continued.
He concluded, “I think we can do better as a budget.”[/quote]
I think it is somewhat naive to think we can tax our way out of our problems. We have a school parcel tax coming up; and water rate increases. Davis citizens have lost jobs. I think it is highly unlikely additional revenue measures are going to be particularly well received. The Mayor and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson had this one exactly right:
[quote]”A long-term sustainable budget is the greatest gift that we can give to our employees – because it’s going to create permanent employment and good salaries where people don’t have to worry about their jobs because they know that the city is on solid footing.”[/quote]
[quote]She said, “That’s what happens when the can gets kicked down the road. At some point somebody has to stand and say stop so we can actually grow and move forward and have a real conversation within real dollars.”[/quote]
To lay off 9 workers, and possibly more, are not pleasant choices. But at some point a choice has to be made between the smoke and mirrors of the past, or to deal w reality in a forthright way, which is being done now. I prefer the latter, which is more likely to be “sustainable”…
Portland is going to a once every two week trash pickup to save money.
Stockton is filing for bankruptcy protection. Becomes the largest city in the US to do so. Interesting that several retired city of Stockton employees interviewed on the news complaining about the possible loss of their retiree health care benefits appeared to be in their early-mid 50s.
Most of the solutions are easy to see, but we lack the ability to accept them. So, cities do the wrong things until they too file for bankruptcy.
“He (Wolk) asked the city manager to explain ‘exactly how the service levels are going be affected’ by these cuts. City Manager Pinkerton said that while some of this is difficult given the nature of the employee contract negotiations, he said, ‘I can tell you there will be no diminution in service during that time’. The comment triggered snickering among city employees in the audience.
Rob from the city said, ‘Depending on when the discussion happens and continues, I think we can keep the service levels where they are now with the different options we have presented tonight’.
‘I’m finding it difficult to understand from this budget how you can eliminate 29 FTEs and still maintain service levels,’ Dan Wolk said.”
The obvious solution is to triple the number of layoffs (to 87) and “keep the service levels here they are now” with “no diminution in service.” To bad we didn’t hire the counter-intuitive Mr. Pinkerton years ago.
[i]”The comment triggered snickering among city employees in the audience.”[/i]
Target those snikering as being the first to be laid off. Then they can look for a job in the private sector where employee actually know better than to snicker when required to do more with less.
Thanks to the Vanguard for shing the light on the budget disaster left behind by Saylor and Souza
Now, if we can go to 3 member fire crews like the vast majority of California cities, and whittle down Saylor’s water project to something reasonable, we might make it through this fiscal nightmare.
The Harris Plan needs a clean shot at the November Ballot. Let’s help the kids while we fully vet a water project for a vote sometime next year
[i]”Portland is going to a once every two week trash pickup to save money.”[/i]
FWIW, the garbage company, Davis Waste Removal, is a private business. Its employees are not City of Davis employees.
That said, a couple of thoughts: Surely SocialMisfit is right to suggest that we could negotiate a better price from DWR if garbage were collected half as often. In my house, we have the full sized container (96 gallons, I think) and it would take us 3 weeks to fill it most of the time. However, I suspect there are a great number of households in Davis who really do need their trash hauled every week, especially if they are disgarding stuff which attracts insects or rodents. …. Anyone who has lived in Davis a long time knows that we used to have our garbage collected [i]twice every week[/i]. I think that stopped about 30 years ago. (If memory serves, the twice weekly pick-ups were only for the warmest months, when it was feared that festering garbage would spread disease.)
[i]”… the public’s comments focused largely on the elimination of tree trimming positions.”[/i]
I was sound asleep by the time they got to the budget question, but I know that there was an organized effort by people on the Tree Commission to save the jobs of the City’s two tree trimmers.
I don’t know if anyone else from the public spoke about any other aspects of the budget. But I would guess that, if the Tree Commission people did not show up, no one in the public would have spoken at all that late at night, no matter the importance of the budget to everyone in Davis. Unless you follow these things closely, specific budget proposals are too abstruse for public commentary.
Ooops: [i]”especially if they are [b]disgarding[/b] stuff …”[/i]
Make that “discarding.”
