San Carlos Police Department Makes National Fox News

Come Bob, You know better than to call it Fox “News.” Maybe “Faux” news?

Hi Scott,
Yes….I will admit, it is not my favorite news source, but the story above on San Carlos was mostly without spin.
Bob

Just in case you missed it, San Carlos was also referenced in print edition of The Economist few weeks ago.
http://www.economist.com/node/16541692
It’s curious that San Carlos gets a large amount of attention when apparently there are other small towns in California which had to go through the same decision making process (and then some, in the case of Maywood) already. Or perhaps there were stories, but we weren’t paying attention.
That said, the “Small town budgetary news story of the year” award for 2010 appears to have been locked up by the city of Bell.

Oakland has announced it will re-hire 80 recently laid-off police officers if both 2/3 of voters approve a parcel tax and if the police officers union agrees to contribute 9% of its salary to fund pensions. No guarantee it will pass, but SC could stand to take notice of the fact that Oakland is leaving it up to the voters to decide how strongly they feel about their police protection.

PR,
Two Fire Ballot Measures and a General Fund Measure are not enough? How many times do we have to vote down a tax measure before people get it?

How many times does it take for people to understand that there is a cost to living in a community and in a civilized society and that cost is paid in taxes. Take a moment to look at our neighbors in Mexico and Canada and yes, there is a correlation between taxes paid and security of its citizens. Where would you rather visit right now?

I agree there is a cost of living, but when the people that work for the government are doing better than those who pay the taxes there is a huge problem. Pension reform is needed before anymore taxesare used. These taxes won’t go to funding public safety, they will go to funding city’s and state’s ever increasing unfunded liability.

Ray,
Why shouldn’t those working for the government (effectively working for us – the people) do well? Don’t you want good, happy people carrying on the business of government for us? I sure do. And you know what Ray, they pay taxes too! Let’s quit picking on those that work for us Ray – let’s appreciate all they do for us (though so many of us are unappreciative).
Are you carry on the malcontent lines of Arn and Matt Grocutt, Ray? Why can’t you take pleasure in the successes and well being of others?
What is your pension situation Ray, are you wishing you had a better program?
Maybe the pension reform you seek is actually a living pension for all. Many of us dread the day we fall back on to our [measly] 401 (k) funds.
MaryinSanCarlos is right – we’ll get what we pay for in terms of government – pay peanuts – get monkeys.
Ray, Matt, Arn – quit whining – get your own acts together – take pleasure in the success of others – be thankful for those that are willing to work in the public sector (and be subject to abject and unwarranted scrutiny).

Scott,
My pension did take a hit, but I will be fine in the long term. I do want others to have it well, but not at the expense of my friends and neighbors. Your pension is backed by taxes, if the market fails more tax money has to go into to back your public pension. That isn’t fair to your average worker. When our pensions take a hit we have to work more and save more. I will quit my whining when public employees are willing to take some pain as well. Who is the bigger whiner the people who have taken a hit and don’t want to pay more taxes, or the public employee who refuses to take a cut?

According to the announcements on the City of San Carlos Web Site and news articles from the Daily Journal, two groups of employees at the City – the Management Group and the Confidential Group – have taken a 5% cut in Salaries and Benefits.
So there are some salary & benefit cuts happening at the City.

