Internal polling numbers show Measure B passing in next month’s election with more than 60 percent of the vote, according to sources at City Hall.
That could be why the committee “San Jose Can Do Better-Non on Measure B SPonsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and AFSCME Local 101” has yet to submit any fundraising filings on the City Clerk’s website. It seems that unions and labor-oriented Political Action Committees (PAC) plan to fight the “pension modification” measure after it passes in court.
But on the flip side, the committee “San Jose Fiscal Reforms, Mayor Reed, Chamber PAC and IMPAC Proponents” shot out of the fundraising gates in the first three months of the year, hauling in more than $200,000 in contributions—$202,275 to be exact.
For your viewing pleasure, we’ve compiled the list of contributors. You might notice an industry trend. Anything in the thousands is accompanied with a “K” for brevity.
Contributors to San Jose Fiscal Reforms, Mayor Reed, Chamber PAC and IMPAC Proponents
Andpak Inc. — $5K
Garden City Construction — $5K
Arcadia Development Co. — $25K
Carl Cookson — $500
Therma Inc. — $15K
Zanker Road Resource Management — $5K
Richard Bothman, a retiree of Bothman Construction — $25
John Eudy, of Essex Property Trust — $150
Orchard Commercial — $1K
Robert A Bothman, Inc.— $20K
Saeed Yousuf, COO of Bothman Construction — $250
Greenwaste Recovery — $5K
San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce PAC — $15K
Zanker Road Resource Management, LTD — $5K
Clark Freitag, owner of CF Real Estate Services — $250
Garden City Sanitation in Santa Clara — $10K
The Sobrato Organization — $10K
Gary Filizetti, President of Devcon — $25K
David Neale, owner of The Core Companies — $2K
Central Valley Construction, in Stockton — $500
City-Wide Electronic Systems (El Cajon) —$500
CJS Plumbing Inc. (Reno, Nevada) — $500
Giacalone Design Services, Inc. (Pleasanton) — $500
Helix Electric (Martinez) — $500
LDI Mechanical (Corona) — $600
Normac Kitchens — $1K
SE-Solutions, Inc. (Temecula) — $500
Silverline Constructions (Gardena) — $1K
West Coast Precision Drywall (Bothell, Washington) — $1K
Barry Swenson Builder Green Valley Corp.— $10K
Geo-Logic Associates (Claremont) — $5K
Guinn Construction (Bakersfield) — $5K
Hunter/Storm LLC (Cupertino) — $10K
Lewis Engineering (Piedmont) — $500
SWT Engineering (Ontario) — $1K
In other words all of Reed’s developer buddies.theres a shock! This Ballot initiative is blatently Illegal, plain and simple. this city has never once in these last few years dealt honestly or openly with City workers. this Ballot initiative will win in a landslide at the Ballot …………………….but it will be beaten in the courts. It will cost the residents of San Jose Millions upon Millions Dollars, and Im sure once again the Mayor will blame the “Evil Empire” ( city workers).
what will happen if Measure B passes.
Just for reference here is what we were paying in the 2009-2010 fiscal year:
% of base pay paid into retirement 8.18%
% paid into retiree medical (GASB) 4.78%
Total % of our base pay paid into retirement: 12.96%
This is what we are currently paying into our retirement by percentage of base pay:
Retirement 10.38%
Retiree Medical (GASB) 7.01%
Unfunded Liability 0,08%
Total % of our base pay paid into retirement: 17.47%
In July of this year the percentage of base pay that goes into retirement will increase. (This will happen regardless of whether Measure B passes or not):
Retirement: 11.13%
Retiree Medical (GASB) 8.26%
Total % of our base pay paid into retirement: 19.39%.
Also some additional food for thought:
San Jose Police Officers agreed to a 10% pay cut that began in July of 2011 and is in effect at least until June of 2013.
San Jose Police Officers pay more into their retirement than any other police agency in the state. The standard is 9% of base pay or less.
San Jose Police Officers are currently the lowest paid police officers in the Bay Area.
Measure B will make the situation worse because it will cut even more drastically into our take home pay. Specifically I want to point out sections 6(c) and 15(c) of the initiative. What those sections say is that current employees will be required to contribute either an additional 16% of their salary into their retirement, or if that section is found to be illegal in court, the city will instead take 16% in pay cuts over the next five years. The cuts would be in 4% increments starting in July of 2013. If that weren’t bad enough, Measure B also calls for employees to pay for half the cost of retiree medical (GASB). I am told that for police, half of the cost is 16% of our base pay. That means that instead of increasing our GASB payment to 8.26%, as stated above, it would go to 16%.