Ann odd night indeed. I think that a major part of Dan’s point is missed in this argument. Here we are passing what is by many measures a new and aggressive budget and there was almost no discussion about it. It is not a community based budget and while there are many aspects of it that finally highlight some of the festering challenges that have been facing the city, Dan is very correct in saying that it is not very inventive and could very well not address the concerns and needs of the citizens of this city moving forward.
The city manager did not only say that there would be no reduction in services there may even be an improvement in services. We are asking for the smoke and mirrors to be taken out of the budgeting process but we have only changed the mirrors and substituted different smoke. This budget shows millions of dollars in savings from negotiations with the employees while at the same time increasing our contributions to OPEB and PERS. This is a way to inflate employee expenses at a time when we are asking for them to take reductions due to their high costs. It can be argued that these are the “real” costs that are only now being reflected but it is actually just a way of altering the true picture of costs and the required offsets. Long term PERS and OPEB costs can be addressed in a different ways but it better fits with the city manager’s strategy to make costs look as high as possible so as to show the need for the deepest level of cuts to employee compensation. Saying that we can achieve the same or better service levels with a work force that is smaller than its been in nearly 20 years is another smoke screen. When there is a gradual reduction to services it is much harder to see but service levels are worse than they’ve been in the past. The finance and building desks are closed part of the day, police services are reduced, parks are maintained less frequently, etc.
Dan was trying to point out that there was no need to pass this budget on that particular night and that there are some serious flaws to the plan as laid out by our city manager. To me this looks like a cookie cutter, uninspired, agenda driven budget that does not meet the needs of the citizens or the employees.
Mike Harrington could you please tell us what you did from 2000 to 2004 to help bring about a sustainable budget. I am particularly interested in 2002. Thanks and have a great day!!
[i]”The city manager did not only say that there would be no reduction in services there may even be an improvement in services.”[/i]
The city manager has implied all along that he intends to outsource the jobs that are being cut from DCEA, including the tree trimmer positions. If the privately contracted workers make the same amount in salary and get the same medical benefit, but do not get retiree medical or pension or other load costs (like workers comp, life insurance, Medicare, etc), then it will cost roughly 40% less to outsource those jobs.
I think the Vanguard reported that the projected savings from the 9 DCEA positions is $900,000 per year. So if the City desires an equal level of services for those jobs, it would spend $540,000 on the private workers and save $360,000 per year.
But the City might want an improved level of service–say 125% of what it is now getting. So the City could budget $675,000, get all the work it got from City workers and 25% more, and still save $225,000.
From a rational perspective, all this makes good sense. But in my opinion it is completely unfair to the workers who will be laid off, who did nothing wrong.
The only way to save their jobs is for the DCEA to accept the Rifkin Compromise:
1. DCEA waives the $804,000 judgment it rightfully won in its PERB case;
2. The City does not lay off the 9 employees who are a part of PERB;
3. The City agrees to pay the attorney fees for DCEA which accrued after the City failed to follow its own impasse ordinance;
[b]4. DCEA accepts all contract terms imposed upon it in 2010 by the City;[/b]
5. The City guarantees that no jobs by DCEA members will be eliminated in the next contract period (which begins July 1);
[b]6. DCEA agrees to accept without lawsuits or strikes all the reforms in the next contract that other non-safety bargaining groups accept or have imposed upon them through impasse;[/b] and
[b]7. There should be no binding arbitration.[/b]
Keep in mind that the ball is in the DCEA’s court. The City will agree to the terms I have put forth*. It is the DCEA which has been acting unreasonably. DCEA has refused to accept terms 4, 6 and 7. And all of those are deal killers. In the end, virtually every job in DCEA can and will be eliminated if the members of DCEA refuse to play ball.
*The City does not want to pay the lawyer bills for DCEA, but I suspect they would if DCEA would agree to all 7 steps.
Oops: [i]”2. The City does not lay off the 9 employees who are a part of [u]PERB[/u];”[/i]
Correction: “2. The City does not lay off the 9 employees who are a part of [b]DCEA;[/b]”
I vote for the “Rifkin Compromise”. How do we get it on a ballot?
Unbelievably, I know a nurse working for the city of Stockton whose union was considering a strike last week. Apparently they got enough of what they wanted to call it off.