A few years ago I would have agreed with those of you who advocate for just a little bit more/higher taxes to pay for all the city services (I voted for Measure U). However, with the threat of closing parks and the rec center (and as a parent) I got involved in the SC city budget details by listening online to all the recent SC city council meetings and reading all the associated information (as well as and paying close attention to other local cities budget issues as well as the CA state issues). I now agree with Ray (and Arn, but not Matt) in that the public sector actually has enough money to pay for the services we want and provide for good total compensation (salary + benefits/retirement) for the public employees — HOWEVER there is NOT enough money for the currently too high public sector total compensation packages and TITANIUM plated retirement pensions. It seems clear to me that the public sector employees (and through their unions) have gotten this sense of entitlement and forgot that the taxpayers and public are both the city employees employers (in the sense that we pay the taxes as do they for their compensation) but also their customers. I say this as, day after day I hear about more cuts to city services,…., but unwillingness of the public employees to take any sustainable longterm compensation decreases (i.e. changes to pension systems of current employees).
It used to be in the public sector, that you got paid a bit less (~5-10%) than private sector, but got a bit better benefits, pension and job security. However, in the last 10 years (after the dot com bust and latest recession and the corresponding drop in revenues/taxes), the private sector total compensation has gone down (or has been flat if you are lucky), yet the unions have continued to negotiate guaranteed salary increases and the HUGE increases in the retirement/pension systems (a recent SC council meeting stated that the safety employees salary alone has increased 40% in the last 10 years and that does not include increased costs for medical insurance or pensions). The city and state budget issues won’t get fixed until a majority of taxpayers figure it out for themselves, but we cannot afford to have public sector employees be able to retire at 55 yrs old with up to 90% of their highest last year (spiked salary) for the next 26+ years of their life. Take for example a SC city employee retiring today at 55yrs old (after 33 yrs employment) with a $165,000 salary (~management compensation)– the first year they will get 90.75% of $165,000, plus $610 per month longevity bonus (both which are then increased yearly with inflation up to 2%).
Below is the amount they will get over the next 26 years (till 81 yrs old which is the current calpers actuarial life expectency for a male in their 50’s). THIS pension cumulative payout AMOUNTS to over $5.2 MILLION dollars (and over $6.5 MILLION for a safety employee that retires at 50 yrs old and lives to 81 yrs old).
2.75% @ 55 yrs old (assumed 2% inflation per year)
—————————————————–
Retire-
ment current Cum Cum
yr pension pension Longevity Cumulative
yr pay pay Pay Total Pay ($)
—- —– —— —– ————–
26 245660 5041797 241560 5283357 (OVER $5.2 MILLION dollars!!!)
25 240843 4796137 230434 5026571
24 236121 4555294 219454 4774747
23 231491 4319173 208620 4527793
22 226952 4087682 197933 4285614
21 222502 3860729 187392 4048121
20 218139 3638227 176998 3815225
19 213862 3420088 166750 3586838
18 209669 3206226 156648 3362874
17 205557 2996557 146693 3143250
16 201527 2791000 136884 2927884
15 197575 2589473 127222 2716695
14 193701 2391898 117706 2509603
13 189903 2198196 108336 2306532
12 186180 2008293 99113 2107406
11 182529 1822113 90036 1912149
10 178950 1639584 81106 1720689
9 175441 1460634 72322 1532955
8 172001 1285192 63684 1348876
7 168629 1113191 55193 1168384
6 165322 944562 46848 991410
5 162081 779240 38650 817890
4 158903 617159 30598 647757
3 155787 458257 22692 480949
2 152732 302470 14933 317403
1 149738 149738 7320 157058
This level of pension payout is NOT SUSTAINABLE or AFFORDABLE (with higher salaries and longer lifespans). How many of you expect to retire at 55 yrs old and know that you have a guaranteed income stream that totals over $5 million dollars over your expected average lifespan. Current social security requires you to work till 66 yrs old for full benefits and you get maybe ~< 20% of final pay.
Also, I was not impressed by the minor decrease in total compensation the SC management employees union took (nor the fact that they agreed to a third tier decrease in pensions for FUTURE employees — it is easy to decrease someone else's compensation) — what is needed is a decrease to the CURRENT city employees (and CA public sector employees in general) total compensation — particularly the pensions. I would have known that the management group truly understood the current SC budget crisis if they agreed to REAL sustainable decreases to the CURRENT employees total compensation/pensions. Personally (as a taxpayer), I think it would be fair to go back to a 2% per year system and allow a public employee to retire with full pension at 65 yrs old (and decrease the payments up to 50% to those that want to retire at 62 yrs old. No retirement payments before 62 yrs old). The pension calculation salary basepoint should be an average of the last 5 years (to avoid spiking). This way a public sector employee could retire at 65 with ~ up to 60-80% max of their avg pay for the next 16 years average lifespan to 81 yrs old. Any public sector employees willing to agree to these type of changes? (I bet none will). This modified retirement benefit would still be much better than the private sector systems which have abandoned unsustainable pensions for defined contribution 401K type systems. (Note: defined contribution systems are much better for our children in that it is a pay as you go system and does not "kick the can" down the road for future generations to have to pay for bills of the past).
Once decreases to make the public sector total compensation more in line with current private sector compensation are made, then I will consider voting for additional taxes (but then I don't expect we will have budget issues, given that the majority of the public sector expenses are employees).

