The Budget Valentine will be visiting with the Council today at 1:30pm. The Council is having a public study session that will be streamed on the Internet and broadcast on Channel 26. This meeting will include discussion of what cuts will be required based on the budget shortfall.
The budget is assuming that each union agrees to 10 percent total compensation cut. Last year, 25 percent of the workforce took 10 percent total compensation cuts for one year. The current ask of 10 percent is not in addition to the cut from last year, but rather maintains the 10 percent cuts another year for those who took it. The budget is also asking the remaining 75 percent of employees who did not take a 10 percent cut last year to please do their part and take the same cut the others have.
I have thought that a pay freeze for five years or more would be a way to cap spending, but increased pension payments and slow incremental property tax receipts do not allow for this option.
Service-delivery model changes will be discussed as a way to maintain services for residents since layoffs will be sizable. It will challenge the values of providing services to residents versus the current delivery model.
Even if the assumption that the entire workforce takes a 10 percent total compensation cut, the City will still have a huge deficit and therefore sizable reductions in service, thus layoffs. An alternative to the 10 percent total compensation pay cut would be additional layoffs. There is no easy way out and the impacts will be stark. We will also discuss options on the increasing taxpayer contributions to the pension funds and legal options on pension reform.
The last portion of the meeting is something I have asked for several times. This is where the Council must prioritize/rank ordinances. Ordinances originate from Councilmembers, City Departments and State/Federal regulation. Implementing ordinances in many instances will involve the city attorney, planning department, office of economic development, public works, department of transportation and so on. Each ordinance takes time and effort to implement thus what we call “workload.” I believe ordinances should be prioritized to what could bring in revenue to the City and then what may stimulate economic activity. Quality of life ordinances may have to be put on hold. Some of the choices are:
• Landscape Ordinance to reduce water consumption
• Habitat Conservation Plan
• Sign Code
• Electronic Signs
• Bail Bonds Zoning
• Distinctive Neighborhoods for preserving neighborhood character
• Green Building for home additions and alterations
• Lighting on Private Property
• Off-Sale Alcohol Process
• Fence Heights
• Tree Removal Process
• City Landmark Criteria
• Regulate Check Cashing
• Medical Cannabis
• Zoning for Housing around Transit
• Outdoor Events in public places
• Towed Car Regulation
• Condominium/Apartment Conversion
• Social Host-Liability for adults that allow minors to drink alcohol
• City-County Collaboration
• Smoking Outdoors
• Excessive Police Force
• Expansion of Parking Meters
• Taxicab Vehicle Regulation
Which ordinances are most important to you?
Finally, you may have heard that San Jose is eligible for a $15 million (over two years) Federal Grant from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to rehire firefighters who were laid off last year when an agreement could not be reached on concessions. The grant sounds good; however, there is a significant string attached to your federal tax dollars.
If the grant is accepted then there would be zero layoffs in the fire department for the next two years. As I mentioned above, the deficit, even with 10 percent concession, is huge and accepting this grant would force the City to lay off, in an out-of-proportion scale, police officers, librarians, attorneys, planning staff, public works staff, community center staff, transportation staff,etc…
In addition the taxpayer contributions to the pensions will grow again next year which may cause even more layoffs outside of the fire department the secnd year of the grant. A concession from the Fire Union to not impact police for example would be much higher than 10 percent and would be in the 15 percent to 20 percent range. A concession of this size is highly unlikely, but never say never.
A FEMA grant with these stringent terms should be rejected Monday unless terms can be changed by the Feds. The Federal COPS grant Council accepted did not have these restrictions.
I highly recommend that you watch the budget study session today at 1:30pm and share your thoughts afterwards.
Watch the San Jose City Council study session on the 2011 budget here.
View the San Jose City Council Budget Study Session Agenda here.
P.O.,
Best of luck to you and the council today. Just do your best to keep our city safe. Being proud to live in San Jose because it is a safe place is a virtue most large metropolitan areas envy. At the end of the day people want to be safe, live in a safe place, and spend money to stimulate the local economy in a safe place. I know my children will remain in San Jose for years to come as long as we could move freely among our community without intimidation.
Mickey Tyrone (North San Jose resident)
Of course, it would be you requesting a “hold” on the sign code! I would argue that is already had a hold placed on it, when it was not enforced against you in the first place.
Shameful behavior rewarded. tsk. tsk.
Start cutting the budget by implementing a part-time city council who only gets paid a stipend and no benefits like all the surrounding cities already do.
Also, how about cutting the tattoo removal program and the “Our City Forest” program? When I flew over San Jose last week there is already a green canopy over the city of millions of trees.
PLO:
I’m am so so tired of you and the Mayor blaming the budget woes on the employees. I am so so tired of reading how your main focus is on making money. As I dig deeper I get more and more upset.
I know I know, I need to chill out and take a deep breath. Relax. Well you know what people, ya need to start getting just a little upset about the way things are being run.
As mentioned last week, Reed and Oliverio’s “Yes on V and W” campaign was heavily funded by construction company after construction company. Lets us not forget $5000 from Sunpower who just received $500,000 from the city. Nice rate of return.
Furthermore the city has given $6,000,000 to a company called Urban Markets LLC in the recent past. As all were voting yes on V and W in November, the city was shelling out another $705,000 to Urban Markets LLC. The million-dollar question is who is behind Urban Markets LLC. McEnery who else. Who did Urban Markets LLC hire with the $6 million…..Barry Swenson.
I would like to here what new councilmember Rocha has to say. I think it is time for him to speak up. As a former RDA employee, he knows whats up.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING: “San Jose Election Commission Supplement to Joe Doe Complaint filed December 8, 2008 McEnery/Urban Markets “ (unsure of the source)
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/sanpedro_complaint_120908.pdf
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/sanpedro_complaint_supplement_012009.pdf
http://www.barryswensonbuilder.com/san-pedro-urban-market/
I hope the Budget Valentine is kinder to you than Match.com was.
P.O.
In case you are wondering, a vast majority of officers, sergeants, etc., are strongly opposed to more concessions. The CSJ does not bargain in good faith. Every union in SJ can attest to this. Reed the Terrible, et al proved that last year. Our last concessions were rewarded with a rush of V&W to ballots. Personally, I’d prefer arbitration was here and done so that each of you council members could prove your commitment to public safety today. The POA will not be duped this time nor will we blink. Bring on layoffs. Homicides are already on a record pace,…but hey,…Su Vianda has 500K of our taxpayer dollars. What say you P.O.?
Especially after your comment today during the budget meeting regarding going back retroactively to void previous contracts with the bargaining units…… You are some kinda nuts aren’t you??? So, I guess it would be ok if the Saturn dealer came back to you saying you owe them more money on that p.o.s. you drive.
You have gone against every principle in the book regarding collective bargaining…. You might as well move to the deep south and go back 40 years….. All your doing is making sure that the bargaining groups have zero insentive to bargain with the city in good faith since it’s obvious that you don’t intend to hold up your end of the “mutual agreement”.
Way to go bartender……
Thank you for watching the meeting.
As you heard Russel Crosby our Director of Retirement services and the State of California Legislative Analysts Office say that a portion of the pension problem were decisions that rewarded retroactive benefits. So my question to the City Attorney is can those retroactive benefits that caused a unfunded liability be removed. City Attorney answered that a court case from Orange County is progressing on this topic.