The actions of the DCEA and many other entities or organized labor are completely irrational given the fiscal facts in front of them. I am thinking we voters might need to step in and save members from causing themselves so much harm. Otherwise, maybe bankruptcy is the going to be the inevitable solution for many cities.
I like Pinkerton’s message. It appears that he sees some clear paths we can use to cut the workforce and maintain or improve service levels. That is a pretty exciting message for all of us except those working for the city expecting the threat of reduced service to be their main negotiating leverage. If Pinkerton actually believes what he says (and I think he does) and is not just establishing a strong position for negotiation, then we voters should get behind him, and the DCEA and other city unions should consider the increased risk that their days of service threat smoke and mirrors are gone due to the new sheriff in town… a new sheriff backed by a new council without money connections to the city labor unions and labor associations.
I think the game has changed for organized city labor, and the quicker they understand that and respond in kind, the fewer layoffs we might have.
[i]entities or organized labor[/i]
meant “entities of organized labor”
[i]”But the City might want an improved level of service–say 125% of what it is now getting. So the City could budget $675,000, get all the work it got from City workers and 25% more, and still save $225,000.”[/i]
Jeff Boone has repeatedly made a good point about how much time we pay City workers for the hours they do not work. City workers have anywhere from 2 to 5 times as much paid vacation plus holiday time off as their counterparts in private industry typically get.
For example, a 16-year veteran in the management group (who in most cases manages no one and supervises no one) is paid his full salary to stay home 10.5 weeks every year. That is a heckuva lot of paid time off. He gets 28 days off for paid vacations, another 14.5 days off for paid holidays and another 10 days for paid management leave time.
Thus, when it comes to outsourcing, one consideration of improved productivity is the fact that the City does not have to pay for the vacations and holidays of outsourced workers. When Coast and GP maintain our greenbelts–those two companies cover half of Davis and city workers cover the other half–the City saves money in 3 respects: it does not pay for the retiree medical costs of Coast or GP worker; it does not pay for pensions for Coast or GP employees; and it does not pay Coast or GP workers to stay home nearly 20% of the time, as it does with City employees.
Ultimately, the City is going to have to demand a change in its benefits package, when it comes to paid time off. I don’t know if that will happen this year. But it is a huge expense and we can not afford it for much longer.
The Rifkin compromise, in my opinion, DOA. If DCEA accepted every iota of it, the City would reject (or, would subsequently renege on) items 2 & 5. I suspect that DCEA would not trust the City, particularly some in the CMO, to fully honor provisions 2 & 5. But that is just my opinion.
Rifkin: The city cannot guarantee that no jobs will be lost during the contract, that’s not feasible, so that’s the deal breaker right there.
“The city manager did not only say that there would be no reduction in services there may even be an improvement in services. We are asking for the smoke and mirrors to be taken out of the budgeting process but we have only changed the mirrors and substituted different smoke. “
This point clearly needs to be fleshed out more and I have tried to ask that question of the city. However, as Rifkin shows, it’s not an impossibility.
[quote]Mike Harrington: The Harris Plan needs a clean shot at the November Ballot. Let’s help the kids while we fully vet a water project for a vote sometime next year[/quote]
So in other words put off a decision on the water project, that could end up costing the city $50 million, so there is no “competition” with the school parcel tax…
I think that’s not realistic. the city in essence cleared the spring for the school district to get their parcel tax, the city has its own needs and needs to operate on its own timeline.
[quote]Rich Rifkin: It is the DCEA which has been acting unreasonably. DCEA has refused to accept terms 4, 6 and 7. And all of those are deal killers. In the end, virtually every job in DCEA can and will be eliminated if the members of DCEA refuse to play ball. [/quote]
[quote]SocialMisfit: I think the game has changed for organized city labor, and the quicker they understand that and respond in kind, the fewer layoffs we might have.[/quote]
Spot on!
[quote]Mike Harrington: Thanks to the Vanguard for shing the light on the budget disaster left behind by Saylor and Souza. Now, if we can go to 3 member fire crews like the vast majority of California cities, and whittle down Saylor’s water project to something reasonable, we might make it through this fiscal nightmare. The Harris Plan needs a clean shot at the November Ballot. Let’s help the kids while we fully vet a water project for a vote sometime next year [/quote]
1) I don’t think the Vanguard said anything of the sort about this disaster being left behind by solely Saylor or Souza. I believe it has been building for decades, including during your term on the Council, Mike. Shame on you for trying to lay blame on just these two members of the community.