So to break it down more simply:
Retirement percentage we will pay starting in July 2012 regardless of what happens with measure B: 19%
additional payment into retirement (or pay cut) if Measure B passes 16%
Additional percentage paid into GASB if measure B passes 8%
And again, we voluntarily gave up 10% of our pay last July: 10%
The percentage of your pay that will be taken out of your check: 53% (And you haven’t even paid your taxes yet!)
Now Mayor Reed and Pete Constant like to say that we can avoid having all this extra money taken out of our checks by just opting in to the “VEP” (Voluntary Election Program).
Some officers that I have talked to seem to think that this is going to be an option for them. Read this paragraph carefully so you completely understand that this is not true.
Section 7 of Measure B talks about this VEP that employees could theoretically opt into. It is a retirement plan that reduces the benefits you accrue going forward. The city says if employees opt into this plan they can avoid having all that additional money taken out of their checks. BUT………it states in the second sentence of that section, “The implementation of the VEP is contingent upon receipt of IRS approval.” Well, Orange County (among others) has been trying to get IRS approval for their similar plan for four years without success. Most legal experts say that getting such approval is unlikely since it would involve changing the federal tax code. Changing the tax code means the U.S. Congress must get involved. In other words, the city will be attempting to force its employees into a VEP that does not and will not exist.
Reed and Constant say these reforms are “reasonable”. However they will not break it down and show the public these numbers because they know the majority of people would not support it. How could anyone think that taking 53% from an employee’s paycheck is reasonable? The sad thing is that the news agencies have this information and they won’t lay it out the way I have. And because the ballot measure is long and complicated, most people will not take the time to read it. So the public remains uninformed. They are about to vote yes on something that I believe will drive San Jose police officers to other agencies much faster than the city will be able to hire replacements.
Rick,
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. This is reality folks. This is not “union spin,” or propaganda. Please, read the measure for yourself.
Even now the City is not able to keep up with attrition. When SJPD recently put out the call for new applicants only 800 people applied for 70 authorized positions. Historically we know that only about 30 to 40 are likely to make the cut. By contrast, when Oakland PD announced it was hiring earlier this year, they had 2,500 applicants for 55 positions.
SJPD used to be “the place to go,” attracting the cream of the crop. It was a well-respected PD, with the highest homicide solve rate in the country, award-winning tactical units, a top-rated police academy and field training program, among other things. Now SJPD is the place to be from.
How sad it is to see City leadership (to use the term loosely) destroy morale, devalue their employees, and decimate a once strong, highly professional work force. This has, and will continue to trickle down to a much lower quality of life for the residents of San Jose.
.
Mayor Reed goes to great lengths to claim that Measure B is reasonable “reform.” If that is the case, then why are many San Jose police officers ready to head for the hills if Reed’s scheme is approved by voters this June?
The simple answer is that Measure B will slash the take home pay of officers so badly that it will force many of them to leave the SJPD and take jobs with other agencies to earn a living wage. San Jose’s officers are already the lowest paid police in the bay area, and they pay more into their retirement than any other police agency in the region. Some people may think that officers leaving is to be expected and it won’t be that big of a problem, but when you lose 200+ officers in the next two years or less it will be impossible to replace them fast enough.
Since the SJPD is already below the minimum number of officers needed to police the city effectively, this will be a recipe for disaster. I personally know of over 30 officers that are in the background process right now with other police agencies Many are fed up and aren’t going to wait around to see what happens with Measure B.
You may be thinking that there can’t possibly be 200+ police jobs out there. Just as an example, San Francisco PD alone is planning on hiring well over 200 officers in the next 2-3 years They are heavily recruiting San Jose officers as we speak and have already hired five. They pay much more and have a good retirement plan. Other cities in the bay area also know that they don’t need to pay to hire and train new recruits because they will be able to draw on the highly trained San Jose officers that are ready to jump ship. Why hire San Jose officers and not train recruits? This is because San Jose officers are experienced and well trained. Fresh recruits in contrast cost approximately $150,000 per officer to hire and train. As of this writing, 53 officers have already resigned from the SJPD and moved on to some of these other police agencies. Of the 66 officers that were laid off last year, 30 of them declined when offered their jobs back. Add that to the 53 and you have 83 officers lost.