PLO, sorry for being off topic but since your repsonding can you tell me what happened to your last post on the success of RDA? You were asked specfic questions and suddenly the bolg was removed. Hummm
Your welcome….
Again, You have gone against every principle in the book regarding collective bargaining….
AND
All your doing is making sure that the bargaining groups have zero insentive to bargain with the city in good faith since it’s obvious that you don’t intend to hold up your end of the “mutual agreement”.
Lastly, The case from Orange County is not progressing, Did you notice how Orange County LOST…. now we are waiting to see if the county is going to appeal that LOSS…. ?? There is a reason they lost, It’s illegal and goes against every principle in the book regarding collective bargaining. Another example of wasted taxpayer dollar going after what is clearly illegal.
Glad to see that we at least agree that your pushing the city unions and their employees even further away from trusting you and most importantly, that your Subaru is indeed a P.O.S. ….. Have a nice day.
Yes. In particular, I loved the suggestion that you simply lay off everyone and then re-hire them at reduced pay and benefits. Now there’s some awesome outside the box thinking. Have any of you yet considered paring down the city’s obligations to provide core services exclusively? Apparently not.
“Have any of you yet considered paring down the city’s obligations to provide core services exclusively?”
Define “core services” please. I’m sure there are lots of things that some people think are “core services” that many others would think are frills.
I think that everyone would agree that public safety (police & fire), infrastructure construction, maintenance and repair (streets, sewers, sewage treatment plant). How about planning & building depts, zoning, etc? Are libraries CORE services? Is the Office of Cultural Affairs a core service? How about the housing dept., grafitti removal,…
It cannot be denied that personnel costs take up the majority of the budget, nor that union worker pension costs may soon outpace ongoing salaries if we don’t do something quickly.
Why not face reality and give up? File bankruptcy, void all existing labor agreements, and start over with more rational pay and benefits packages.
If SJ were the only major city facing these issues, then one could argue persuasively that if we did BK, all our sterling employees would flee to other cities. But they are all in deep doo-doo. If the top ten cities by population all went BK, where would those disgruntled employees go? Nebraska?
The $$ isn’t there to do what we have already committed to contractually. In an era of 10%+ unemployment, raising taxes isn’t an option. There’s a lot of pain out there right now, but the union guys don’t want to bear their share.
And seniority as the sole criterion for layoss has to go, too. It needs to be based almost exclusively on performance. Look what the firefighters did rather than share the pain—threw 49 newbies under the bus. So much for “brotherhood” in the union.
performance based, hum…. I don’t want to lose my job so I better go arrest more people and write more tickets so that my performance will be higher than others and I won’t get layed off. Do you see the irony? San Jose PD is accused of being too proactive, it tows too many unlicensed driver’s cars, it arrest too many drunks, it inforces too many laws. The community complains! Now, some in the community want to base layoffs on “performance.” Many in this blog have documented problems associated with performance based layoffs so I won’t repeat but I will point out that California law already has identified problems associated with performance based evalutations in regards to traffic citations “AKA Quotas”. The law prevents law enforcement agencies from using the number of citations written by an officer against the officer in evaluations. The just of the law is that Califonia does not want Officers to write marginal citations for fear of poor evaluations or reprisals from the agency. Do you really want to push Officers to make as many arrest or write as many citations as possible however marginal or inapproproate in a race to be the last one standing in the lawoff line. Just think of the injustice! Some areas of San Jose have more crime and have more activity than others. The Officers that work the more active areas will have more activity to show at the end of shift vs. the Officers that work slower beats. Most Officers don’t get to work beats by choice but rather by what is left when it’s their turn to sign up for a beat. With your logic you will have a Officer who might work Almaden Valley trying to keep up with an Officer that works a gang area. The residants in Almaden might suffer unreasonalble policing because of Pier’s short- sighted not thought out idea. Mr. Oliverio should be standing up protecting citizen rights not setting up a system that rewards abuse.
Why is it that everything that comes out of you sounds so asinine? Maybe Police and Fire would have some difficulty getting into other cities, but engineers, planners, inspectors, etc., would not have many problems doing other things. They could band together and start their own consulting firms and make a HECK of a LOT more money than what they are making, now. If city went bankrupt or laid everybody off and TRIED to rehire them with less pay and benefits, some would accept that, but many of their top people would simply leave. They are experienced and talented. They are just hanging in there because of the amount of time they have vested. If that was taken away, there would be no incentive to stay. They are not going to start over, at least not with the city. They will go off to form their own companies or move into the private sectors. Some are just waiting to put in another few years. They would just leave. I certainly would not go back. I would just collect my HOW MANY YEARS of unemployment and then find something else to do.
Considering the magnitude of the concessions and layoffs targeted squarely at public safety, exactly who do you think is in City Hall’s crosshairs. For years it’s been said that the public safety ‘unions’ were the most influential and powerful in San Jose, and city hall has, collectively, done its level best to castrate and hobble us. And yet, they’d like everyone to forget that, with the reduction in manpower of the PD alone, from 1410 to 1260 sworn, the city is already saving over $27 million annually. And yet, they ask for more and continue to threaten layoffs.
“Why not face reality and give up? File bankruptcy, void all existing labor agreements, and start over with more rational pay and benefits packages.”
Even some casual research on this will show that several cities and counties have attempted unsuccessfully to do exactly that across the nation. I say they were unsuccessful because courts have ordered each of those governments to honor their contractual obligations despite economic hard times. The courts do not view cities and counties with their vast assets as able to simply call King’s X and walk away from their promises.
This is especially true since San Jose would then be audited to the most finite details and the excessive malfeasance of the city administration would come to light not to mention the hidden assets that the city has that they simply do not want to re-allocate. The city can actually afford to pay their bills, they just do not want to. The city bosses have other plans for city money and adhering to contracts with their workers is crimping their style. This would be revealed in all its glory detail should the city actually be allowed to file bankruptcy. This isn’t going to happen.
I say bring on layoffs also! I wont take another hit in pay. With the officer shortage, means more overtime for the remaining officers to cash in on! CHA CHING!!! The mayor said the graey train stops? Looks like the gravy is getting poured on thicker with all the overtime thats coming! Thanks Mayor!! And hello Benjamins!!
Bring on the layoffs.
Interesting scenario floating around City Hall. All current employees will be terminated. City services will be divided up amongst neighborhood Block Captains who will recruit people on their street. Each person will be assigned a certain number of hours to perform city services that are no longer being provided by the city.
Periodically, each Councilmember will meet with the Block Captains to tell them they are doing a good job and how much their efforts are appreciated.
Wanting to do their part, the City Council will shift to a part-time Council with reduced salary and staff.
The savings from having no employees will be banked for the next 5 years at which time a committee will be formed to review how the plan has worked.
With no salaries and no new retirements, the savings are expected to greatly reduce the City’s ongoing deficit.
It is anticipated that the biggest hurdle with this plan is who the Council will blame for their budget woes if they have no employees. Looks like they will need another committee to take a look at this.
Employees have had it. Reduce the sick leave pay out? Employees will just start to use their sick time and get paid 100% for their time that they earned, plus there will need to be necessary coverage for the day or two the employee is gone. Reduce the pay? Employees will reduce their effort to match the pay. I heard it through the grapevine. You take, they will take.