1) Now it’s “Saylor’s” water project – and I’m assuming your allegations of fraud go along with that. Again, shame on you.
3) I disagree with your support of delaying the vote on the water project, so that a new school bond will have a “clean shot.” I’d say put it all on the same ballot, so residents can see what they are agreeing to pay. This follows your calls for transparency and being forthright. The water project has been delayed to long and citizens just might make the schools wait….is that your concern? Or they could be just tired of it all and confused by all of the misinformation and vote both down…is that it? Your call for us to “help the kids” as a reason to delay making a decision on the water project makes me want to vomit.
Rifkin’s proposal (7 part) is Rifkin’s plan REVISED. David seems to validate my point that the City would either reject, or is likely to renege on items 2 & 5, while demanding all of the rest. DOA.
Ryan… there are those who truly never want the vote on surface water, UNLESS they are of the strong belief that a particular measure will be rejected.
Ryan: Good to have you back! Haven’t heard from you for awhile. And Souza is nOw posting. His problem is his voting record on fiscal issues is a disaster . I’m out of town Today but might get around to commenting later on challenges.
With both of you guys here, all I can say is it’s a target rich environment, quoting Bob Dunning.
Steve asked me for examples of trying to save?
Hint: how about being the third vote to take Covell Village out of the 2001 General Plan? I think that was fiscally responsible, right?
Hint: how about my 2000 campaign walking and knocking Measure J literature to 90% of Davis households? Measure J saved us from bankrupt projects that have blighted other nearby communities
Hint: how about my continuous opposition to the fourth fire station ?
Or, how about my attempt to cut senior city staff salaries 10% about ten years ago?
Or, my continuous opposition to staffing those fire crews with the 4th member, which was obvious overkill ten years ago?
Or, my losing motion to keep the tree inspection and safety trim cycle at five years, when staff lengthened it to eight years and used the savings to fatten salaries and benefits?
Cheers !
Ryan: Yes, it’s Saylor’s water project. He needs the union and developer support for his career. But everyone knows that He cratered our fiscal situation with Souza’s help, then skipped town for his supervisors seat and left the wreckage behind Souza was left holding the bag
I am sorry we are losing Sue’s vote and her usually-spot on analysis
[quote]Mike: Yes, it’s Saylor’s water project. He needs the union and developer support for his career. But everyone knows that He cratered our fiscal situation with Souza’s help, then skipped town for his supervisors seat and left the wreckage behind Souza was left holding the bag [/quote]
Maybe in your tiny world, “everyone” believes this, but this kind of thinking solves absolutely nothing. You need to stop your campaign of assigning blame and calling for punishment for those you hate.
[b]The Davis Van Gogh:[/b] [i]”The city cannot guarantee that no jobs will be lost during the contract. That’s not feasible. So that’s the deal breaker right there.”[/i]
The City most certainly can make that guarantee, as long as the new contract keeps total compensation costs in-line with revenues.
Say, for example, all the compensation costs for all DCEA workers in the 2011-12 fiscal year is $5 million without any layoffs. Then say that the City’s revenues from 2010-11 to 2011-12 grew at 1.0101%. That would mean that for budgeting purposes, a total comp cost allowance for all DCEA jobs for 2012-13 should be $5,050,505 (i.e., 100.010101% x $5 million).
We know, however, that some component costs of total comp will inflate at a much higher rate. For example, the cost of health insurance is going up by 9.6% in January; and we know that the rates charged by PERS for the employer share of pension funding will cause the costs to fund DCEA pensions to go up year over year at around 20%*.
Yet all and more of the increased cost of health care will be covered by eliminating the cafeteria cash-out above $500/month. And some of the increased cost for pension funding will be covered by increasing the amount employees pay for their own pension funding.
So let’s just say that before salaries the total comp net increase in costs for DCEA members to the City is $150,505**. If salaries stayed the same, the total comp bill would be $5,150,505, which is $100,000 in excess of revenues.
