San Carlos Budget Cuts: Time is Running Out

Bob,
What do the people who are angry want done? Do they want the city to try another revenue measure, or do they want to fight for cuts instead of outsourcing?

I hadn’t heard that the opposition to Measure U was based in Sacramento. I’d like more information about that.
I may be that person in the middle. I was very much in favor of Measure U and am still angry that it didn’t pass. I also think the pensions granted during boom times have to be reconsidered. Unions in other cities are agreeing to pay cuts in order to avoid the kind of cuts we’re facing. Why isn’t that happening here? Why did the City Manager decide that we would only consider two possible paths? Why haven’t all possible solutions been considered publicly?
I will be thrilled if we can muster 1,000 San Carlos citizens to tell the Council to do its job and listen when the people speak. I remember so clearly how they sat through that long public comment period at the budget study session, without one person speaking in favor of outsourcing, took a ten minute break, and commenced to discuss outsourcing as though it were a foregone conclusion.
What I don’t understand is the lack of criticism of the three Councilmen who have decided they know better than we do what kind of city we want to live in. They were elected to represent us, the city manager serves at the pleasure of the council, and the staff works for the city manager. So the council is responsible for all the decisions being made. There’s a lot of ranting and raving about the staff, but not much talk about holding the council’s feet to the fire. They could, as has been suggested, start the process over and do it right, with public input into what the “paths” look like. Reserves can be used to cover expenses over the summer while we decide as a community how we want to solve the problem. A thousand votes is enough to make a big difference in a San Carlos election, so maybe that would slow them down. I hope so.

Hi Rob,
That’s a good question. My understanding is that the city cannot have another similar ballot measure similar to Measure U, for at least two years. I can’t say that there is any type of uniform response from Group #1. Most would like to see the city do whatever it has to in order to keep police and fire until another measure could be taken to the ballot box.
Bob

Bob,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Pat,
I was at that meeting as well. No one spoke out in favor of cuts either. The public told the council don’t outsource, don’t close anything. That kind of public comment is worthless. No one wants anything to change, but the citizens won’t give any more money. I really feel for all five of the councilmen. They are in a really tough spot. If they listened to the citizens San Carlos would go bankrupt.

I disagree with the sentiment that the city council just ignores the will of the public. Generally outsourcing services is going to be unpopular, but with no additional revenue, something has to change. Maybe the next measure U equivalent will pass in a year or two. But for now, we can’t agree on a new source of revenue (sadly).

The more I think about this mess, the more it becomes clear that the elephant in the room is employee staffing and employee salary/benefit costs. Despite the differences in opinions, I would think both groups are against bloated staffing numbers, salaries, and beneifts. The difference, IMO, is that group 2 believes fixing that perceived problem is required before any other solutions are considered while group 1 is less optimistic that the problem can be solved immediately and wants to pursue other solutions in parallel.
While I agree with Rob that the citizenry is providing no help whatsoever with a “no revenue / no cuts” mentality, I think there is a critical need for the City Council to break this stalemate around the staffing and compensation. Specifically, it is up to them to accurately educate the citizens of San Carlos by conducting a thorough analysis of the following:
1) Context: How does San Carlos’s staffing model and salary/benefits align with other peer communities in the Bay Area? In other words, is this a market problem or a San Carlos problem?
2) Solutions/Options: What can/has been done to address future staffing, salaries, and benefits (future contracts/agreements)? What can/has been done to address owed beneifts/salaries (past contracts/agreements)? This section isn’t a recommendation; rather an outline of what’s legally realistic to address the problem.
3) Recommendations: What does the City Council recommend and what are the short-term and long-term financial impacts of that recommendation? By extension, what is the remaining deficit that staffing/salary/benefit restructuring does not address?
To me, this is the wedge issue. And while an analysis that answers and communicates the above questions won’t unify the entire citizens, I would think it would go a long way to building more consensus on what needs to be done. If the staffing/compensation issue alone would address the fiscal problem, then Group 1 would care less about the revenue measures; on the flip side, if that issue was satisfactorily addressed with Group 2 yet a deficit remained, I would think that would satisfy enough to now support other measures.
IMO, the failure by the City to gather and widely disseminate this information as well as offer up symoblic cuts to appease the emotion associated with government spending has made a difficult situation even worse.