PO
It is very difficult and unrealistic for our City administration to ask residents or Council to chose between prioritized items or “workload” if we are not given reasonable available information:
– Total $ Cost per year
– Fee $ revenue generated / Fee as % of cost
– $ General or Operating budget contribution ( Cost – Revenue )
– Compare cost and fee revenue to other cities to see if high , average or low especially if new or high business cost would make San Jose less competitive for business or jobs
No one should be asked to make any prioritization or budget decisions with little information that city typically provides
Wrong decisions have frequently occurred at City Hall that would not have occurred if more easily available information was provided
True Council has had the opportunity to review these ordinances more so than the public, as with most of the items Council votes on each week. Completion of the sign ordinance and quarterly updates of the zoning ordinance to accommodate new business opportunities received the most votes.
How about cutting a lot of those HUGE salaries at the top? I saw that and almost choked. It is so plain to see that the problem is at the top of the ladder, not the middle or the bottom. Of course if you have huge salaries at the top, the pensions and payouts are going to cost you more.You need to start cutting at the top, first. There is no reason to have managers managing managers who manage managers. It’s ridiculous. Trim the fat, to include cutting the Council members by half, cutting out their $600+/mo car allowance. It is so pitiful to see all the perks the upper administration and council members get and the little employee has to pay the price.
Labor has argued for open negotiations for years and the Office of Employee Relations keeps closing them down, where that direction comes from I don’t know. I suspect the reason is, however, is that the city does not negotiate in good faith. To be sure, both the unions and the city have made mistakes in the past, but open negotiations would go a long way in helping out.
Jeff,
I appreciate your approach and wish you success. There are a couple of points that I think need to be clarified. As for open negotiations, the last arbitration process it was requested to be open, the City said yes and Local 230 said no so it remained closed. Your conclusion that “I suspect the reason is, however, is that the city does not negotiate in good faith.” is off base and is why there no trust on either side. These subjective assumptions need to stop. I have personally sat on both sides and know the City does its best to bargain in good faith.
Your other quote “To be sure, both the unions and the city have made mistakes in the past,” I find refreshing and is where I hope the union and City will find common ground to move forward. The City Council a few weeks ago I believe passed or at least discussed a change where the formal offers from labor will be presented in public so the Unions can see what is presented to City Council, which used to happen in closed session. From what I read there will be a comment time also allowed so any perceived misrepresentation can be addressed, but City Council cannot ask specific questions of the Unions. This is the start of an open negotiations process. The definition of open negotiations needs to be clarified, however if you are looking for direct dealing with the City Council in public I don’t think that serves either side well. You just need to reference the public record of the 2007 arbitration briefs where it is stated by the union they dealt directly with the then Mayor, a clear violation of the MOA which is one place where the negotiators are defined.
I wish you the best in your position and know that with honest dialogue, not subjective snippets, both labor and management can find equitable solutions.
Still sending out the wrong message I see….. How about this for a fact…
Von Raesfeld,Darryl Fire Chief U $430,108 …….
All that money to drive the fire department into the dirt, good for you Darryl.
To Ernest Beginner,
Glad you can read the chart and that is the correct amount, all within the guidelines of the system and with almost 33 full years of service, 3 over the required 30 and 6 to 8 over the number of years most Firefighters are retiring at now.
Maybe soon you will wake up and realize the budget deficit is real and while you can continue to blame the Administration, Council and make personal attacks, there are difficult decisions still ahead. I believe far more difficult than last year. If this was only happening in San Jose I could buy into your rhetoric, but this is a countywide, statewide and nationwide issue. I applaud Mayor Reed for tackling the structural budget deficit when his administration began and he continues to do so even with all the misleading information and mean spirited attacks people such as you spew. The backroom political deals that the union was comfortable doing in the past are not tolerated now and I think that will be a good thing for the future of the City and the Fire Department.
While you claim my message is wrong, I find it interesting you don’t dispute any of the facts I present in my posts and as I have posed to you before, if you have real solutions using the real budget numbers I am sure your input will be valued. I believe I guided the Department through one of the most difficult and challenging budget times in its history while dealing with an adversarial union leadership who I believe made issues worse. I hope the recent change in union leadership brings a new and more collaborative approach that will serve everyone better. I also believe the men and women of the San Jose Fire Department are some of the best in the Country and wish them all the best in these challenging time.
Darryl
Ernest, Don’t be so hard on Chief DVR – he has probably go some inside track to get hired on as the “Fire/EMT Liason” for Mayor Reed. Hey another 6figure advisor is exactly what the mayor and the taxpayers need!
Darryl – does the new job come with benefits? I might be wrong but a 5 year stint gets you vested in PERS and it is fully funded by the RDA (taxpayers) while it lasts anyway.
I see the City Council is looking to approve another new housing development tonight.
San Jose may be the 10th largest city in the United States, but more importantly it is THE largest bedroom community in the United States.
So why is it a problem that of the 20 largest cities in the United States, San Jose is the only one classified as a bedroom community? As most people can relate, we use services primarily where we live. We call 911 when we have an emergency at home; we go to our neighborhood library to check out books and videos; we go to our neighborhood parks when we want to play or relax; we rely on the City to keep our neighborhood streets clean and free of potholes; our families take classes at community centers; bottom line—we use a lot of City services. A healthy city has a balanced mixture of jobs, housing and places to shop. A healthy city needs the taxes generated by jobs and stores to pay for the services enjoyed by the residents. As we all know, San Jose is not a healthy city. San Jose has lots and lots and lots of housing, with residents expecting a lot of services, but we don’t have the jobs or places to shop that are needed to be a balanced and healthy city. As Council members have repeatedly stated, the housing comes easy, but the jobs are a struggle. There are huge celebtrations and a lot of black slapping when we manage to add 100 jobs to the City, but the Council thinks nothing of adding another 500 residents to the City through a General Plan Amendment or a Planned Development Zoning.
San Jose has over 1,000,000 residents, but less than 400,000 jobs. The remainder of our employed residents can be seen every morning on all the major freeways that lead out of San Jose. I see a lot of our residents driving up Highway 101 as they go to their jobs in Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and San Francisco. While those cities all enjoy the benefits of having the strong tax base that goes along with those jobs, San Jose’s willingness to approve any and every residential development has resulted in the structural deficit that has been discussed for the last ten years.
So, if we can all agree that our city is severely out-of-balance, then why would we consider approving even more housing, resulting in more residents, resulting in more demands for services, when we can’t maintain services for the people who already live here?
Actually, you and most of the taxpaying SJ residents don’t approve of additional housing. It’s the lobbyist pimps working in tandem with the Councilwhores who do the approval. They’re after instant gratification – above and below the table, and they couldn’t care less that SJ is heading towards bankruptcy.
Pierluigi,
I’ll just address the first item on that list- ‘Landscape Ordinance To Reduce Water Consumption’
I’m guessing the main focus of this ordinance would be to restrict the amount of a landscape that can be covered with lawn.