Well written KM!

What gets me is how much interest (and envy) so many of us have in the retirement programs of public employees – yet we neglect our own retirement programs. How much of this debate is fueled by our own worries re: how meager our own 401(k) funded retirements are going to be? And why is that so many of us seemed destined to have meager retirements?
The public employees ought to thank God and the unions that the union bosses were sharp enough to negotiate for pensions that will allow a sustainable/dignified quality of life after retirement.
Maybe we ought to be looking at ourselves, and to our legislatures, for allowing the retirement system to degrade into what it is today (-some say financing Wall Street fat cats) for those of working in the private sector.
And for those of us working in the private sector – so many of the posts I’ve read make it seem pretty grim – maybe we ought to look at where all the revenue is going. It isn’t as much to taxes as we’re led to believe – net tax loads are as low as they have been since the 50’s.
Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1% (those making more than $350 k) increased by 176% (that’s almost trebled), compared to an increase of 69% for the top quintile (those making $92 k+) overall, 20% for the fourth quintile ($55-$92 k), 21% for the middle quintile ($35-$55 k), 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile. For the same time span the aggregate share of after-tax income held by the top percentile increased from 7.5% to 14% (that means the top 1% are getting 14% of the dough). The diminishing political clout of labor unions, resulting from declining union membership rates, and lower tax rates for those in the upper income rangea, as well as decreased expenditure on social services are commonly cited as the main causes of this trend.
Those in the third and fourth quantile are whining the loudest – the future is not bright – and though they may not outwardly know that – they feel something is not right. Matt, Arm, Ray – this is you – isn’t it? Think and reflect deeply.
So why pick on public employees? – they’re easy pickings. Many of us used to disdain them – and many of us worship(ed) those that are in the top 1% and higher of the income ranges. We’d all love to pulling down $500k – how can we disdain that which we yearn to be? And with this group think, we have a culture similar to that that took down Piggy in Lord of the Flies.
A problem is that to be that which we yearn to be, has a huge social cost – it’s often achieved at the peril of many of those in the middle and lower quartiles. There are only so many dollars – if someone (or a small group) is getting 95% of them – that doesn’t leave much for the rest of us.
Isn’t our disdain misplaced? (And I ask this while I reside in the top 1%). Shouldn’t we be pining to do something about the redistribution of wealth that is occurring to the benefit of the top 1/2% (much of it not earned by toil, but by privilege and happenstance)?
Why are we picking on the little guy? If we can’t be happy with our own lot, why not rather go after Goliath? Sincerely, why is it that so many of us think that way?

A local news story on SCPD outsourcing mentioned that the proposal received from San Mateo County Sheriff’s Dept would retain every single officer at current salary plus the ability to hire additional officers as well. I’m thinking the reason is liability. Aside from all the discussion on private vs public employers (why wouldn’t you want happy private employees either ???) I’m assuming the city has to have steep liability premiums. Take note of the State of California writing a $20M check to Jaycee Dugart (sp) and all the money that SF has to pay out due to Muni accidents this is just what I happened to read I’m sure there’s many more examples of taxpayer money. For a better understanding of what happens when taxes are continually raised, research what happens as a result (people stop spending). How about some concern for unemployment rate since that directly impacts the tax rolls. Research when and where things are working and when/where they’re not (and why) rather than having a myopic view on cable news stations and why people are trying to hold the line on their expenses.