The solution, therefore, is to impose a small salary cut spread over all members of DCEA. By doing that, you would not have to lose any jobs for any members of DCEA. You could guarantee all of their positions, unless someone were fired for cause or someone retired or quit.
This notion of salary adjustments based on revenues and changes in costs to medical and pension is built into the current fire contract. It needs to be the precedent for all contracts. In the example I gave, it allowed for a small cut in salaries, if revenues were basically flat. If revenues were to fall, then the cut in salaries would be larger. If revenues surprisingly grew, salaries would stay the same or increase.
—————–
*Note: I used 20% increase for example purposes only.
**Note 2: My expectation is that the savings from getting rid of the cafeteria cash-out (over $500/month) and increasing the amount the employees pay for their pensions will be greater than the increased cost in premium plans plus the increased cost of pension payments by the City.
[quote]The City most [b]certainly can[/b] make that guarantee,[/quote]yes, but the City will NOT. You can “take that to the bank”.
Ryan: call me at 7598440
Come over and chat? What’s the problem? I’ve been inviting you for a year.
My comments on fiscal issues are based on votes and facts. I didn’t sit up there and vote for those fraudulent rates on Sept 6 I didn’t vote like Souza and Saylor did in 2005 to steal the millions from the sales tax increase that was for the parks and give it all to the fire fighters in raises; Saylor and Souza needed the union for their political careers But I’m not saying anything that is not common knowledge
[i]”How do you “try” if no one agrees on how to go about “trying”?[/i]
Actually, if you remove the extremists and political agendas, there is pretty broad consensus about the topic of immigration within the American voter population.
Most Americans what to focus on stopping the flow of illegal immigrant before dealing with the people here.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration3.jpg[/img]
And, most want to see the level of immigration decreased or remain the same.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration7.jpg[/img]
Which is a good thing, because much of the rest of the world wants to migrate here:
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration6.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration8.jpg[/img]
But it is interesting that most Hispanic voters care less about immigration than other things.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/immigration4.jpg[/img]
And, most voters in general see immigration as being way down the list of current concerns. They put the economy first.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/worries0.jpg[/img]
And jobs and deficits are high on the list for economic worries.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/worries1.jpg[/img]
So then, why did Obama push the temporary dream act, and why is the media making immigration a headline story again?
The reason: Obama cannot run on the economy – the #1 priority for voters. He can only foment class and race issues in the hope to keep tarnishing the GOP brand.
An interesting thing here is that voters do not seem to support the Obama/Democrat policy and actions on immigration. They also don’t seem to care too much about this issue his campaign and the left media is trying to drive to the front of the Presidential debate.
Apparently the Government Performance and Accountability Act has qualified for the 2012 ballot.
[url]http://www.cafwd-action.org/pages/proposed-ballot-measure[/url]
There are many aspects of this that I like for the state. However, I’m not sure how it can be packaged to appeal to the short attention span of the average CA voter.
One thing we fail to talk about with respect to Davis budget problems… the mess at the state level is likely to put even more pressure to hit local revenue resources.
SocialMisfit: Your 5:36 PM post is on the wrong thread. I’ve saved a copy of it and removed it here. Please repost it over on the immigration thread.
Social: I agree it’s going to get worse at the local level
Don Shor, Thanks, I reposted complete with a couple of missed typo edits and another final thought.
Michael Harrington: So, we agree that state policies and politics matter quite a bit for us at the local level.
[i]”There are many aspects of this that I like for the state. However, I’m not sure how it can be packaged to appeal to the short attention span of the average CA voter.”[/i]
I don’t have an opinion yet about the California Forward Action Fund’s initiative. At first glance, it seems okay to me, but it does not get at any of the four major problems* we need to fix in our state.
I also looked over who the contributors to California Forward Action Fund are. On the whole, they seem like a reasonable lot, almost all of whom are not giving in order to benefit themselves. The only disturbing contribtor is the MEMBERS VOICE OF THE STATE BUILDING TRADES. The State Building Trades Union is one of the worst actors in California politics, a major reason why our state is in such dire straits. They include the pipefitters and plumbers and IBEW, etc.
——————–
* What are our state’s three most important problems which need to be fixed to solve the budget mess?
