Over a month ago I wrote about a budget meeting I led in District 6 with my own presentation on the deficit and alternative solutions. Since then, other council offices have scheduled their meetings. I was curious to hear the opinions from outside my district. So last week I attended the budget meetings in District 10, Almaden/Blossom Valley, and District 8, Evergreen. Both meetings were led by the city manager’s office with its own presentation.
The District 10 meeting was held in Blossom Valley, not Almaden as last year’s had been. About 35-40 people attended, including a few union business agents and other union members. I sat next to a gentleman who was very coy. I asked him how he heard about the meeting and he would not say. I then asked how long he lived in the neighborhood and he said, “Santa Cruz…er…I mean San Jose.” I enjoy meeting new people and like to know where people are from, but…I was surprised to hear “Santa Cruz” for a meeting that was for the residents of a specific council district. So now I am curious and I ask the man, “What do you do for work?” He then said “ugh…I would rather not say.” I then asked, “Is it that big of a deal?” He said “Yes. I do no want to say.” Strange gentleman who never spoke during the meeting.
After the presentation, residents wrote questions on cards and they were read out loud. People became annoyed with the card reading and started asking questions directly. Every resident was consistent on their message. They were fed up with what they deemed excessive pensions, sick pay and other compensation items. One man with a beard and glasses spoke, then a woman who lived in San Jose for 50 years, then a semiconductor engineer and then a woman in her 40s. They all said they wanted changes to be made asap, and they themselves did not know if they would even have a job in the private sector from week to week. None of the union reps spoke at the meeting. It was odd that if a resident made a negative statement about unions that were out of line with their comments they had to cease speaking. Most of the time was spent on the presentation and only 10-15 minutes on questions.
The District 8 meeting was held on the East Side, off Tully and King, and not in Evergreen. There were about 20 people at the meeting. The city management did the presentation, however, Councilmember Herrera mixed it up and had the attendees play the same budget game that was done at City Hall back in January for the Neighborhood Associations. The group broke out with a list of service cuts and a list of revenue enhancements and the groups presented back to everyone. Nearly all five groups chose to raise taxes, such as a sales tax increase, also sell vacant city land, raise parking fines and put a fee on plastic/paper bags.
Some also had some interesting ideas to raise revenue, like raising the cost to go to the bathroom Downtown at those automatic toilets. Another was to ban smoking in all of San Jose and then fine people for smoking. Another was that all residents must volunteer one hour of their expertise. The example given was a doctor would give a free hour for a physical, and that would save the city money. No one had the heart to tell this person that there was no correlation to save the city money since the city does not run hospitals.
I was pretty shocked at the consensus on the service cuts that came from the groups, ideas like closing a fire station, not hiring police, reducing street paving and eliminating crossing guards. Other service cuts matched the city-wide telephone survey: reduce the rate of personnel costs, reduce funding to non profits, reduce library hours and reduce park maintenance. They also wanted to cut long-range planning for land use. (???) Evergreen seems to be a textbook example of not enough long-term planning, as it is mostly housing and few jobs which creates a painful commute for many residents.
In my opinion, you really you can’t blame any of the residents for their choices. The management made up the cards with things that they want to see cut which does not necessarily equate to what the council will decide. And, after all, its the elected officials who decide what the budget looks like, not management.
If you would like to view my budget presentation please visit my website at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/District6/budget.asp
Thanks for dropping by. Sorry I had to bail out early and missed the comment period at the D8 meeting.
I think Herrera’s approach to the meeting was a good one, but did it allow for public comment, or only a report out from the tables? I think the feedback would’ve been similar to that of the D10 meeting…it’s time to take a serious look at government compensation.
Valley companies are cutting employees (to the tune of 10%+) and employee compensation (including 401K matches). The city government talks about freezing management pay and letting about 2% of the employees go. That’s why the 993,000 (or so) San Joseans who don’t work for the city are getting fed up.
Pierluigi,
Why does the City do this to its citizens? Why hold these useless meetings in the community and pretend that they are listening to our concerns and opinions on these vital issues? It shows such a lack of respect for us, and only serves to increase the lack of trust we already have in government. No wonder citizens don’t participate in making things better, no one at the City Managers Office lets them!