Perhaps I am also one who is in the middle.
I voted against Measure U because a sales tax is a lousy way to bridge the gap. I have seen a number of businesses fail downtown. Raising sales tax would have just caused shoppers to go elsewhere and accelerate the business failures.
I would have supported a parcel tax or some other means of raising revenue, but not increasing sales taxes.

first off being a employee of a city I can tell you that when my union went to the city and offered to take furlough days to do our part in helping bridge the budget gap we were told the city was not intrested and that it was just a bandaid approach. In response to the comment about our pensions I can tell you this, management offered it to the workers in return for pay freezes some years ago. At the last negotiation my union agreed to a two tier system of any new hires in our unit. Now as far as what management has done well they gave up a raise they never got and patted themselves on the back for doing such a noble thing. This problem has been a long time coming and nothing was done when it should have been. Now on that note the council just approved another management posistion in the public works division of the general services division which I am a part of. They felt this wss necessary because the public works superintendent oversaw to many staff for what industry standards have set. I myself have a hard time swallowing that. We are talking about a $125,000 that supervises around eleven people and that is too many. The city is made up of around 105+ employees and 23 of them are managers. I am not sure about the private sector but that is one hell of a ratio. With the outsourcing of the parks the city will lose employees in the general services division which most citizens don’t know take on call for sewer and emergency issues and work storm duty along with their normal job duties. When the oursourcing is adopted on june 28 they will be five less people available to handle issues when they arise in the city. As far as compensation for the general services (oublic works & parks) we are some of the lowest paid in towns of equal size while the city manager makes close to what the city manager of san jose makes. Management made no real attempt to take creative approach to fixing this problem but would rather cut from the bottom which are the people which physically take care of and maintain san carlos not those who set policies and procedures.

Article in the SF Chronicle 6/3/10.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/03/MN4M1DFVT8.DTL

The city is already getting ready to install the proper language as far as contracting out the parks department. I believe regardless of what any resident wants as far as not outsourcing the council (not grocott) just want to take the easy was out. Council man Grocott proposed a plan to reduce pay across the board which would affect every employee and balance the budget.
Management doesn’t want to take a pay cut it is easier for them to cut from the bottom and destroy the sense of community in this city.
Ask council why it is that when management makes bad decisions their is no consequence but if we were to under perform for eight years straight we certainly would have been fired.

City Insider,
You should speak at the council meeting and offer up 20%+ of your pay, and let the council know that the rest of your union is willing to do the same. I am sure the council would listen then. But the only things I have heard the employees say is don’t outsource. Put your money where your mouth is and make it public. If you did, I am sure the council wouldn’t ignore you. Even on this blog there is no way to prove you are a city employee. Stand up and go public, until you do, all you are doing is complaining.

To Rob,
Thank you for the words of encouragement but I would have to say a 20% cut in pay is a bit extreme I don’t make what everyone seems to think a maintenance worker makes so a 20% paycut way to extreme. Public perception is that we makes bags of money not the case for the average worker. For the upper folks in the organization perhaps but not the commoners. I don’t know of anyone who is willing to offer that. As far as me offering up 20% would mean everyone would have to offer up 20% and the chances of that happening are slim. As far as what you have heard apparently your aren’t hearing a whole lot because you are misinformed. I have spoke at a council meeting if you must know and it got me absolutely no where. How else am I to make what I have to say public found this blog thought it to be a good way to inform folks of how management is going about this.

A bit exteme. Every 10% translates in about a million dollars. So 20% wouldn’t even plug the hole. So if you are not willing to give that up, what solution do you expect? Let me guess… more money from the citizens who already pay your salary.

A 20% cut across the board is perfectly fine. Look at the alternative, you may lose your job and not get a chance at making close to the same amount with the same benefits for several years… This is something a lot of us have had to deal with for several years already… enough taxes, at one point the madness of milking citizens over & over, ballot propositions after another, underfunded budget after another is enough! I still want to see hard numbers on city employees income & benefits. I want to see the number$$$$ because they tell a story… One easy to read web site for a 10 years old to understand! The longer it takes to get this out to the public the more you’ll get us to think you’ve got something to hide.

yes a bit extreme could you afford to live in this area on a 20% pay cut? All I know is I don’t make nearly enough dough to afford that kind of reduction. Besides 20% from me is about oh I don’t know 10,000 know why don’t you ask city management the same question? Now you are talking some serious dollars. Besides is what we make really too much when you think about the fact someone decides to flush something down a toilet which shouldn’t be and you have a whole streets worth of sewage running down the street not a value to you? You can not even imagine the things city workers see and deal with. This being a public forum I won’t even begin to tell you some of the things I have seen in the city sewer system alone. Yeah I know it is probally pesant work to most but I guarantee most residents would not want to deal with it. Even the fact if you have a blocked lateral line at you home and decide at three oclock in the morning that it is a inconvenience to you and decide at that moment to call the city someone is there within forty five minutes to assure it is not something wrong with city portion of the system. So before you go running on and on about things you obviously don’t know maybe you should educate yourself on the matter.