[b](1) Get rid of Prop 98.[/b] It is the source of the roller coaster problem. It causes the state to increase spending too fast in good times, and that excess spending results in a huge budget gap that cannot easily be bridged in lean times. The answer is this: Place a hard cap on year over year increases in state spending. The cap should be the average increase in revenues over the previous 5 years. Any excess revenues in a given year should be placed in a reserve fund portfolio (all low-risk bonds). When the economy tanks and revenues in Year 6 are less than the average of Years 1-5, money from the reserve fund portfolio should be used to make up the difference. Doing that would smooth out the spending curve and get us off the boom and bust spending roller coaster.
[b](2) Reform the labor contracts for state workers.[/b] Direct labor costs for state employees make up 47% the state budget. ([url]http://civfi.com/2011/02/09/how-much-of-californias-state-budget-is-personnel-expense/[/url]) If you add in state funding which pays for K-12 salaries, labor costs are 67% of the state’s budget. The reforms needed at the state level are all the same as those needed in Davis and in Yolo County. We need to cap the growth in total comp. We need a cheaper pension plan. We need to stop encouraging early retirements. We need to expect state workers to work as many hours per year as their counterparts in the private sector work. We need to reduce the number of administrative jobs which pay secretaries and clerks with fancy titles huge incomes. Etc.
[b](3) Get rid of prevailing wage.[/b] Everything the state buys and every project funding by local government costs far more than a competitive rate because the unions drive up the costs. Let the market function. Allow companies which build buildings, pave roads, maintain parks, and provide services to the state or local governments compete on price for labor and for all material goods.
[b](4) Get rid of the prison monopoly.[/b] Wherever possible, we need to allow private or out of state public prisons to house our inmates, if they can do so adequately at a lower price. The CCPOA is bleeding us dry.
The Rifkin solution is interesting. I feel that the deal breaker for DCEA would be #6. Going off what Chris Kassis said, the employees feel that they cannot afford the cuts the city wants them to take. $12,000 in cash out, and 8% of employee pick up. For someone who takes home $60,000 that would mean close to a 30% reduction in take home. I couldn’t afford that.
[i]”* What are our state’s [b]three[/b] most important problems which need to be fixed to solve the budget mess?”[/i]
Four!
[i]”The only disturbing contributor is the MEMBERS VOICE OF THE STATE BUILDING TRADES.”[/i]
That is interesting. I think this group initially formed with the intent of including a diverse group of stakeholders. Certainly union participation helps give it some credibility with labor stakeholders. I just worry about how much has to be given away to keep them satisfied participants.
I don’t disagree with these four problems; however other than the prop-98 idea which I agree with, it seems almost impossible to deal with these things head-on given the opposition’s ability to enflame the voters over the direct impact to real people.
Now, I don’t see that as being much different than what a large company might face. For example, when HP needed to cut expenses management didn’t announce that it was going to directly cut pay and breakup internal departments. What HP and other companies in similar situations have done is to re-evaluate all their product and service priorities and then let the worker chips fall.
Surveys routinely validate that voters want streamlined government. I think the better approach for making needed cuts is for government managers to develop a new plan for service priorities, and then develop an aggressive resource plan that becomes the roadmap for more efficient service delivery. Then negotiate like heck with the unions and associations after leaking enough of the plans to get tax-paying voters excited about it (e.g., with these saving we can balance our budgets and continue to fund programs for education, and the needy).
I assume that a plan had been developed before the city let go the nine Davis tree trimmers. However, it has not been delivered yet to my knowledge. The problem, I think, is that city management allowed organized labor to grab the narrative of bad-management, and persecuted-victim employee. Certainly the employees are victims, but they should be passive victims of careful and well planned transition strategies for lowering the cost of service delivery.
For the city, I would have come out with a plan for tree trimming at the same time I announced the layoffs. Just like for the state I would focus on re-engineering government services (including management services) as the driver for cuts. Otherwise labor gets to pull the persecuted-victim card. Cuts, regardless if job cuts or pay/benefit cuts, should be subordinate to the project to create a more efficient service delivery public-sector business.
In the end it should just be about business. Voters say they want that. What they don’t want is to see the powerful pick on the little guy. Organized labor has the benefit of being comprised of thousands of little guys that can be characterized as being just like most voters. I think that is changing… voters are starting to see many public-sector employees as being significantly more privileged; but the changes in perception are happening too slowly, in my opinion.