By the way, did Denelle make any headway with the City on funding the Mounted Unit? I think what the City Manager’s Office did on this issue is just plain ridiculous. I’m very proud of Denelle, and thought her article in the Merc was great. Please thank her for me.
2 – Her article was inappropriate. As a council aid she should not be taking public positions—that is her boss’ job. He obviously likes having the support and condones her doing this but that doesn’t make it right.
If her boss doesn’t think the mounted unit should be cut then he can fight for it in the appropriate venue.
Please don’t tell me about free speech, etc. When you work for a public official there are certain things that simply are not appropriate. This is one of them.
#3-C. Rice,
You’re entitled to your opinion, but Denelle is allowed to pursue whatever she wants outside of work, Chief of Staff or not. She founded this non-profit and is entitled to do whatever she needs to do to ensure its success.
I understand how politically dicey challenging the unions can be, but enough is enough, it’s time for our leaders to start looking out for the best interest of our city and not their own political careers. This means calling out the unions and demanding that they come to the table and negotiate a compromise that will save the city from any more cuts to the basic services residents deserve and avoiding drastic employee layoffs.
Residents across the city continue to express their disdain for employee compensation and benefits and yet are heard with deaf ears. I forget, was it the unions who elected them to office or residents?
No matter the service cuts, fee increases and employee layoffs the city implements, the fact of the matter is the problem with the budget is employee compensation and benefits. Unless I’m misunderstanding the dire state of our nation’s economy there is no hope of our local economy improving anytime soon and taking a shortsighted approach to balancing this year’s budget will only stand to make things worse.
To me it seems the budget philosophy the city is working under is to just cross its fingers and hope everything gets better so that the real tough discussions can be avoided.
I also can’t understand why unions would rather see employees laid off rather than try to find a way to sustain employment levels at their current level by renegotiating contracts. They should have the backs of each and every employee and do anything necessary to protect as many jobs as possible.
It’s tough times and there’s no light at the end of our tunnel. San Jose desperately needs to find a plausible solution to its budget woes and it seems to me that we won’t get there unless there are serious conversations about employee compensation and benefits.
I look forward to your response Pierlugi since you seem to be the only one willing to at least talk about the issue of employee compensation and benefits.
I think congratulations are in order for our government leaders given the outstanding job they’ve done in convincing the public that it is city employees who are to blame for the current budget mess. Passing the buck is not as easy as one might think, and when it’s done on such a grand scale it deserves to be respected. Given that there is not a single pay rate, compensation package, or retirement program that can be directly attributed to a decision made by an employee or employee bargaining group, and that no such employee or bargaining group can be tied to this city’s annual squandering of millions in the purchase of political support, it is truly amazing that today’s council and city management have set themselves up in the role of heroes waging war against the evil employees in the battle for the public good.
Our city is not in a mess because the cops didn’t keep the streets safe—they did, nor is it because the firefighters or street sweepers or building inspectors didn’t do their jobs—they did. Our city is in a mess because our leadership, elected and appointed, has failed us in more ways than we can probably count. This city has scored an A+ in foisting bullshit upon us and sending us the bill, all the while neglecting the infrastructure, surrendering basic services, mishandling the downtown investment, and failing to responsibly fund its long-term obligations.
That said, I’m real excited that the council didn’t let the budget crisis get in the way of agreeing to fund another monument to Cesar Chavez…
#6, finfan,
I agree with you that a lack of leadership in city government has contributed to the current situation. But the unions are not free of blame. It was an “employee bargaining group” that got 90% pension after 30 years for the firefighters, after all.
Employee benefits are a huge problem…health, retirement, holidays, sick time payouts, etc. The unfunded portion of retiree health care and pension is significant, and not even contemplated in the current budget proposal. It will take significant leadership from the council to fix the result of decades of “passing the buck.”
“Nearly all five groups chose to raise taxes, such as a sales tax increase, also sell vacant city land, raise parking fines and put a fee on plastic/paper bags.”
What’s with it with the nickel-and-diming? Every time there’s a budget crisis, the powers that be always want to stick it to the taxpayer to fund an ever-expanding government. Parking fines and bag fees might not be much in themselves, but combined with California’s ever increasing taxes, amount to death by a thousand cuts. Don’t forget that taxes will be going up to fund the orgy of borrowing we [no, not me personally] just voted for.