So what is the driving force that is causing this to happen? What is it about Measure B that is so horrible? In a nutshell, Measure B does not change a current officers’ pension; instead it makes the officers pay more of their salary into their retirement…….much more as in 53% of thier salary.
Odd that so many labor intensive companies support it.
I would vote yes on B if I was a spiteful person, but I’m not.. Not in the slightest.
My #1 issue with measure B is there’s nothing in there about eliminating spiking. I’ve talked to friends on both sides (city employees/management) and while both sides say, “OH YA, WE WANT TO GET RID OF IT” The unions didn’t really fight to get rid of it, nor did management.
People at the top both have an interest in keeping it there.
Mr. Cortese,
The POA’s latest proposal would get rid of spiking. It also would have saved almost $500 million over the next five years, more than $200 million more than what is needed to solve the problem. The Council rejected the proposal out of hand.
Hopefully these same companies will pay the legal fees when the courts affirm that the measure is illegal and award damages with fees. This precedent has been set and confirmed multiple times. Who’s bright idea was this bad legislation? The Law Offices of MEYERS NAVE.
Employee organizations are prepared for this measure to pass because the citizens are fed up with lack of services and Duh Mayor has made the employees the scapegoats rather than take responsibility for “managing” this city into 4 billion dollars of corruption based RDA debt. Vote until your hearts are content, but be prepared for the hard reality to hit you in the teeth. Years of litigation and legal fees for lawyers trying to subvert the law. Although, this is what they do right?
Demand answers people. Lawyers are going to steal all your money. Are you o.k. With that?
I’m voting No on Measure B because I have read it. I don’t need fliers or TV commercials to tell me what lies ahead if this passes….
I trust that these supporters, not one of whom is likely to suffer the often frightening effects of a slow-or-no-response police force, will demonstrate equal commitment to the cause when the measure begins racking up attorney’s fees. Of course, with the profits these “true believers” anticipate building Lew Wolff’s stadiums, what’s a million or two in court costs?
Easy to see where the mayor gave all the RDA money to, HIS BUDDIES!
The RDA left the City of San Jose with $4 billion in debt that Reed won’t discuss. Why not?
and then there is the COP Moore, very quiet throughout this whole process, does he not have any concerns for his own officers?
Personal security is the underpinning of the profession of law enforcement. It allows personnel to dedicate their lives to the service of others knowing that, in the event of a career-ending injury, they will still have some means to provide for their family and themselves. In this life-saving service, the decision to take a potentially career-ending risk must not be the equivalent of opting
for financial ruin.
The SJPOA would like to know what the Police Department direction is with regard to risk management should Measure B pass on June 5, 2012. As you are aware, under Measure B (see Section 9: Disability Retirements below), the safety net that currently allows police officers to fully execute their duties under the current risk management plan will be removed. Should Measure B pass, personnel who are called upon to risk their lives will be effectively terminated
from employment if they are injured to the point of being unable to continue to work as police officers but not injured enough to be severely disabled or on death’s doorstep
Section 9: Disability Retirements
(a) To receive any disability retirement benefit under any pension plan, City
employees must be incapable of engaging in any gainful employment for the
City, but not yet eligible to retire (in terms of age and years of service).
The determination of qualification for a disability retirement shall be made
regardless of whether there are other positions available at the time a
determination is made.
(b) An employee is considered “disabled” for purposes of qualifying for a
disability retirement, if all of the following are met:
i. An employee is considered “disabled” for purposes
ii. It is determined that 1) an employee in the Federated City Employees’
Retirement System cannot perform any other jobs described in the City’s
classification plan because of his or her medical condition(s); or 2) an employee
in the Police and Fire Department Retirement Plan cannot perform any other jobs described in the City’s classification plan in the employee’s department because of his or her medical condition(s); and
iii. The employee’s disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one
year or to result in death.
(c) Determinations of disability shall be made by an independent panel of
medical experts, appointed by the City Council. The independent panel shall
serve to make disability determinations for both plans. Employees and the City
shall have a right of appeal to an administrative law judge.
(d) The City may provide matching funds to obtain long term disability insurance for employees who do not qualify for a disability retirement but incur long term reductions in compensation the result of work related injuries.