Social Misfit :[quote]I assume that a plan had been developed before the city let go the nine Davis tree trimmers. However, it has not been delivered yet to my knowledge. [b]The problem, I think, is that city management allowed organized labor to grab the narrative of bad-management, and persecuted-victim employee.[/b] Certainly the employees are victims, but they should be passive victims of careful and well planned transition strategies for lowering the cost of service delivery.
[/quote]
Except in this case organized labor didn’t cry fowl, they just said they couldn’t afford what the city was offering. It has been the city that has repeatedly said that this wouldn’t be happening if the employees had just accepted the contract, slyly planting the seed that “this is their fault, not ours.”
I believe that if the two sides wanted to work together to find a compromise that could ensure fiscal stability for both sides, they could. But it is obvious that one side has a “my way or the highway” approach and their finding the money to pave the road.
[quote]Except in this case organized labor didn’t cry fowl,[/quote]Somewhat Freudian, intentional or not. At times, watching from the bleachers, have felt that one or both sides have been “playing chicken”.
Why did DCEA cross the road…..?
It was stapled to the chicken.
Sorry, was kinda hungry when I wrote that I guess.
[i]” it seems almost impossible to deal with these things head-on given the opposition’s ability to enflame the voters over the direct impact to real people.”[/i]
Given how past initiatives have been approved or rejected by California voters, you are almost certainly right. After all, it was the voters who approved Prop 98 and more recently approved the high speed rail scam and who rejected a proposition put forward by Schwarzenegger to smooth out state spending.
Nonetheless, here is how I would try to market each of my four proposals:
[b](1) Place a hard cap on year over year increases in state spending.[/b] Show an animated graph of how spending has gone up too fast in good times, and how that has caused severe budget cuts in bad times; and how that cycle repeats itself. After a brief narration, superimpose the graph over the old wooden roller coaster at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk, running in hyperspeed, going up and up and then down and down, and show the passengers looking nauseous after the ride. “The roller coaster is making California sick. Let’s get off the roller coaster. Let’s smooth out the budget ride. Vote yes on Proposition 1.”
[b](2) Reform the labor contracts for state workers.[/b] I don’t know how to really do this with an initiative which could pass. I would hope that we would elect legislators or a governor who would impose contracts which include the needed reforms. But since so many of our legislators are funded by state employees to one degree or another, it’s unlikely.
Maybe a Prop 2 initiative which could pass would be a conflict of interest law which said: “Any member of the Assembly or Senate who accepts a campaign donation from state employees, or a union which represents state employees, or a third party which is partly or entirely funded by contributions from state employees has a conflict of interest with regard to any legislation which affects state employees and therefore that member of the Legislature is not allowed to vote on such legislation in any committees of the Legislature or in any floor votes of the Legislature.”* I would market this Prop 2 by showing state workers handing checks for $1,000 over to legislators and showing the legislators in exchange handing back $1 million “raises” to the workers.
*If the legislators could not reach a quorum due to those who are conflicted out, the power would pass to all those who were not conflicted, and a quorum would be reached if a majority of those not conflicted made the decision.
[b](3) Get rid of prevailing wage.[/b] The sales pitch for Prop 3 is the cost of schools. Studies have shown building a school in a prevailing wage state is about 50% more than in non-prevailing wage states. Show a split screen: on the left a crowded small California schoolroom; on the right a large classroom with better supplies and fewer students. “Want less crowded classrooms for your kids? Allow competition when we build new schools.” The same campaign could show crowded freeways and fast-moving freeways. “Allow competition when we build new roads, bridges and freeways.”
[b](4) Get rid of the prison monopoly.[/b] I think voters might just buy the facts. Show that it costs $48,000 per year to house a prisoner in California. Show that it costs half as much in other states. Ask the question, “Couldn’t you find something better to spend that extra $24,000 on?”
[quote]Maybe a Prop 2 initiative which could pass would be a conflict of interest law which said: “Any member of the Assembly or Senate who accepts a campaign donation from state employees[/quote]Based on the next sentence (not quoted), if an individual, who happened to be an employee of the state, who sent a $100 contribution to a state legislator, would that fact trigger your conflict of interest issue? If so, you are at least draconian. What if the reason a state employee gave the contribution was because they supported the candidate’s position on keeping state parks open?