John Gault (our Atlas Shrugged hero) writes that we need strong council leadership. Unfortunately, the labor unions are the biggest contributors to councilmembers’ campaigns in terms of money and “voluntary” manhours. Councilmembers will not bite the hands that feed them.
The city budget will worsen as taxpayers are required to protect city retirees from the ravages of inevitable inflation resulting from Obama’s massive spending plans.
I understand that the brutal economic beating we’ve endured has raised passions—it is, after all, those passions that our government leaders depend on to direct the attention away from their own culpability, but we should not let those passions blind us to the fact that it was economics and politics that delivered this crisis to our door, not government employees.
In regards to their own wages and benefits, what organized government workers can do is limited: they can appeal to the decision makers we elect, withhold their labor, or, in some cases, make their case with an arbitrator. No matter how “powerful” someone else claims they’ve become, government employees can’t vote themselves anything (and I don’t remember anyone calling them powerful during the Deukmejian or Wilson administrations). Their wages and benefits have, traditionally, been disproportionately affected by politics, with their catch-up periods often coming at the tail of an economic boom (a boom during which they’d inevitably lost ground to inflation). The last great catch-up episode coincided with the last gasps of the dot-com boom, leaving us with the current situation, one in which their wages and benefits appear grossly out of proportion against the backdrop of the current economy. In a relatively short period of time, employees went from making salaries insufficient for local home ownership to a situation where they’ve been condemned for looting the treasury.
In other words, John Galt, government wages should be expected to be in-sync with the market only about one-third of the time, that period in between those when they’re below the market and those when they’re above it. The idea that exists a sustainable level of compensation is wishful, as in an environment (like the government) where good fortune is squandered and cupboards are kept empty, nothing can sustain hard times.
Pat Waite mentioned the 90% retirement benefit (one that I personally consider excessive) as evidence of employee culpability. I think it’s important to make a distinction between the employees and their bargaining units for the same reason we make a distinction between elected representatives and the electorate. Government employees spend their time working and caring for their families, giving little time to understanding (or putting into context) the complex political environment that ultimately dictates their compensation package. Employee bargaining units are, on the other hand, obligated to sniff out the openings, exploit the opportunities, and get their membership the best that the market will bear. Theirs is, by necessity, a political effort, as they learned long ago that political leaders may talk about fairness, but they only respond to politics.
I support the idea of an objective examination of wages and benefits, but not a wholesale condemnation. Front line employees, those doing the work, taking the risks, and enduring the elements, must be paid enough to keep the talent we have and attract the talent we need. I don’t want to risk my safety or that of my loved ones to bargain basement firefighters, cops, building inspectors, or civil engineers as I’ve seen what can happen…
I’ve been to New Orleans.
#3 & #4—care to let the rest of us in on this controversy over “Denelle”?
#5 queried:“I forget, was it the unions who elected them to office or residents?” I’ll presume that question was rhetorical, since in many districts the unions control who the voters vote for. They work harder than The Chamber of Commerce people, who think writing a check is all that’s required. Pounding the sidewalks means votes.
Mr. Higgins went on to opine:“To me it seems the budget philosophy the city is working under is to just cross its fingers and hope everything gets better so that the real tough discussions can be avoided.” You got it, sir—there isn’t a tough-decision maker on the council…because they know the wrong vote means the unions won’t back them, and they may have to get a real job. So doing nothing wins.
It’s like those nonsense propostions we are asked to vote for on the state level. All except one are Rob Peter to pay Paul ideas. Just wait until they fail in a few days and the legislature and the governor will actually have to legislate and govern.
I can’t agree with finfan this time. With some 2/3rds of the budget being personnel costs, that’s the ONLY place to deal with the budget problem in a meaningful way, professor. We need an honest days work for an honest days pay out of these folks.
I see it in the court system daily—the waste of time by personnel is astounding. Yeah, I know, that’s state & county, not S-Jay; but there must be something in the water they all drink, because it’s the same at every level of government in virtually every jurisdiction. They get top dollar, benefits the rest of us would die for, and soooo many are slackers. Just look at every CalTrans job—lots of guys standing around eating donuts and drinking coffee, while the new-hire guy shovels in a hole, and four million dollars of heavy equipemnt lays idle.
Someone needs to locate and publish the work rules these public employees work under so that everyone can see how very little they are required to do.