Consider the City’s infatuation with tree planting. Tree roots absorb water at a prodigious rate. That water is drawn up into the tree and ultimately evaporates through the leaves into the atmosphere. I’m not anti-tree in any way, but I think it’s hypocritical for a City on the one hand to tell people that in order to conserve water they’re not allowed to plant a lawn, and on the other hand tell people to plant thousands of trees which, cumulatively dramatically reduce the rate at which our main water supply- the groundwater, is recharged.
If the City’s truly interested in conserving water then quit rezoning to residential and quit approving high density housing projects.
If I read this piece correctly PLO, you are saying that even if employees agree to a 10% reduction in salary and/or benefits then there will still be layoffs? probably demotions too?
So they could agree to a paycut but still loose their jobs?
If that is the case then you better be prepared to layoff lots of police – lots as in the 207 the city has already threatened. Then you better be ready to deal with the the fallout. You will not get a 10% concession with those terms.
PO said ” Actually that was my motion to make labor negotiations public. The vote was 2-9. Only Pete Constant and I voted in favor. “
So all Labor elected Council members voted not to have open public negotiations
So is labor talking out of both sides of their mouth – so saying – let’ss have open public labor negotiations while their labor Council is saying have closed labor negotiations
Well then labor gets what it deserves from supporting secret labor negotiations – city administration playing games and telling different groups and public different things
Most of public wants open public labor negotiations to see where our taxes are being spent and unless we see where taxes are spent – will vote NO on new or renewed taxes – so labor is saying – let layoffs begin
2Taxpayer <So all Labor elected Council members voted not to have open public negotiations…>
Maybe the so-called “Labor Elected council persons” were incorrectly labled. Maybe the folks who bought into the label are gullible or just lack the critical thinking skills needed to navigate the BS spoken by Constant/Oliverio/Reed/Figone and published as gospel by Woolfolk/Webby/Herhold at the MercuryNews.
Just like Madison Nguyen was supported by the police union and now she is the mayor’s lackey. Politicians hold up their wet fingers on an hourly basis to see which way the wind is blowing so they can shift sides rapidly when nobody is looking.
Jeff
“Labor has argued for open negotiations for years and the Office of Employee Relations keeps closing them down, where that direction comes from I don’t know. ”
Many residents find it very troubling that Council voted No and agree that ” open negotiations would go a long way in helping out. ” public understand where taxes are being spent
Then there is something wrong if Labor’s Council members are voting with city administration to have closed door labor negotiations
Apparently what labor tells public and how labor vote at Council is different since it is widely recognized that labor has votes on Council to direct public negotiations if it wants
Count Council ( Need 6 votes to pass ) votes
Constant and Oliverio – 2 previous Yes votes
Plus 2 new Yes votes – Campos and Kalra
= 4 Yes votes
Herrera, Chu, Pyle, Rocha, – 4 Swing votes only need 2 more Yes votes to pass
Is it reasonable that if Labor really wants open public negotiations – it can get 2 or more of 4 swing votes on basis of Sunshine and open government
Reed, Nguyen and Liccardo – 3 No votes shown to talk open government but like secret meetings and back room deals
The bottom line based on Council vote is that Labor doesn’t support open government and open public negotiations was mostly left out of proposed ground negotiations rules
“Plus 2 new Yes votes – Campos and Kalra”
Really Jeff? How do we know for sure these two would now change their vote?
Here is a link to all of the presentations shown yesterday at the study session:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/district6/StaffPresentations.asp
The first seven links all pertain to yesterday.
……Do we still want to build a ballpark? Just wondering.
I’m fairly certain that Reed would give his left nut to build a ballpark downtown.
Why not consider the 150+ number that has been the sabre rattled at SJPD. Of course let’s also consider all the demotions described.
The “worst case” number was 207.
hold the phone!!! Webby published an article
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_17397188
in the online Merc claiming the new numbers are…… “with all 11 bargaining units agreeing to a 10% salary reduction the City will STILL LAYOFF 237 Police officers and 82 more firefighters” The article says the City is “Warning” that the worst case is “349 police officers and 145 Fire Fighters laid off.”
What gives here Pierluigi??? The deficit number cited remains at $110million. It hasn’t been revised upward from January. In January the police layoffs were a “worst case” of only 207!!! You, Constant, Reed and Figone said that passing V and W would save public safety jobs. Both Measures passed but every “layoff update” from the City shows more jobs being threatened!!! Now The MercuryNews is legendary for publishing “inaccuracies” and you and your colleagues may be being constructively painted as “less-than-honest” (I am trying to be polite) by Webby’s “journalistic style” but this is getting out of hand.
Reed is on record as saying he regrets his votes that gave existing salaries and benefits to SJ employees – you are on record as saying you are not responsible because you weren’t on the Council at that time. Well and good…
You both are on the CC NOW and you are responsible for what is going on NOW. You both WILL be held responsible for any cuts that jeopardize the safety of persons and property in the City of San Jose. You WILL be held responsible NOW and quite possibly for a very long time to come – even long after you are voted out of office.
Here’s another interesting bit of math: based on the city’s own budget numbers for 2010/2011, the budget for the Police Department was $298,610,000 and 153,655,000 for the fire department. This means that the cost to the taxpayer to support these departments and current levels is $452,655,000 and that, with a total population of approximately 1 million people, the annual cost to the city per person for public safety services is $452 per person annually or less than $1.25 per person, per day.
I’m not trying to dispute that the city is in bad shape, financially, but I keep doing the numbers and they just don’t add up. I don’t know if Mayor Reed was being completely deceptive when he presented his speech the other day or if he’s just working with bad information provided from the City Manager and her office. From what I know of the City Manager, I’m inclined to believe the latter. But, what I don’t understand is why the city council is simply accepting at face value these numbers. They just don’t make sense. The anticipated deficit hasn’t changed. In fact, the anticipated deficit from last year was pretty close to the same, if I recall correctly.
Clearly Measure V and W are failures, or, those in power over at city hall lied through their teeth. But, more importantly, how is it sensible that asking police officers, for instance, to take an effective $18,600 annual pay cut, for a total saving s of over $23 million and then telling them that, even with the pay cut they’ll likely be working even harder than they were before, since layoffs still will probably occur. Assuming that the police officers don’t accept further cuts to their salary and benefits, if the city lays off 237 officers, the reduction in the budget would be a bit over $44 million and just under $65 million if they laid off 349 officers. This isn’t even accounting for possible layoffs at the fire department. So, basically, the Police Officers – Just One of San Jose’s bargaining units (out of 11 total) – is being asked to shoulder somewhere between 20% and 60% of San Jose’s budget deficit.
P.S. I hear the City Manager’s payroll budget increased significantly after Debra Figone was hired. Has anyone looked into that?
Open Public Labor Negotiations
Mayor and Council talk frequently about having a open transparent city government and last year many labor unions agreed to have open public labor negotiations
Why did Council vote down last year having open public labor negotiations ?
It seems that City administration is either is telling Council, labor negotiators, employees and public different stories or that there is a lot of confusion on complex discussion
Most of public wants open open public labor negotiations to see where our taxes are being spent
Time to have roll call vote to see who on Council is for and against open open public labor negotiations
Actually that was my motion to make labor negotiations public. The vote was 2-9. Only Pete Constant and I voted in favor.
Is this the same Pete Constant who gets a bogus retirement for life and was at the meeting today whining about pension costs and that all employees should only be covered by a 401k?