(e) The City shall not pay workers’ compensation benefits for disability on top a of disability retirement benefits without an offset to the service connected
disability retirement allowance to eliminate duplication of benefits for the
same cause of disability, consistent with the current provisions in the
Federated City Employees’ Retirement System.
With Measure B now on the June 5, 2012 ballot, the SJPOA believes it imperative that the Department issue direction on how personnel should proceed in the event that they and their families are no longer provided with the financial security of a disability retirement. Additionally, the SJPOA would like to ensure that all mandated safety protections be in place to protect our
members from injury.
Prior to June 5, 2012 the SJPOA demands proof of the following: that a Cal-OSHA compliant San Jose Police Department Injury & Illness Prevention Plan is in place; that the Department is compliant in all mandated training and testing; that all policies and procedures are reviewed and revised to reflect legal mandates, industry standards and best practices; that all personal protective
equipment and emergency response equipment is compliant to all applicable standards and laws; and that all worksites, including training facilities are compliant to applicable standards and laws.
The SJPOA is very concerned about what impacts that Measure B will have on police operations. I look forward to hearing the Department’s risk management direction and to reviewing the requested documentation.
Several listed here along with many high profile Chamber members with the big name industries have been served by me, working their companies through the development permit process maze in City Hall, for 22 years. Forced to leave, not allowing Chuck to rob me of benefits promised, threatening even existing retirees, I will no longer serve you. Chamber and Developer influence drives the gang of 5 and their complete lack of a moral compass. I just want to thank each and every one of you who had your permits expedited with special treatment, for making a mockery of my career allowing my service to end with a stab in my back by this sociopath they call a Mayor.
Let us continue to watch the voters elect the same, on the take cronies, like the ones we have had, responsible for selling the General Plan to the highest bidder and underfunding the Retirement system for more than a decade (and then get voted to State or County legislators). Yes, the unions are afraid of the voters as the Mayor constantly reminds us. This fear is based on the voters track record of an abysmal ability to vote responsibly, but by the seat of their pants (e.g. Tropicana Blight Jr. now elected to 3 distinct legislative jobs).
Note also the measure supporters on the voter pamphlet. I guess it gives the Hispanic Chamber the same warm fuzzy feeling or National Chambers does, to know that the custodians of Gonzo Palace, essentially all Hispanic, receive no benefits and no Holidays.
That’s Classic! I wonder who will benefit from this Ballot Measure, the big businesses or the people?
Public employees are big part of the local economy. I wonder what would happen if they all decided that a BOYCOTT of the Chamber of Commerce and all the other supporters of the illegal ballot measure was in order. Thanks for supplying us with the list of the initial targets.
I suggest adding to the boycott list the Mercury News and especially State Run KLIV, that must be one of the most biased lopsided “news” stations is the country. Only Reed Town Hall sessions and now the Oliverio campaign statements, with not a single opportunity for opposing views. San Jose deserves better.
John,
I totally agree. Another radio station to boycott is KRTY also owned by outspoken Robert Keeves. He constantly gets on his free soapbox and gives his opinions behind a personal opinion statement. We should call in and see if they will air our personal opinions.
I recommend a look at the material available from the National Institute on Retirement Security to see what more responsible large government retirement systems are doing to solve the benefit funding issues. A far better source than the Chamber/Rotary driven propagandists. Note the Councilman’s recent campaign stating that Measure B “requires both city and employees to contribute to the system” suggesting to the many ill informed voters that employees currently don’t pay now. Note in the Budget Watchdog’s flyer with the Mayor prominently included the statement on Measure B “Restore services not increase pensions”. Now what union is proposing increasing pensions!? Ballot measures who’s proponents resort to lies should be discarded. Other cities have achieved fair pension modifications, San Jose has chosen slash and burn.
If measure B passes, police officers will be paying 53% of their gross salary into their retirement and will no longer be able to qualify for a medical disability if hurt doing their job. This will destroy what is left of the police department. That is not just hyperbole, that is how the measure is written. Officers will flee this department knowing they can’t afford to work here and face financial ruin if they are hurt in the course of their job. Please see through the smoke and mirrors being presented by the politicians and vote no on measure B.
One must ask themself what all these companies or individuals have in common? They all have a hell of a lot more money than the city employees that they are attacking with this completely bogus initiative. Do you think these people would donate big dollars if they did not have a lot to gain?