Case in point—Harding Park Golf Course by Lake Merced was renovated to the tune of $20million or so for the American Express tournament 2-3 years back, when John Daly lost to Tiger in a playoff. The course is “maintained” by C&CSF; employees. I was up there to play a while ago. It’s now virtually a goat track. Check their work rules and you’ll find the problem.
I’d bet the farm that the same is true of the vast majority of government employees in a union. The low level of work/efficiency they are allowed would not happen in private industry, because the company would be bankrupt.
OOOps, the company (City of SJ) is heading that way. And the county is even worse; but unfunded state mandates have a lot to do with that situation.
#7
Wow, I actually agree with John Galt for once.
-David
Where we choose to place the blame for excessively high employee compensation is beside the point. The City has indeed been poorly managed. They’ve betrayed the public, who they work for, by squandering tax revenue in many ways, and by far the biggest overexpenditure has been in employee compensation.
The fact is we pay City employees way too much. The firefighters did their jobs? Of course they did their jobs. I did my job too but out here in the real world we only get paid what the market will bear. For too long San Jose the employer has behaved as though it thinks it’s HP in ‘98, lavishing generous salaries and benefits- receiving praise and adulation for being a “model employer”. Well as HP found out it’s easy to be a benevolent bigshot as long as the money’s rolling in.
We need strong leaders on our City Council- people who understand that their primary duty is to the public- not to City employees.
If Pierluigi can convince enough of his colleagues to stand up to the inevitable criticism and bring compensation down to sustainable levels, he WILL be a hero.
frustrated finfan,
I understand your argument finfan, but I think there’s been a political sea change over the last decade or two that will nullify the chances that we will ever experience those 1/3 of the time periods of undercompensation of public employees. Because of the relatively recent trend toward compensation not just with salary, but with benefits, we’ll be saddled with the retirement and lifetime health care benefits of the current crop for a good 15-40 years. This will more than offset any future periods of lower than average compensation when the pendulum swings back and would otherwise favor the taxpayer.
If we confined the role of Government to those duties for which it, and only it, can perform, then we could afford to be so generous that these discussions wouldn’t even be necessary. But until we figure that out, we’re going to have to be stingy.
#12-JMO,
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12283024?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com
An article on the SJPD mounted patrol. Huh?
finfan,
“employee bargaining group” was taken directly from your post #6, where you asserted “[g]iven that there is not a single pay rate, compensation package, or retirement program that can be directly attributed to a decision made by an employee or employee bargaining group.” Are you backing off of that postion?
The electorate, by and large, does not pay their representatives to act on their behalf (trust me, I know from experience). Union members do (granted, some “payments” may be confiscatory).
It’s naive to think that San Jose gov’t employee wages are subject to the “whims” of the city council. Feet on the street make as much of a difference in an election as $$$. And unions offer both.
#17-JMO,
)
Yes, the Mounted Police. I guess #3-C. Rice seems to think Denelle is not allowed to do anything of importance outside her job as Chief of Staff. I disagree. I think she is doing what she believes is right, while saving the City a lot of money. The Mounted Police are awesome, and do an excellent job of controlling crowds during events. It is a non-violent way for the Police to handle crowds, and is also a great way for children to bond with Police Officers and animals. (That should make Raj and his buddies happy.
17 – She is a staffer to a city councilmember. Taking a public position on an issue her boss will have to make a decision on is inappropriate although at least this time she is identified as a council staffer . In the past she has not been so identified and therefore the perception is she is just an interested citizen rather than fronting for her boss.
I think John Galt is right on topic. Although compensation is a HUGE issue and should be addressed, it is secondary to defining the role of our council and government.
What scares me is that over the years we’ve come so far here in San Jose that there is no turning back. There is too much money and power to be had, and too many organizations and individuals that rely on that power and the subsequent allocation of “free” money.
Unfortunately I know too many local residents who can’t imagine a government that doesn’t take money from local residents to support whatever the thought of the day is.
Look where we are, we have an Office of Cultural Affairs for crying out loud. We fund discovery museums, tech museums, heritage plazas, arts programs, charitable giving, healthcare initiatives, property development, sports organizations, golfing, mansions (I mean conference centers), zoos….I could go on for pages.