[quote]Studies have shown building a school in a prevailing wage state is about 50% more than in non-prevailing wage states.[/quote]There may be much truth in that… but the ‘co-conspirators’ are the “specialized” architects who tend to have special relationships with school districts, and ‘platinum plate’ their designs, often ignoring basic research [look at issues related to the re-building of King High] and passing all the costs of those errors and omissions to the District and its taxpayers.
hpierce and preston, LOL! I hear you and agree.
I don’t have an insider’s experience in the organized labor public-side game of chicken, or cat and mouse, or fox and hen, or pigs and trough. I guess the way I see it, position cuts or compensation cuts are secondary to the need for a comprehensive strategy for making our city government more efficient. Similar to 3-person firefighter engine teams… show me the plan first and then communicate the resulting resource need. This approach helps earn public buy-in and trust, and makes it harder for labor to gin up competing emotional arguments. It shows the public that the cuts are not just punitive, and motivates the labor groups to come to the table to compete with their own plan and not pin their hopes on a public opinion case of bad management to win back the status quo.
In private industry they might call this an enterprise architecture plan. It communicates “here is what the new organization, or re-engineered service-delivery business, will look like, and here is how we are going to get there. And oh, by the way, there will be cuts required.”
[i]”The roller coaster is making California sick. Let’s get off the roller coaster. Let’s smooth out the budget ride. Vote yes on Proposition 1.”[/i]
LOL!. Rifkin, I thought you were an economist and not a marketing guru. Nice imagery!
Remember when Ross Perot used to pull out those graph boards? They were pretty effective until we learned he was half nuts. Maybe it is time for PowerPoint leadership!
[i]”if an individual, who happened to be an employee of the state, who sent a $100 contribution to a state legislator, would that fact trigger your conflict of interest issue?”[/i]
Yes, but maybe it should not. My idea is well less than half-baked. After I posted it, this thought occurred to me: a state legislator is a state employee. So if one contributed $100 to his own campaign, he would be conflicted out!? That doesn’t make much sense. This idea would need a lot of refining. And frankly, if we smoothed out the spending, it probably is not necessary for any budget reasons. The only great advantage of controlling the growth of total comp for state workers is to maintain public services, as opposed to cutting them, when component costs of compensation are rapidly going up.
[i]”If so, you are at least draconian.”[/i]
Thank you.
[i]”LOL!. Rifkin, I thought you were an economist and not a marketing guru. Nice imagery!”[/i]
My academic background is in microeconomics. But, fwiw, I was for a short time employed as a screenwriter and I even sold three spec scripts for feature films, none of which were ever produced.
[i]”Remember when Ross Perot used to pull out those graph boards? They were pretty effective until we learned he was half nuts.”[/i]
Perot is alive. He turned 82 years old yesterday. But he completely disappeared from public view. His ego is such that he would not hide from the media without reason. I wonder if he has some debilitating disease of old age? It strikes me as odd that, even if his ideas are nutty, he does not comment more publicly on the issues of the day. I haven’t even heard him express his views on how we can get out of the economic rut the US economy is in.
SocialMisfit
[quote]In the end it should just be about business. Voters say they want that. What they don’t want is to see the powerful pick on the little guy. Organized labor has the benefit of being comprised of thousands of little guys that can be characterized as being just like most voters. I think that is changing… voters are starting to see many public-sector employees as being significantly more privileged; but the changes in perception are happening too slowly, in my opinion.[/quote]
Which voters would you be talking about that want it to “just be about business”? I do not believe that the majority
of voters truly see the world as “all about business”?
What voters do not seem to be seeing is that the “significantly more privileged” are not primarily the folks working for the city or county or state, who may be making somewhat more than they are for similar jobs in the private sector, but those at the top of the scale in the private sector who continue to make their millions and billions in profits at the cost of keeping the labor cost down by not paying their workers as much as the public sector makes.
This conversation has started to change as people begin to realize that income disparity is not driven by those who make slightly more, but by those with the economic and political power to truly call the shots in our country.