What a joke! The only thing constant about Constant is that he’s constantly sucking the public teat.
P.O – I watched and listened to the study session. I have 2 questions.
Reed at one point in time said that “the goal is to keep retirement costs flat over time”. He said this while pointing to the $400M monster shortfall due to rising pension obligations. An easy way to keep the city costs flat is to go from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. The city can save money and still offer generous 401K benefits. What is bankrupting the city is not the initial $8 to $3 match, but making up for the shortfall when the pension becomes insolvent. The city has to pay into the fund, even though it was not responsible for the stock market crash.
A 401K plan will also eliminate the need to pay for money managers, pension boards or yearly budget battles.
Stop building facilities we can’t staff. We’ve built at least 4 libraries that we can’t staff with fifth on the way. We also have a new 400 people police substation in south San Jose, without the ability to hire the cops. We need librarians not libraries. We need cops not stations.
It is because they do not know how to run this city. This is a failed administration. Still building libraries when they are closing libraries. Does that sound normal?
> The grant sounds good; however, there is a significant string attached to your federal tax dollars.
> If the grant is accepted then there would be zero layoffs in the fire department for the next two years.
No brainer, Pierluigi. HELL NO!!!
It is absolutely outrageous that the federal government taxes San Jose citizens and then offers “give backs” of our own money with goodies for the Democrats’ special interests baked in.
I have a better solution:
Cut federal taxes, keep the money in San Jose, eliminate the federal overhead for handling OUR tax money, fire Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Honda, and the rest of the tax grifter class who cause the problem.
So, in the absence of any of those things happening, do you have an worthwhile suggestions to make?
> So, in the absence of any of those things happening, do you have an worthwhile suggestions to make?
No.
Nothing can be done.
We’re completely helpless.
Fire Saint Feinstein? Say it ain’t so VL.
1. Go to Google
2. Search for: richard blum scandal
Nigerian scam artists and 3rd world dictators are pikers compared to Feinstein and her husband.
> 2. Search for: richard blum scandal
Whatever happened to . . .
I recall that a number of years back, the world learned that Richard Blum was engaged in some profit motivated dealings with the ChiComs.
It was a simpler era and the ChiComs were regarded as . . . well . . . naughty. Some thought it tacky and indecent that Senator DiFi’s bed-mate would be enriching himself by colluding with people who were conducting diplomacy with Tibetans using rifle butts and bad attitudes.
In a spasm of moral righteousness, Blum pledged that all of his profits from his business dealings with the creepy ChiComs would be contributed to a Tibetan uplift something or other.
Hmmmm. Wonder if that ever happened.
PLO, 347 cops laidoff huh! Well, don’t think that scare tattic is going to work! You can lay off 500 cops! WE (cops) will never give you the 10 % no matter how many you threaten to lay off! You can cry and moan all you want! But we have come to the point that we can not give back anymore because you, Reed and Figone will cry for more! It has come down to us against them. The city has always called us for help everyday and we respond to help. But when this one time we asked for the cities help on voting down measures V and W, the city let us down. Now it’s time to return the favor! So you might want to call up Tom Mcenry and get the 6 plus million dollars you gave him back, Sell some more property, and tell Lew Wolfe to move his stadium somewhere else. Because what I got is mine and will never give it up for nobody!!
San Jose’s has had a Special Interest controlled Council that has talked about fixing budget deficits for 10 years and pension reform for 3-5 years
Budget Deficits and Pension Costs increase and little is done to fix known problems because
a) Special Interest groups that fund political campaigns that elect Mayor and Council don’t want to lose the millions taxes they get from city and RDA
b) Council votes more frequently for special interest good ( profits) rather than public good
c) Council year after year underfunds basic city services while gives millions taxes to non government groups, corporations , developers and sports teams with little accountability or complete disclosure of tax money spent to public or taxpayers ( Try getting a total of how much city, RDA and other city controlled money will be spent on baseball stadium, city / RDA paid improvements to support stadium, city staff and consultants costs, future tax subsidies, free or undermarket city services, building or parking lot leases, etc
d) ” What is bankrupting the city is not the initial $8 to $3 match, but making up for the shortfall when the pension becomes insolvent. The city has to pay into the fund, even though it was not responsible for the stock market crash. “
City Charter http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp#Art15 Section 1503
“The foregoing provisions of this Section shall operate to supply such authorization as may be necessary to validate any such retirement system or systems which could have been supplied in the Charter of the City of San Jose or by the people of the City at the time of adoption or amendment of any such retirement system or systems.
However, subject to other provisions of this Article, the Council shall at all times have the power and right to repeal or amend any such retirement system or systems, and to adopt or establish a new or different plan or plans for all or any officers or employees, it being the intent that the foregoing sections of this Article shall prevail over the provisions of this Section.”
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp#Art15
IF by June, Council can not fix budget deficit and city retirement system then voters should consider
Having a Special Election ” Where such election is held pursuant to the initiative, referendum and recall provisions of Sections 1603 and 1604; “
And at least 4 Initiatives to City Charter
1) amend retirement 3 to 8 match to 5 to 5 match to include any investment losses
2) all increases in city retirement have to be approved by voters , but Council can approve reductions
3) basis city services have to be funded to reasonable service level equal before any non basic city services, tax subsidies in form of money or free or undermarket services or leases, and exemptions or reduction of city fees, permits, taxes or service or other city charges.
4) Voters approve continuation of Redevelopment agency beyond 2013 or if not passed close RDA
SECTION 1603. Initiative, Referendum and Recall.
“The powers of initiative, referendum and the recall of elected municipal officers are hereby reserved to the electors of the City. The provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended, governing the initiative and referendum and the recall of municipal officers in cities shall be applicable insofar as the same are not in conflict with this Charter; provided, however, that the number of signatures required shall be as follows:
(a) INITIATIVE. To initiate proceedings for the exercise of the power of initiative, either of the following provisions shall apply as is applicable:
(1) If the petition is signed by duly qualified electors of the City equal in number to at least eight percent (8%) of the number of persons eligible to vote according to the last report of registration filed by the County Registrar of Voters with the Secretary of State, which is in effect at the time the notice of intent to circulate the petition is published, and contains a request that the proposed ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a Special Municipal Election, the Council shall either pass the proposed ordinance for publication, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which it is presented by the City Clerk and adopt said ordinance within ten (10) days after it is presented, or immediately call a Special Municipal Election at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the City.
(2) If the petition is signed by duly qualified electors of the City equal in number to at least five percent (5%) of the number of persons eligible to vote according to the last report of registration filed by the County Registrar of Voters with the Secretary of State, which is in effect at the time the notice of intent to circulate the petition is published, and the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be, or for any reason is not, submitted to the voters at a Special Municipal Election, and is not adopted without alteration by the Council, then the proposed ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the Council to the voters at the next General Election.
In the event that a petition is submitted in accordance with the provisions of either subparagraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a), and the Council submits said proposed ordinance to a vote of the voters of the City, the Council may not at the same time submit an alternative ordinance.”
Public Employees vs. the Public Will
http://reason.org/news/show/public-employees-vs-the-public-will
““Many state and local governments have made the mistake of courting the votes of public employees by fattening salaries and benefits, all the time imagining that pension-fund investments could only go up,” the tirade warns us.
