Have you noticed, there’s been more than a few angry letters to the editor submitted to the Mercury News by San Jose residents over the past few weeks? It seems that folks are a bit ticked-off by the present condition of their city, and are placing the blame on the city council and the unions that run them. (Yes, that’s right…the unions run the council.)
“Until such time as our city council becomes populated by a majority of elected individuals who truly represent their broad constituency, we will continue to have the broad interests of the many trumped by the special interests of the few.” (Cochran 2/10/10).
From another San Jose resident….“Civil service unions…are far too strong and receive pay and allowances that exceed that of the average resident they claim to serve. The only strong unions remaining…are government employees, because those in charge of negotiating contracts receive campaign donations from those very same groups. At the least, this is bribery; at worst, extortion.” (Elliott 2/21/10).
And then there’s this gem…“The union-backed majority on the council has made it all but impossible to implement any meaningful outsourcing of city services, which could retain services. But at a lower cost to taxpayers. The employee unions are effectively holding city services hostage…the primary mission of the city should be to provide services to its residents at the lowest cost, not jobs to union-backed employees.” (Dresden 2/20/10).
One wonders how many people living in San Jose agree with these sentiments. The bigger question is what to do about it. The City of Chicago, withits reputation as a “machine town,” allows for 25 percent of its services to be done by the private sector. Why can’t San Jose allow for the same?
“The City of Chicago, with its reputation as a “machine town,” allows for 25 percent of its services to be done by the private sector.”
Thus why corruption is rampant in Chicago. Political favors to be paid back by awarding private contracts.
Maybe there is a good way to get private sector involved with the city, but certainly not the way Chicago has done. I am surprised Mr. Campbell would use the Chicago example, as even Pierre once did. Maybe that is because Pierre got a free political junket to visit Chicago.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/daley-wants-to-shift-hiring-oversight-to-inspector-general.html
To say the unions run things suggest they have the ability to run things. Cindy Chavez has the votes but doesn’t know what she’s doing anymore now than when she was the vice mayor to the mayor of vice, Ron Gonzales. The unions have in reality lost a lot of big battles in the last few years. It’s been a terrible time for them. It’s a movement adrift without intelligent leadership at the helm.
Read City Charter – Council sets policy – City Manager runs City government –
San Jose is a “Council-Manager” form of government.”
“All powers of the City and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the Council, subject to the provisions of this Charter and the Constitution of the State of California.”
“SECTION 411. The Council; Interference With Administrative Matters.
Neither the Council nor any of its members nor the Mayor shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his or her powers and duties, nor in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of any City officers or employees whom the City Manager is empowered to appoint except as expressly provided in Section 411.1. However, the Council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the City Manager anything pertaining to the appointment and removal of such officers and employees. “
“The City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City. He or she shall be responsible to the Council for the administration of City affairs placed in his or her charge by or under this Charter.
(a) Subject to the Civil Service provisions of this Charter and of any Civil Service Rules adopted pursuant thereto, and except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Charter, the City Manager shall appoint all officers and employees of the City; and, when he or she deems it necessary for the good of the service, the City Manager may, subject to the above-mentioned limitations, suspend without pay, demote, discharge, remove or discipline any City officer or employee who under this Charter is appointed by the City Manager;
(b) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere by this Charter, the City Manager shall direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices and agencies of the City;
(d) The City Manager shall be responsible for the faithful execution of all laws, provisions of this Charter, and acts of the Council which are subject to enforcement by the City Manager or by officers who are under the City Manager’s direction and supervision;
(e) The City Manager shall prepare and submit the annual budget to the Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 1204.
(f) The City Manager shall submit a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of the City as of the end of the preceding fiscal year to the Council at a public meeting to be held within three (3) calendar months following the close of each preceding fiscal year. The annual report, which shall be personally certified by the City Manager to be accurate and complete shall contain a statement indicating:
(1) Whether the revenues budgeted for the preceding fiscal year were actually received, and an explanation concerning any material differences between the total revenues budgeted and the revenues actually received;
(2) The extent to which expenditures budgeted actually were incurred, and an explanation for any material variance between budgeted expenditures and actual expenditures;
(3) The amount of the financial reserves of the city;
(4) All other information which, in the opinion of the City Manager, is necessary to provide an accurate and complete picture of the fiscal status and condition of the city. ”
Good point except that mostly went out the window under the Gonzales reign of terror. He had his “own” City Manager who did the Mayor’s bidding and not that of a professional city manager.
While the current city manager is light years better than Borgsdorf, the Council still does not really let the manager do her job.
The mini-mayor form of government we currently have makes it very difficult for a professional city manager to properly manage the city.
Your argument is that the city manager would vocally oppose a union majority on the council?
“Why can’t San Jose allow for the same?”
The blame can be laid at the feet of “the city council and the unions that run them.”
Private sector salaries go up and down with the economy. In San Jose public sector salaries do not. The council values labor peace above all. That is why people are angry.
I’m surprised that the Merc publishes such clearly anti-labor stuff.
Surprised…..? That’s all the Merc publishes… The entire flailing paper is an anti-labor ramble of half truths…..
