...I did not actually eat breakfast with members of the Chamber of Commerce last week, but I met with them early in the morning—which is a challenge for me since I normally go to bed at 1am. The Chamber, as many of you know, is an interest group that advocates on behalf of small and large businesses. They invited me to attend their meeting for some Q-and-A.
The Chamber, like labor unions, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the League of Conservation Voters, typically endorses candidates running for political office. Endorsements carry clout with some voters, but more importantly, endorsements come with monetary donations, plus independent expenditures for political mail to voters, and volunteers to walk door-to-door on your behalf. In my Council election, the Chamber endorsed my opponent and as a result, they did four independent expenditures on his behalf in addition to donating money to his campaign.
Elected officials are asked on a routine basis to speak with special interest groups so they may better understand how you feel about issues, thought process, values, explain past votes,etc.. As this is my “City Hall Diary,” I wanted to let you know what we spoke about.
We chatted about San Jose Inside, which included many of my past blogs from the Rose Garden Park to the budget to pensions. They found much of what I have written and the comments posted to be refreshing and much more open-book then the norm.
Many of the members’ perspectives, in the real world, comes from their private sector work. Therefore, there is a deep understanding about the risk of capital, the adage that “time is money,” and that idea that there are no guarantees in life. Needless to say, their questions and perspectives were much like the constituents in my district who email me.
They want to know: How can someone get paid over $275K in accumulated sick leave when they retire? How come the general fund must cover the stock market loss for city pensions when private individuals have no one to ask for help for their own retirement? Why don’t new employees not yet hired get 401K’s?
I was asked about my opposition to converting industrial land to housing. As I have indicated before on this website, San Jose needs to keep land zoned industrial and preserve it for current or future job growth. My answer on this subject has remained the same whomever I speak to. We may very well convert an industrial parcel when my tenure in District 6 has passed or when the jobs catch up with housing growth. In the meantime, there is plenty of land zoned residential that will be built out after the recession.
I did ask the volunteer members of the Chamber that since they have questions about government fiscal policies, perhaps they attend city budget meetings if they can get out of work. I also expressed my goal to serve the residents of San Jose above interest groups, and stated my belief that decisions should be based on what is best for the San Jose as a whole for the long term.
If you are in business for yourself or work in private sector you may agree more often then not with the views advocated by the Chamber.
On another note: Last week the question came up as to whether the City can switch our retirement plans to the State Employees program called CalPERS. City pensions are in the City Charter XV, which would have to be maintained unless the Charter was changed by a citywide election. It is a complex move to transition from an independent plan to another system such as CalPERS, although other cities, such as Oakland, have done it.
There are two ways. One is to have new employees go into CalPERS, and current employees and retirees would stay in the existing plans. That is complicated because the liabilities would have to be paid with a declining number of members paying into the system—similar to Social Security. The other way is to move everyone over, which would still require voter approval (by you). Increased retirement benefits require voter approval in San Francisco, however, in San Jose no election is needed, since actions take place through the Council or binding arbitration.
Pierluigi,
Don’t you think it is a conflict of interest that the city gives a six figure donation each year to the Chamber of Commerce? The Chamber pays for political junket trips for each council member, including you and makes political endorsements for candidates. We are in the midst of a budget crisis. The city should cut their expenses including not giving money to the Chamber of Commerce which should only be getting money from the businesses they represent or private citizens. A couple weeks ago you ripped on city employees giving their own personal money to political candidates yet you support the city giving tax payer money to the Chamber of Commerce which directly endorses candidates. At least the money from city employees comes out of their own pockets and not directly from the city of San Jose. By the way, what do you actually do to try and bring business to San Jose and increase our tax base? What do you actually do to stop developers from having their way with the city and building thousands of new housing units and diluting the city services we have? Blogging and going on bike rides is great but doesn’t bring new business and tax dollars into San Jose.
If putting employees into the CalPERS system saves the city money in the long run without causing current employees significant decreases in benefits, then the city should pursue it even if it means taking it to the voters.
The conversation shouldn’t linger too long about whether this is a good or bad idea, rather the city should move on exploring the option to determine if it’s a good idea and if it turns out it is, make an election happen.
The city does way to much talking and meeting for the sake of talking and meeting. In these harsh economic times what’s required is quick and decisive action to save residents from continuing to have to carry the burden of budget cuts.
I hope, Pierluigi, that perhaps you will take the mantle on this issue and get it going.