A half cent sales tax would not have hampered SC business. The Chamber of Commerce supported it, so did my business.
Measure U failed because of low voter turn out and a lack of understanding about how the general fund works. I was on the camapign committee. We were accused of gloom and doom threats with the cuts that would take place if the revenue measure failed. Well, guess what? They weren’t threats. The voters are getting exactly what they (didn’t) vote for.

I have been surprised that the public has gotten little if any information about the closed session total compensation negotiations between the city and all of unions. As taxpayers, I hope all of you are writing the city and council members and demanding this. Also, I don’t even understand why he public sector has so many unions (~9 times as much as private sector) with all the worker safety and employment laws protecting workers these days. Maybe I can understand police, fire and teachers unions (all very powerful), but come on, as an example, why does the Management group need a union? IMO, the power of unions (Interpret as political power and ability to support candidates and influence elections) is out of control in government and collective bargaining over wages, guaranteed wage increases regardless of the economy, benefits,… at the city, state,… levels is what is making so many of our municipal and CA state budgets unsustainable. It is up to all the taxpaying citizens to pay attention to deals that are made with the unions and compare them to the private sector compensation to individually decide if they are fair and sustainable. Certainly the benefit increases over the last 5-10 years have not been sustainable. Read the daily news or specifically the SM grand jury report if you still do not believe the public employee total costs are sustainable with just one more small tax increase (http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury)/2008/Employee_compensation.pdf).
If the SC city and city employees truly wanted to maintain services and keep a locally controlled police and fire, why haven’t they collectively agreed (all the unions) to significant long-term total compensation cuts (salary and benefit cuts). For example, switching to a defined contribution 401K type retirement system instead of the unsustainable pensions? (just like in the private sector). If they cannot give up their pension, how about agreeing to significantly raise the retirement age to 65 yrs old? (with big ~50% reduction if you want to retire at 50 or 55). Any of you in the private sector thinking you will be able to comfortably retire at 50 or 55yrs old? I know many will argue about the police and fire have to retire early (as if they have no other marketable skill after 55yrs old) , but as an example, why do the Management group need to be able to retire at 50 or 55 yrs old with a big pension? They don’t, but they WANT to so that they can either retire young or get another cushy government or consultant job for a few years and make even more money. IMO, even the two tier system for new employees is not significant enough change (2.7 decreased to 2.5% salary per year for pension). Temporary wage freezes (with union contracts that inflate future salary increases to make up for the loss, do not make a longterm fix).
If you agree, make your voice heard about the inflated city total compensation (especially benefits) soon, because now is the time. It definitely should be part of the budget solution.

city insider
Your comments are infuriating – with hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work how dare you compare a 20% paycut to what is really the extreme – no income at all – to the current situation faced by so many educated, hard-working people. If you think for one minute that those of us in the private sector – who fund their own retirement and a good portion of their health benefits – have emerged with our 2007 income levels intact you are really out of touch with reality.

Bob, We can put a revenue measure on the ballot once a year. In a year when there is no municipal election, like this year, we can’t put a revenue measure on the ballot without the council voting unanimously to declare a fiscal emergency. Matt refused to do that in ’08, which is why “U” wasn’t on until last year. There are a lot of hoops to jump through, and it all has to be wrapped up almost 3 months before the election (August), so anyone who wants a measure on the November ballot, including citizens, had better get busy.

Had the city undertaken a process to involve citizens in designing the solution to the problem, as the county did, they could have taken our priorities into account. They would have known how important the Youth Center and public safety are to the citizens of SC. Instead, the staff set the priorities behind closed doors and presented the council with two alternatives, to the shock of the public.
They could have started this process months ago. Instead, Mark Weiss once again waited until there wasn’t time to consider other alternatives and presented what he wants.
The same thing happened when the choice was made to put a sales tax on the ballot. He presented it and told the council there wasn’t time to consider other revenue measures; they had to vote yes or no on the sales tax that night. That choice was mishandled from start to finish, but that’s another long story.
The Board of Supervisors was in a similar position recently, but they didn’t knuckle under to the manager, they told him to bring it back to them with more information and options. The Board of Supervisors is clear about who is responsible to the voters and who works for whom. Our council acts like they work for Weiss, not the other way around.
We have two councilmen who are willing to step back and take another look at this problem and three who want to rush headlong down Mark Weiss’s preferred “path.” Once that’s done, he retires and we pay for his medical care for the rest of his life, as well as his generous retirement. Then the same three cowboys who decided they know what’s best for us will hire his replacement.