How did we get here? Will there ever be a point where there won’t be enough people actually providing goods and services to tax and provide for the livelihood of all these people and programs?
Pat Waite,
Me back-off? Never!
I understand why my posts appear contradictory, and it may well be my fault, but the key component in my argument is (and was always meant to be) decision-making power. Bargaining groups may get to decide what they will seek, but the decision that matters, the one that extracts dollars from the treasury, is never theirs to make. It doesn’t really matter what they want or what they deserve, what they will get will be determined by the decisions of our elected/appointed officials (or, rarely, by an arbitrator).
You are correct in pointing out that government unions can, through financial contributions and volunteered time, impact elections, but they can only capitalize on their investment if the candidate is successful, willing to do business, politically savvy enough to see the deal done, and lucky enough to have an agreeable political environment. To equate this process to the unions themselves having decision-making power is something I’m not inclined to do, at least until the day comes when I myself purchase something, say my utilities, in so chancy a manner.
Recognizing the bargaining unit’s lack of decision-making is key to understanding how they became so highly politicized. It was their innate powerlessness that left them, many decades ago, at the mercy of what turned out to be a corps of merciless administrators, professionals who built their reputations and careers by keeping their employees on bread and water (prior to the Meyers, Milias, and Brown Act of forty years ago, having a government job meant moonlighting to get by). Eventually the bargaining units got the message, educated their members to the realities, upped the monthly dues, and began to assemble the political clout that would get them some clout at the bargaining table.
The history of government labor relations in this state is filled with examples of employee groups having to fund costly legal battles just to get their employers to obey the law. The powerful bargaining units that you see today owe their clout and success to the arrogant and self-centered city managers and county executives of yesteryear who got them started, and the wheeling and dealing politicians of today who keep ‘em going.
finfan, good analysis of how we got where we are. The problem is that the unions are getting the people that they want elected, then creating policy and law that further cements the union position (do you really think last winter’s outsourcing memo was independently penned by Herrera, Kalra or Pyle?).
This incestuous behavior is one reason that total compensation for city employees has skyrocketed over the past 8 years. Unfortunately, there is no real centricity within the non-union voting populace, so a small minority of the citizenry is dictating city policy.
It’s kind of the analog of business, where management gets to dictate things like compensation to shareholders. Neither is a good situation to be in.
Tina Morrill #23,
You’re right Tina. Showing up and putting PUBLIC pressure on them. That IS the bottom line, isn’t it.
When we have “representatives” such as mine, Judy Chirco, who always take the easy way out, it’s vital that we don’t GIVE them an easy way out. Unfortunately, unlike finfan’s “bargaining units”, who diligently work for THEIR constituents, our own “bargaining units” (our council representatives) will respond to whomever happens to put the most pressure on them.
Quite a sad commentary on the state of our democracy, but true nonetheless.
So, with all this back and forth discussion over unions and their benefits are any of you, the SJI crowd, willing to face the Mayor and City Council this Tuesday May 12th at 7:15PM in Council Chambers to share your views and make your recommendations? I hope so. They need to hear it.
Tina
#23 (Tina)
I plan on it. Thanks for reminding us.
Pat #22,
You wrote: “there is no real centricity within the non-union voting populace…”
I have no idea how residents in my district decided how to vote in the most recent council election. The Mercury News ran one or two small bio articles. The campaign mailers were lacking in any detail. No publicized candidate forums. The end result is a council member who is serving special interest groups and not the district residents.
The apathy surrounding council elections may be caused by candidates who have nothing new to offer and no interest in changing city hall in any significant way.
Did you know that christmas gift giving started around 1850 with a revival of the X-mas festival and the popularity of Saint Nicholas. The giving of gifts for children, women, men, wives and husbands became popular. Advertisers in the 1920s promoted the idea of X-mas shopping and presents. A Xmas present was viewed as a way to promote family togetherness. Xmas now is typically the biggest annual economic stimulus for many nations. Mom and dad search hard for Xmas gift ideas for their family, trying to come up with suggestions for a unique present. Christmas sales increase dramatically in almost all retail areas and shops – including websites – as they introduce new products as people purchase gifts, decorations, and supplies.
You can Learn more about the history of X-mas here: <a >ideas</a>
Presents for mom
Christmas Ideas
Christmas Suggestions
St NicK
Christmas Trees