With tales of “lavish retirements for relatively youthful public servants” illustrating the “ugly…issue of public-employee pay and benefits,” the jeremiad estimated that state governments are anywhere from $1 trillion to $3 trillion short of their public pension commitments.
This end-of-days screed did not appear at PensionTsunami.com, nor was it printed in folio, stapled together, and handed out at a Tea Party.
It’s a cover story published this summer in Time magazine.
The word is out. It is now mainstream opinion that public employee salaries, benefits, and pensions are crippling state governments from coast to coast.
When a group of comedians performed a “2010 Public Employee of the Year Awards” sketch—wherein lumpen freeloaders compete at Harrah’s in Atlantic City for the title of “Surliest and Least Cooperative State Employee” and so on—the performers were not the after-dinner entertainment at FreedomFest but the Not Ready For Prime Time venerables of Saturday Night Live. The sketch died. The rage lives on.
“2010 Public Employee of the Year Awards”
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/public-employee-of-the-year/1222306/
Pierluigi,
I’ve lived in san jose my whole life and been paying attention to all the politics and the deficits the past couple years. I’ve heared to mayor and council consistanly saying the city has no money, we need more taxes, more layoffs and more pay reductions. Yet I see the city spending millions for a ballpark that isnt guarenteed, money for the council pet projects. I see my neighborhood over the past 3yrs looking like crap. 2 days ago there was a fire next to station 34. That station used to have a fire engine but now it has a Truck with no water because the Chuck Reed and Figone and City council closed 5 engines last year. Well I asked the fire men if there was a engine to respond, would it have made a difference. They said that the fire destroyed the kitchen, dining room and hallway. But if an engine was able to respond quick the fire could have been stopped in the kitchen. Pierluigi can you please explain to me where the priorites for the city lie, It does not seem to me that that you guys care about my family and citizens safety. I feel like this whole administration is backwards in your thinking. And did anyone from the city go the that family who lost their home and tell them you are sorry for the fact you all are responsible for their loss. And I am 100% positive that there are more stories like that! Please let me know?
Mike,
Thanks for writing.
Not all city funds are equal as some have restrictions by State law. For example Bond funds can build a building and buy land but cannot be used for ongoing expenses like utilities and labor. Sewer fees can only be used for sewers. When it comes down a fire fighter salary that pot of money is called the General Fund. This is the same pot of money as police, librarians, attorneys, parks staff,etc….
This General Fund is like your checking account to pay the bills. The checking account has shrunk and expenses have increased. One on the revenue side with lower property tax, sales tax,etc… the checking account shrunk. Two expenses went up, specifically pensions. Out of a $110 million dollar deficit $69 million is pensions. The expenses for pension will increase again by approximately $50 million more.
As for Fire Staffing the Council will be discussing how to keep as many fire vehicles in service moving forward rather than taking them out of service. If it is a choice between closing a station than that is unacceptable when the staffing ratio can be reduced like most cities in Santa Clara County to keep the station open. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than laying off police instead? Yes.
Have you no common decency?? First and foremost, if you want to be like all the other cities in the county and reduce staffing on the rigs then you need to build on average another 66 Fire stations (yes, sixty-six). That will give you the same amount of coverage as the rest of the county in reference to Firefighters per 1,000 residents per square mile.
Secondly, In the city of San Jose, there are currently only 178 Firefighters on duty at any one time, last year the fire Department had over 85,000 calls for service. If you reduce even 1 position on the rigs in the city that will leave only 138 people on duty to cover a city of 1.1 million people. You’ll use up about 25 of those firefighter on just 1 confirmed house fire….
Lastly, there are OSHA requirements governing when firefighters may enter a burning structure, commonly known as “2 in 2 out” rule. This OSHA rule states there must be 2 firefighters to back up the 2 firefighters going in to a burning structure. Currently in San Jose we meet that requirement which enables us to go right to work fighting the fire, In the rest of the county however, this is not the case…. They have to wait for another piece of apparatus to arrive to establish the 2 in/2 out rule before entering the burning building. Additionally, the NFPA Standard (national fire protection agency) is to have 4 firefighters on an Engine…. That standard is there for a reason and as the 10th largest city in the nation I would think that you would want to meet that standard…..
But if this is your wish to cut frontline Firefighters from the rigs then you better be ready to respond to the families that have lost ALL of their belongings instead of simply a kitchen or bedroom. Why, because we will be forced to fight fire from the sidewalk while we wait for another rig and never enter the structure because by then it will be fully involved and too late…. Also known as a “surround and drown” tactic….
When you tell the story Pierre you should try to at least tell the whole story and know the facts but then again if you did that you wouldn’t get what you wanted… would you??
Thanks for turning our public safety into the villains that the public believes them to be, I’m sure you’ll get your way but someday you’ll have to answer for what you’ve done…. I hope it’s worth it.
PS. Your last statement make no sense, why is the council discussing how to keep APPARATUS (not vehicle) in service?? Isn’t that the job of your subject matter expert that you hired, also known as THE FIRE CHIEF ??? so if I read it right, you want to get rid of firefighters instead of cops…? I guess you forgot that you already laid off 49 off them last year…?
We simply cannot afford it…..No Money.
If we are able to reduce layoffs by only one position I would advocate that position be for a police officer.
Carefull – the council and City MAnager might just want to have the “experts” over at the City Auditors office start figuring our how the FD could “do even more with less…”
Reading their report on the PD one nugget that jumps out is the Audotors opinion that the number of Officers per 1000 population NATIONWIDE STANDARD is really meaningless. This paradigm leads directly into “suggestions” for maintaining (and in certin instances)increasing some services while reducing Police Staffing to 900-1000 officers (260-360 fewer than th ePD has right now.
In light of that auditors report and the City Managers statements that she could “police this City with about 970 police,” it is interesting to see articles in recent days whre the City is threatening layoffs of up to 349 police to balance the budget. Looks like they laid the groundwork sometime ago.
Blaming city employees for the ills caused by current and past mayors and councils is simply sad.
Until you step-up and really face all of the issues and stop scapegoating, it is difficult to take you or your colleagues seriously.
Our neighborhood streets look more like gardens than streets due to all of the grass growing in the many cracks in the surface.I don’t think anything has been done to them in many, many years and they continue to deteriorate.
Streetlights are out due to the budget regardless of the impact that has on public safety.
The list goes on and on. It is getting to the point that the only sensible thing to do is to leave SJ. Where is the leadership? All I see is blame and it is not even being placed in the appropriate places.
Has there been any discussion about changing the Council structure to part-time and reducing costs accordingly? That won’t solve the problem completely but it would show some leadership on your part.
I’ll keep waiting for you and your colleagues to get serious but I’ll probably be long gone before that happens.
Remember,
You are dead on. The city council should be a part-time and voluntary position like all other cities around here. It is ridiculous how much they make, especially since they all work other jobs. The city manager essentially runs our city. I really hope there is a movement initiated to put something on our ballot to vote on regarding this as it will never be brought up by the city council. If Pier, Pete, or Chuck really believed in reform, they would be the first to suggest this, but alas, they are blowhards.
If labor actually wanted open public negotiations they would since they always vote as labor wants BUT labor does not want open public negotiations .