Insider,
Thank you so much for speaking out. I hope others will speak out and let us know how many unions were told not to bother taking a cut. Of course if you all took a cut it would make management look bad, worse, for not taking a cut.
There are lots of possibilities, including employee pay cuts. It’s not just 20% cuts for everyone or forget it. It could be pay cuts for everyone, larger percentages for higher paid employees and smaller cuts for the people who actually do the work, along with some service cuts, restructuring the administration so that we don’t have so many big salaries, and -the big one- retirement reform.
If people who have desk jobs worked until they are old enough to qualify for MediCare, their retiree medical would be much cheaper. It makes sense for public safety employees to retire at 50 or 55, but not desk jockies. If they want to retire early and can afford it, they should be allowed to stay in the city’s insurance plan and pay the same premiums the city pays for them while they’re working. I don’t know how much that would save because they never present those figures, but I do know that retiree medical is a huge expense.
Staff will tell you that it is illegal to cut retirement benefits for current employees, which is true, but other agencies have fired everyone and hired them back, which means they’re now new employees. The employees don’t like it, but they seem to come back.

The comparison of city workers with workers in the private sector is an apples:oranges argument.

MKS,
I’m glad someone else thinks retiring at 50-55 is crazy. I’m an old lady, so to me 65 seems like retirement age. Cal State professors, at least a few years ago when my neighbor retired, got 2.5% at age 60, or maybe it was 62, with medical insurance that pays what MediCare doesn’t. That was a rate negotiated during the boom times, when our city employees were negotiating 2.7% at 55, so that was high for college professors. Why should city desk jockies get a better deal than college professors?
There are all kinds of reason not to compare them with private sector, but they’re doing way better than state employees.

Why is it an apples:orages argument? The Private Sector employees pay the public employee salary. Why should they have better retirements than we do? I have no problem with pensions, but defined benefits hit the tax payers twice in a bad economy.

Pat,
Glad you are finally coming around to understand that a significant portion of the SC budget problem is employee total compensation costs and adding just one more small tax increase will not fix the longterm structural budget problem. In general I agree with most (but not all) of your post back to Insider.
But I disagree that comparing city employees to private sector is a apples to oranges comparison. In general, public employees don’t walk on water or do things that private sector employees do not do. Let’s leave safety comparisons out of the discussion, because they are a little different. But maintenance workers are maintenance workers, in private or public sector, management is management (managing employees, overseeing subcontractors, project planning and management, risk analysis, budget management, schedule management,… all functions done in public and private sector), landscape is landscape, Admin support (HR, IS support,…) are the same job functions private or public,… etc. In fact, there are many many total compensation comparison studies done by public and private groups if you google this, with different conclusions (likely somewhat based upon who did or paid for the study and what they wanted the findings to be).
Anyways I am just advocating that the public needs to stay informed and understand the total compensation union contracts being agreed to and decide for themselves if they think it is fair, at comparable market rate, and sustainable. Key questions to ask related to public vs private benefits are: is my retirement health care paid for?, do I get a big retirement pension that I can retire on at 55 yrs or will I have till 65 yrs old without a big pension and instead a 401K defined contribution self managed plan? do I get paid overtime (1.5x rate) for any work over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week or this it just expected to get the job done however long it takes? do I get paid a certain number of hours for being “on call” when I don’t get called in for work? Can I cash in my vacation days if not used? Can I accumulate sick days year after year and convert them to additional service years for “pumping up my retirement” or are they just that (to be used if you are sick),… is the retirement benefit based upon a single “pumped up” highest year salary (including overtime and other(vacation pay,…)) or the average of my final 5 years salary (without adding any additional bonuses,…) and the list goes on. Here is the link to the SC city union contracts for your own comparison: http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/gov/depts/hr/memorandums_of_understanding_%28mou%29.asp