Apparently you still don’t get it or understand how Council Circus Games work and who really runs city government
City Council hires City Manager who hires Department Heads after job interview ” Loyalty Test Question –
Who do you work for?
– Correct answer – only City Manager only
– Wrong answer – any answer with Council and residents ”
City government is run by City Manager who interprets, delays or ignores Council policy guidelines
City Manager and a few insider Department heads develops city budgets. tax revenues forecasts and costs, proposes new household / business taxes and fees, proposes project / consulting contracts, negotiates labor contracts, benefits and retirement plans, proposes department budgets and spending, proposes city policies and procedures to run city government
Council with little prior large government or financial experience, little time and even less to understanding practical or financial consequences especially city’s long term financial obligations reads staff recommendations
City Manager or Insider Department Heads make public presentation and City Manager approved recommendations to Council
Council with best intentions frequently has ” Deer in the Headlights looks ” and almost always approve City Manager recommendations with insignificant or no changes after verbal political posturing comments – Votes Yes
Terms Limits gave unlimited city government power to City Manager and Insider Department Heads who have hidden city’s financial condition from Council and public
Go ahead and blame the unions for all budget problems – that is what they planned and want you to do – bad , bad, bad unions
Stop and Look at who will not get laid off ( $150-280,000 + ) and got highest pay and pensions after City Managers and Insider Department Heads recommended to Council that city would have tax revenues ( not ) for increasing city employee pay, benefits and pensions
Watch Budget Staff cuts will only be lower paid and disloyal to City Manager city employees or managers
Got the answer yet, as they laugh all the way to bank and $150-225,000 city retirements with benefits as you work until you are old or die while paying high taxes
Hmmmm.
> (Yes, that’s right…the unions run the council.)
> City Council hires City Manager . . .
> City Manager hires Department Heads after job interview ” Loyalty Test Question –
> City Council with best intentions . . . almost always approve City Manager recommendations
Or, simplifying the algegra:
the union run city council always approves the recommendations of the union run city council’s stooge, the City Manager.
I’m sure that it is TOTALLY UNTHINKABLE in the monoculture of San Jose liberal politics, but the day will come when the bones of the tax payers and of future generations will have been picked clean by the union vultures.
And when that day comes, the voters will support some REAL change. Not phony Obama hopey changey change; REAL change.
Right now, the monoculture really only conceives of one possible solution: raise taxes and save the gravy train.
But, when Ronald Reagan rode into town, he CUT tax rates, FIRED the union Air Traffic Controllers, told Gorbachev to “tear down the wall”, and fostered twenty years of economic growth.
The unions and their city council stooges can sit on their lard asses and collect their $250,000 pensions, but the day of reckoning is coming.
California will file for bankruptcy, the courts will invalidate the union contracts, the voters will pass ballot initiatives, first for “paycheck protection”, and then a ban on union privileges in government employment (i.e. “firing the government employee unions”).
Taxes will be cut, private sector growth will return, and jobs will be created.
But, it all begins with “housecleaning”.
a state cannot file for bankruptcy.
> a state cannot file for bankruptcy.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know.
I admit that I am not aware of any precedent, but in the last few days I heard a relatively sane and knowledgeable “talking head” suggest that it was a possibility.
it won’t really matter… what really will matter is that they state won’t be able to BORROW money…
That’s a good thing, by the way.
“a state cannot file for bankruptcy”
California has lowest bond rating and highest cost of state and local gov’ts because of Legislature gross mismanagement and union lobbying for high taxes and highest gov’t workers pay, benefits and pensions
Gov’t Pensions are legal contracts which judges and Legislature who have conflict of interest are unwilling to overturn or change because they also get gov’t pensions and benefits which may get cut
The only solution is to have federal courts reduce gov’t pension and benefits cost because of state court conflicts of interest
Vallejo filed for bankruptcy has been in state court for years trying to overturn excessive labor pension and benefits contracts while increasing taxes to pay for retirees excessive pensions and benefits and less city services and staff
We will see increasing political anger against gov’t unions and retirees as baby boomers major investment – California housing continues to decline
Many will be required to work in 70-80’s since they have no company pensions and little retirement savings to pay higher taxes for less services and gold plated pensions and benefits to gov’t employee who caused many future city / county bankruptcies and California’s financial disaster
There is no safety in government when elected officials can find a means to contact each other through private means. Case in point-Santa Clara.
Jamie McLeod attempted for weeks to hide a private email concerning her role in directing opposition to the stadium. McLeod has some ties to the efforts of some Newsom supporters to direct SF money to defeat the stadium. Though McLeod attempts to call some people into question, though she has been at meetings passing out flyers attacking the Mayor with dubious facts. McLeod’s actions are based on tactics sent to her by authors of these emails. Questions need to be asked at the Ethics Committee.
Everybody is always ready to cut other people’s salary and benefits…
Everybody other than me is an overpaid lazy bum. I demand that other people take a pay cut so I can contribute less myself.
Correct.
You finally get it. Everybody other than me IS an overpaid lazy bum.
We’re making progress here.