As former Fire Chief said ” As for open negotiations, the last arbitration process it was requested to be open, the City said yes and Local 230 said no so it remained closed. ”
Labor is saying in public they want Sunshine and open government but behind closed doors saying no
Public is finding out day by day more information that Labor, City administrators and Council majority are playing political games with the truth and public can’t trust any of them
At least City administrators were somewhat truthful and fought open government both in public and behind closed doors while Council and Labor uses political speak to say they support open government but don’t
When do you know a politician / Labor is lying to you ?
– When their lips move
I wrote about street paving in San Jose a few months back which includes a link to the staff presentation:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/10_18_10_worst_roads_but_great_pensions/
Pier,
How many years do you and other councilmembers have to serve before you are vested in the PERS retirement program? How does this compare to council members for surrounding cities? Just curious…….
6 years fully invested and lifetime full health benefits.
They get FULL benefits after 6 years while the mayor is now saying employees may have to work to age 65 to get full benefits? Why don’t the citizen see all of this really unbalanced stuff?
Not accurate. This was suggested by then CM Lezotte in 2006 but did not move forward.
Oh, and by the way, it takes 10 years for a cop to be vested.
It’s very easy for Mayor Reed, PLO, et. al. to discuss changes to the retirement system because the DO participate in PERS. Do they contribute to the City’s retirement fund? Will these reforms they talk about affect them in the slightest?
For cops and firefighters, the structure of this retirement program is extremely important because it is a pillar of the financial security for his or her spouse and/or children in the event of his or her death. They don’t participate in Social Security, so there’s no SS benefit to the family. And, in the event of a cop’s or firefighter’s death, the payout to the family from the retirement fund is a fraction of the income to which the family would have seen had he not died – and not necessarily a majority fraction.
When Reed and Co. talk about pension reforms, they talk about taking income and financial security – not just from cops and firefighters, but from widows and widowers and children. Do early deaths happen often? No. But they do happen and it’s part of what forms family financial planning. It’s how they know that they’ll be able to take care of their families – even in death.
Then answer the question Pier. What exactly do you get in terms of benefits? How long is it until you are vested? What is your contribution? Simply saying that something is “inaccurate” doesn’t work unless you post the truth. Come on man! What else of the publics are you stealing these days besides signs??
Explain it to us so we will have a better understanding.
I noticed Pier never answered the question I posed but just stepped around it. I sure hope something gets put on our ballot to make the San Jose city council a part time and no benefits postition like every other city around us. Aside from the fact we have a bigger population why should they get a huge salary and large staffs? The smaller cities have less council people and get paid a stipend. We are a larger city and have more council members so really the work just gets spread around more. Our council members should serve out of a calling to serve their community, not for a salary. They all work at other jobs (except maybe Peter) and are double dipping by collecting 2 full time incomes. Come on Pier and Chuck, put your money where your mouths are and donate your salaries back to city services to set an example. Also, give up your city retirements which no other city council members in Santa Clara County get.
It’s the old rule of Administrators… “Don’t do as I do… Do as I say”
Yeah, the Mayor and Council math for Retirement and Benefits is different that our regular math computations because we don’t factor in CORRUPTION.
This is how Council math works, An Example(6 years service + Corruption = Lifetime Retirement @90% of Gross Pay and Lifetime Medical Benefits)
This is no joke, this is a fact…
Stev,
Councilmembers participate in the retirement system much the same as city employees however they serve for a limited time as they typically do not work for The City prior or after their term.
Assuming no changes are made to the current retirement system, Councilmembers past and present are credited 2.5% of their salary for each year. So 8 years on the Council with current salary of $81,000($110/month car allowance not pensionable) would be an approximate $16,200 retirement payout when reaching the qualified retirement age. The contribution rate is the same as it is for other city employees, the 8 to 3 ratio laid out in the City Charter. Councilmembers DO NOT qualify for retiree medical, accrue sick leave or vacation.
From my perspective it is the most generous retirement plan I have participated in as my work experience has been with private companies that offer a 401K with no employer match.
I am not certain what other cities, counties, Congress have however the City Clerk in each city/county including San Jose can answer any additional questions.
Pierluigi
Thanks for answering the question.
In response to your statement, “I am not certain what other cities, counties, Congress have however the City Clerk in each city/county including San Jose can answer any additional questions”, the other cities in this area, which is the only thing we need to compare, are not paying salaries to the elected council members.
When you are someday eligible to collect a retirement from the City of San Jose, are you going to stick to your principles and turn it down to set an example for everyone else?
The city council and mayor in San Jose needs to be part time positions. Pier, since you are leading the charge to drastically reduce city government and outsource jobs, please lead the way on this issue too. At least bring it up for discussion at a city council meeting. You all are making nice salaries at other companies outside of San Jose. You do not need to be paid over $100,000 each by the city also.
Have the city council people’s benefits tied to the other bargaining units. When they slash employee benefits, theirs goes too.
how to go about calling for or getting a part time council put into place? What has to be done? How do we get it started?
Call the police and fire unions. They have a war chest for political action and I know they would love to campaign for something like this if they had more city residence to back them.
The enormous sense of entitlement shown by city employees is simply beyond my understanding. Just where DO they get these XXX Large egoes they’re all sporting? I’d like to try one on but I doubt if I could carry off that condescending air of superiority. Just who do they imagine has to pay their guaranteed pension benefits?
Neither Oliverio nor Reed could be considered fiscal conservatives in the mold of Chris Christie or Scott Walker so limiting government does not come naturally to them, but even these Silicon Valley politicians can see that employee compensation is WAY out of hand and is destroying our government’s ability to perform any useful functions.
If the cop and firefighter unions want to remain intransigent then I’m willing to put up with ANY level of layoffs. I’d rather take my chances with criminals and fires than be guaranteed of being the victim of this ongoing union employee shakedown.
” Does anybody know” asked
“how to go about calling for or getting a part time council put into place?
What has to be done? How do we get it started? “
SEE City Charter Section 1603 – Initiative
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp#Art16
Voters can amend San Jose City Charter by Initiative since politically corrupt Council controlled by special interests will not vote to fix city’s budget or pensions problems or vote for ” Part time Council ”
” (a) INITIATIVE. To initiate proceedings for the exercise of the power of initiative, either of the following provisions shall apply as is applicable:
(1) If the petition is signed by duly qualified electors of the City equal in number to at least eight percent (8%) of the number of persons eligible to vote according to the last report of registration filed by the County Registrar of Voters with the Secretary of State, which is in effect at the time the notice of intent to circulate the petition is published, and contains a request that the proposed ordinance be submitted immediately to a vote of the people at a Special Municipal Election,
the Council shall either pass the proposed ordinance for publication, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which it is presented by the City Clerk and adopt said ordinance within ten (10) days after it is presented,
or immediately call a Special Municipal Election at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the City.
(2) If the petition is signed by duly qualified electors of the City equal in number to at least five percent (5%) of the number of persons eligible to vote according to the last report of registration filed by the County Registrar of Voters with the Secretary of State, which is in effect at the time the notice of intent to circulate the petition is published, and
the ordinance petitioned for is not required to be, or for any reason is not, submitted to the voters at a Special Municipal Election, and is not adopted without alteration by the Council,
then the proposed ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted by the Council to the voters at the next General Election.