It appears that more San Carlos residents are becoming aware of what the true problem is. Revenues to San Carlos have doubled in the past 10 years. That includes Prop 13 property tax revenue which has also doubled. I ask any San Carlos family: if your income doubled in the past 10 years and you still could not balance your budget, would you say you are spending too much money? I think 98% of us would say YES!
Supporters of public employees do not want comparisions made to private employees becuase they know as the truth comes out, namely, that public employees have higher compesnation packages than private employees; the gig will end and that taxpayers will refuse to pay higher taxes to continue to pay public employees are a higher rate than private employees.
Almost half of our City employees have salaries over $100,000 – add in beenfits and average cost of a city employee is probably close to $130,000 to $140,000.
I believe JJ has it right – the second group (No new taxes) believes public employees are already paid too much and they logically ask “why should I take more money out of my pocket in the form of taxes to increase compensation to employees who might already make more than I do and have WAY BETTER retirement packages?”
Once compesnation packages for City employees are adjusted to reality, let’s see where we are and then perhaps support could grow for additional taxes in the future.
I for one believe there is still lots of excess spending that can be cut – from the TOP of the City structure to the entry level position.
Comparision of salaries between cities is kind of irrelevant right now. It is obvious ALL cities will need to lay off workers or reduce salaries.
In another couple years, this will all shake out and salary levels for public employees will move closer to those in private employment.
Salaries in the private sector have come down and unemployment is over 12% in CA. Why should public employees be exempt from these economic realities?
Based on these comments, I am happy to see that San Carlos residents have a better understanding of the problem. It is not Prop 13. It is not we need more revenue.

MKS,
I have never said that one tax would solve the problem. I want a tax plus reform. We have cut employees every year, and that’s not sustainable either.
I’m tired of arguing about public v private. All of you who think it’s a sweet deal to work for the city just went into the wrong line of work.
Arn, I haven’t read all of your post; I assume it’s the same old stuff. I did see at the end that you still think there are cuts to be made. Be specific, what cuts? It IS Prop 13, and we DO need more revenue. Every time I explain why expenses have gone up for reasons other than employee compensation, you ignore it. I’ve concluded it is not possible to discuss anything with you, and I’ve read your rant before.

Hey Arn,
The employee compensation issues (retirement, etc) for public employees is a state-level union issue. It has to be dealt with as such. The city can’t just start cutting without getting sued. These are long-term, systemic, statewide issues. If you were a bit more politically aware, you’d know that. No doubt reform is needed, but with all due respect, your one-dimensional anti-tax rants, while wonderful to imagine, are naive. They don’t take into consideration the reality of the situation, like it or not. But by all means, get busy union-busting. It may take a while so you’ll need to stay committed,Probably for at least 10-15 years. Come on, run for office!

LT,
Thanks for the rational response to Arn. I was with you until you suggested he run for office. I am so glad to have so many people engaged these days, but so many are naive.
I think there is movement at the state level to reform PERS, but you’re right, it will take forever. They did cut out some of the waste this year, which is a start.

Pat, LT and the rest of the SC residents on this blog should read: 2009 – 2010 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT titled ” CITIES MUST REIN IN UNSUSTAINABLE EMPLOYEE COSTS”
http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2010/CitiesMustReinInUnsustainableEmployeeCosts.pdf
It is very relevant to our budget issue in San Carlos, and essentially a follow-up to 2008-2009 San Mateo Grand Jury report on unsustainable SM county public employees that you should also read if you have not. http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2008/Employee_compensation.pdf
Both county Grand Jury groups essentially concluded that county/city employee total compensation has risen much faster than inflation, private sector compensation, revenue growth,… and are much too generous and are not sustainable. City employee (union in most cases including SC) contracts need to be renegotiated to implement longterm budgetary fixes.

we get it, MKS. The point is, it’s a long-term reform process. And in the meantime, cities are strapped.