Nice! “We’ve succeeded in screwing our own employees out of most of the benefits they used to have, government should do the same.”
Steve,
What do any of the Councilpeople do? Do any of them bring business to the city? Do any of them not take campaign contributions from developers? Do any of them actually put themselves in a public forum like Oliverio?
You seem to be always critical?
>> Nice! “We’ve succeeded in screwing our own employees out of most of the benefits they used to have, government should do the same.”
Let me rephrase that: “We’ve succeeded in screwing our own employees out of most of the benefits they used to have. Now YOU tell them about the tax increase needed to cover city employees.”
Linda,
I agree.
Mr. Oliverio has good sense.
Common Sense for San Jose over at blogspot.com, respects him and Pat Waite.
For the council and the mayor to even consider changing over to P.E.R.S. is akin to consider bankruptcy. Both are admissions that the city has overspent the budget and has no way out. To consider either option is evading hard choices that the city leaders should face and not avoid.
In addition, to use the city of Oakland as an example that San Jose may follow is strange. Oakland is a very poorly run city as most people should know. The citizens of San Jose must follow their family budgets and We must insist that our local leaders live within theirs also.
#1
The Office of Economic Development enters into an annual contract with the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the City. The contract between City and the Chamber for fiscal year 2008-2009 was $40K The funding for this contract is available through a citywide appropriation that includes funds for the Chamber, several small business chambers and Joint Venture/Silicon Valley. Funding provided under the current contract is for the follow Chamber activities:
Support for Cambrian Business Assoc Project in the amount of $10,000 for reimbursable expenses related to membership promotion up to $7,000 and administrative fee of $3,000.
Chamber Advocate placements for economic development information in the amount of $14,809
Participation in BusinessOwnerSpace(BOS) special events in the amount of $10,000 http://www.businessownerspace.com/
City sponsorship of City to City Exchanges at $2,800
City support for Access City Hall in the amount of $2,500
City Chamber membership fee of $495
Budget proposals for 2009-2010 will reduce this to $32K.
#2
As mentioned it is complex and the city would still have to contribute its share ongoing.
#6 & #7
Thank you
#8
We need to start by having new benefits for new employees not yet hired by the city.
Pierluigi,
It’s good to know that at least one member of the City Council actually understands the concerns of the non-categorized, unaffiliated, citizen of San Jose. Thanks for the extra effort you make and for your committment to serving “The People”.
My own humble opinion to factor in;
Don’t worry as much about expanding the tax base as reining in the spending. Our City will be a nicer place for it.
Nice post. Does anyone else do this kind of frank discussion of what aspects of public business were discussed with private (interest group) parties, such as after a business lunch with Cindy C. or a working meeting with Carl G.?
It seems to me that the collective bargaining units provides a natural way to break down public employee categories. Let’s start with the most expensive and do an RFP for retirement options and then compare what we could get from CalPERS or other options.
Then crunch the numbers and make the shift by employee bargaining units as contracts come up for renewal. Prior to implementing the shifts, seek whatever charter amendment is required, although a quick read of section XV suggests it is already amenable to doing something like this:
SECTION 1500. Duty to Provide Retirement System.
Except as hereinafter otherwise provided, the Council shall provide, by ordinance or ordinances, for the creation, establishment and maintenance of a retirement plan or plans for all officers and employees of the City. Such plan or plans need not be the same for all officers and employees. Subject to other provisions of this Article, the Council may at any time, or from time to time, amend or otherwise change any retirement plan or plans or adopt or establish a new or different plan or plans for all or any officers or employees.
**Note you should read the original material in its entirety and not base factual arguments on my partial quotations. This is just one of six sections of clauses in Article XV.
I think its feasible to put it before the voters to both amend the charter and to implement several enterprise solutions to the business of city government. You might even be able to secure additional revenue if its in dedicated revenue streams that won’t be diverted to pet projects once the public’s eye is diverted. San Jose has a 1.5 job to resident ratio. The are more jobs in San Jose than people, which means a lot of core services are used by people who don’t live here like are roads, water treatment systems, economic development stuff, etc. Maybe additional revenue could target those who benefit from the city but don’t contribute. I’d also suggest requiring city employees to live within the City Limits (so that public safety workers off-shift could respond in a real world crises like an earthquake instead of being stranded in Tracy or wherever.)
PO,
How much money did the San Jose Redevelopment Agency give to the San Jose Chamber of Commerce last year?