In the event that a petition is submitted in accordance with the provisions of either subparagraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a), and the Council submits said proposed ordinance to a vote of the voters of the City,
the Council may not at the same time submit an alternative ordinance. ”
1) “Part Time Council” without the 4 other proposed Initiatives will NOT solve San Jose budget and pension problems
2) Amend retirement 3 to 8 match to 5 to 5 match to include any investment losses
3) All increases in city retirement or benefit plans must be approved by voters, but Council can approve reductions
4) Basis city services have to be funded to reasonable service level equal before any non basic city services, tax subsidies in form of money or free or under market services or leases, and exemptions or reduction of city fees, permits, taxes or service or other city charges.
5) Have Voters approve continuation of Redevelopment agency beyond 2013 or if not passed close RDA immediately
Is it just me, or have other people noticed that PLO’s blog posts either:
a. regurgitate information without offering meaningful analysis
b. suggest half-assed ideas without citing studies, facts or analysis to support the merit of the ideas
c. are glib boilerplate responses
d. refer back to his voting record without digging deeper into the issues at hand
e. often go strangely silent when he is asked difficult or insightful questions or is confronted with math involving monetary figures larger than those typically found on a bar tab?
While I appreciate the information presented, I’d like to see PLO AND his peers in city hall make a commitment to fully fund CORE services before indulging in any other expenditures, prioritize those core services in a manner that reflects the desires of the citizens which, based on what i’ve been able to discern are as follows: a safe community, reliable well-maintained infrastructure, an efficient, fair and easy-to-navigate system of administration with minimal bureaucracy.
I think that it is also time for Mayor Reed, PLO and the rest of the city council to recognize and act in accordance with the reality that the unchecked egalitarianism (such as Mayor Reed stating that Librarians have a role in public safety). Let me illustrate my point: if necessary, a cop or firefighter or public safety dispatcher could be transitioned to work at a library, work as a park ranger, a janitor, etc. and, with an appropriate degree of job training, be able to meet the requirements of the job. However, the converse is likely untrue: would that librarian, janitor or park ranger pass the background checks, IQ testing, psychological testing and, in the cases of cops and firefighters, physical requirements of the job. Sure, some might, but probably not many. And, odds are, that neither a librarian, janitor, nor park ranger is going to be able to investigate that traffic collision, interview a rape victim, arrest a robbery suspect, solve a homicide, perform CPR, extract a victim from a mangled car or put out a structure fire. It would be nice if the language coming from City Council reflected these realities.
Why would anybody advocate a part time council when a full time council can’t keep labor from robbing the city blind?
“Why would anybody advocate a part time council when a full time council can’t keep labor from robbing the city blind?”
Because they only work part time but collect a full salary. Get it??? They already ARE part time. We are just saying that they should have the part time salary to match the part time hours that they work.
I’ve been looking over the 2010/2011 budget info available on the City’s website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY1011/07AdoptedOperating/SEC03.07-08.SummaryofGFSources-GraphTable.pdf
According to the city’s own table, there is a 0.1% difference between the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 General Fund revenues. In public safety, the adopted budgets for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 are within 0.1% or just $3.54 million more in 2010/2011 and $4.51 million more than 2008/2009.
It seems to me that, although both fire and pd staffing levels have experienced attrition, the costs associated with public safety have been and can continue to be relatively stable, assuming hiring and salaries remain stable. Indeed, as the more senior members of both departments retire, their positions can be filled with more junior officers whose pay and benefits haven’t been maxed out.
Then there’s the retirement fund. Over the last 5 years, the returns on the police and fire retirement funds has been 4% annually. It seems to me that the only reason the fund itself isn’t fully funded is because of those years when the city’s leadership decided to not fulfill their contribution requirements due to the fact of the extremely high rate of returns several years ago.
PLO and others on the city council may argue that they weren’t around or in charge when those decisions were made, but, having run for and been elected to, the city council, they shoulder a degree of responsibility for the decisions of their predecessors, and the obligations made in better times. Yes, the responsibility for the recklessness and frivolity of the city’s past leadership rests squarely on the current leadership. Additionally, there is a degree of responsibility that rests on the shoulders of San Jose’s citizens – at least the ones who’ve voted into office this motley collection of fools and criminals.
Finally, I’d like to address Mayor Reeds proposal to revise the retirement system in such a way that cops and firemen retire are eligible to retire at the same age as they’d be eligible for social security and for roughly the same retirement benefits plus a 401k. This has to be the absolute worst, most short-sighted and downright asinine suggestions I’ve ever heard. You think San Jose is the first city to go through serious financial difficulty, to contemplate this notion. I don’t think so. And, frankly, based on the observed performance of the City Council, I don’t think any of you are smart enough to come up with a truly novel idea on your own. There’s a reason this idea has never gained traction anywhere in the nation of which I am aware. It’s because it’s absolutely unequivocally unworkable. There is no way that you can justify keeping officers on patrol into their 60’s. Even into their late 50’s is a stretch. This is because of the wear and tear these jobs introduce on the human body and psyche. The day you people manage to change the retirement system to a social security equivalent is the day that will herald a near-instantaneous exodus of public safety employees for any job in any city except San Jose. And, you will be unable to attract quality candidates to replace them. Ironically, you idiots will have already been vested in the current system, and so, won’t be the ones to suffer monetarily.
Why with the layoff in previous years is mid level and higher management not subject to pending layoffs? There are fewer employees now and I am tired of hearing from my Deputy Director ” We have to do more with less”. I have been doing more for the past two years to try and make up for fellow employees’ that we laid off, left for other jobs or went to retirment-some earlier than expected due to the pending cuts.
Also, why doesn’t Deb Figone look into a Division Manager who is the Mayor of Santa Clara who comes into work maybe 1/2 the time, does City of Santa Clara business while at work for San Jose but can still cash in over 9,000 dollars for their vacation sellback. Obvioulsy this person is doing less for more!
That must be Jaime Matthews!
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=401
How can Jaime Matthews be doing his jobs in San Jose and attending the many Santa Clara Mayor’s job with all the daytime committee meetings
Area-Wide Committees
* Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly
* California High-Speed Rail Authority Policymaker Working Group
* City/School Liaison Committee (Santa Clara Unified School District) (Chair)
* Grand Boulevard Task Force/El Camino Real
* Modesto – Santa Clara – Redding Energy Authority (MSR EA) (Alternate)
* Modesto – Santa Clara – Redding Public Power Agency (MSR) (Alternate)
* Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities
* Recycled Water Policy Advisory Committee
* San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC)
* Santa Clara County Cities’ Association (SCCCA) Board of Directors
* Santa Clara County Cities’ Association (SCCCA) City Selection Committee
* Santa Clara County Cities’ Association (SCCCA) Legislative Action Committee
* Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) Board of Directors (North County Cities Group-Alternate)
* Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee (CMPP) (North County Cities Group-Alternate)
* Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) El Camino Real Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB)
* Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) Policy Advisory Committee
* Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) Transit Planning and Operations Committee (TP&O) (North County Cities Group-Alternate)
* Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA)
You would have to be Superman to get both jobs done or A lot isn’t being done at his San Jose full time job or his Santa Clara Mayor’s job