LT – No apparently you and many others do not get it, because nothing is happening towards fixing the issue (i.e. reducing unsustainble employee costs) and you seem willing to wait till our city goes bankrupt before complaining or advocating for reform. Mayor Chuck Reed in SJ is basically forcing cuts on city employees (after the unions did not offer any real reform). Maybe our Mayor needs to do the same.
SC has spent countless hours of public meeting time, months of budget analysis about outsourcing or regionalizing safety, Park and Rec, scare tactics about closing youth or senior center,… and I have not heard anything about the HUGE ELEPHANT in the room about reducing city employee total compensation including retirement benefit reform. Employee costs are the LARGEST portion (maybe 70-80%) of the budget, so real longterm reform would fix the budget problem and until all the SC citizens realize this and tell the city council this, the strong unions will continue to get their way (this is how we got into this mess). We pay the taxes and should be informed about the status of closed session employee/union negotiations.
So e-mail, call,… contact the city council members and ask them what they are doing to reduce city employee total compensation costs and to create sustainable retirement reform. I am.
Pat — you attend all city council meetings, have you considered asking the city council to explain to the public what they are doing to reduce employee costs and pension reform of CURRENT employees (and don’t let them just go on about the two tier stuff for future employees – it is small peanuts in comparison). I can’t attend meetings due to work and end up watching them online afterwards.
All you out there that are worried about outsourcing safety, the real issue is the sharp increases in labor costs. If the labor costs could be reduced to reasonable and sustainable levels, San Carlos could afford to keep their own safety departments and maintain services. Think about that!
I for one will not vote for any additional taxes until this issue is fixed first (at the local and state levels)! (and I know MANY others in San Carlos feel the same way.

How does my stating the reality of the Union issue at a state level mean I don’t get it? You’re anti-tax position is all well and good. But besides lament taxes on a blog, what do you do in this town? Give me a break.

MKS,
I will deliver your message to council. They will sit there like the Terra Cota Warriors and say nothing. You need to rearrange your work schedule so you can run for council. We need you desperately!
There’s another little elephant in the room. If they outsource police and/or fire, will they have to pay everything they owe CAL PERS within one year? How much would that cost, and where would we get the money?
I would vote for another revenue measure to keep us going while we make the long-term reforms we really need. As you know, that will take time, but they should START before they ask us for more money. I would also vote to recall three of our councilmen.
What happened to the 1,000 citizen march? That would get their attention. It takes about 4,000 votes to get elected in this town, and the difference between the winner and the loser is usually a few hundred votes. It takes about 4,000 to recall a councilman. So 1,000 dissatisfied citizens should get their attention. Even a few hundred would make a statement.
If we outsource our police and fire, we’ll never get them back. Speaking of which, did you see the editorial in the Chronicle today debunking our Mayor’s “business model?”

Pat,
Why don’t you run for council?

Frustrated,
Because I am the full-time caregiver for my severely brain-injured daughter and am on three County Advisory boards/committees. I couldn’t serve on our council even if I had the time. My head would explode if I had to be polite to those people, and I wouldn’t allow myself to stoop to their level.
We are becoming the laughing stock of Peninsula cities with these guys running things, so someone will have to rehabilitate our image when they’re through. I’d like to get rid of them this November, but that would take a lot of work by a lot of people. If all the complainers were workers, this would be a very different town.

I’m not sure this is possible, but to pick up on Pat’s idea, could we embed a change in long term public employee benefits into a revenue measure? For example; Residents would vote on a revenue proposal (property assessment, added sales tax, whatever) that would stipulate a concurrent change in longer term public employee benefits (e.g., moving over time from a pension to a defined benefits retirement policy).

Tony,
That’s a technical question I can’t answer, but I think there is a way to tie two measures together so that one has to pass for the other to take effect. It seems to me I’ve seen that done, but I’m not sure where or when. We can ask the City Attorney.
It’s interesting that SF voters voted down a measure to require an increase in employee contribution to their pension plan. I think it was only 1.5%, but they said no. I wonder what the campaign was like. Can’t imagine that happening here, but if they can put it on the ballot there we should be able to do the same here.
What I want is for the council to stop this headlong rush to outsource and give us time to talk about other solutions. I think a combination of program cuts, pension reform, increased fees, restructuring (fewer managers), etc. would be better than either of Mark Weiss’s two “paths.” Randy told the press that the solution would be a combination of mark’s ideas and others’ and some he hadn’t even thought of. He also told the Chamber of Commerce we have to cut the cost of current employees, not just new employees. I haven’t seen any evidence of the slightest consideration of other options, except from Matt, just outsourcing.
I’m not a fan of Mark Weiss’s, but when the council acts like they work for him instead of the other way around, who can blame him for doing things his way? He keeps getting away with it year after year. The council is supposed to represent the citizens, not do the City Manager’s bidding. Our only control over the staff is through the council, and they have not listened to the citizens during hours of public comment.

LT,
Will you be at Monday’s council meeting? I’d like to meet you. You seem much better informed than the average citizen! It is you I meant to invite to run for council; I just got the names mixed up.