Rebecca Kaplan: My solution to police pension stalemate
There is a win-win solution to Oakland’s stalemate over police layoffs. There is an alternative to layoffs and to the impasse over pensions that is financially responsible. We must act to preserve the time, money and effort that has gone into recruiting and training our new officers, avoid layoffs, and get them back on the beat. As Chief Batts has recently pointed out, crime tends to peak in August and September, we need to act now to break this impasse.
The stalemate centers around the police officers’ union (OPOA) request for a three year no layoff pledge in exchange for the Officers paying their “employee share” pension contribution of 9%. This pension contribution would be an important part of helping to build a long-term financially sustainable system.
I think we should accept and I have a proposal that allows us to do so. My proposal avoids the need for police layoffs, gets the 9% pension contribution from the OPOA and does not require our residents to pay a new $360 parcel tax.
We were asked to refrain from publicly discussing our proposals, until negotiations ended, but given the lack of a resolution and the urgency for Oakland to resolve this logjam I am putting it forward now.
My proposal is during the next three years (the duration of the OPOA’s current contract) as long as the City honors its no lay off guarantee the police continue to pay the 9% toward their pension. We can avoid layoffs both by agreeing to a retirement program and by taking other steps to improve our financial situation. In order to protect all parties to the agreement, I would propose a provision that if layoffs took place during the contract, the pension contribution would be reduced to 4%.
A combination of normal attrition and the savings from the 9% would allow us to avoid police layoffs, while also giving us the opportunity and time to reach agreement on other cost-saving/non-layoff solutions for our police force. This would meet the police union’s demands of no layoffs and take a much-needed step toward necessary structural change.
Many of the recently laid off officers are some of our youngest and most diverse. They also cost less than older officers. Taxpayers have made a significant investment in their recruitment and training. This is an investment that cannot be wasted. We save much more money by allowing more senior officers to leave the force through a retirement program like the one requested by OPOA, rather than laying-off the most junior officers.
We must include other ways to reduce costs while assuring public safety. These include achieving full compliance with the Riders settlement so that we can move sworn officers from Internal Affairs to community policing, and civilianizing certain tasks, such as intake of civilian complaints and clerical tasks, to lower costs and increase efficiencies.
Other cities are using civilians to do routine clerical tasks previously done by police officers. The civilians cost about half what a police officer costs. This frees up more cops for patrol and community policing efforts. Here in Oakland we need to work together in a way that everybody contributes and shares in providing for the public safety and the fiscal sustainability of our city.
Rebecca Kaplan is Oakland’s City Councilmember at-Large and a candidate for Mayor. Follow her on Facebook, Twitter, and at KaplanForMayor.org.
Get Updates
Newest Comments
- len raphael: Unconfirmed that MJQ laid off 100 employees today, blaming RDA court case. How much did she and the CC waste in legal fees betting against Jerry’s lawyers?
- ralph: No, Livegreen, Occupy Oakland is doing plenty good. They are the poster children for the new, “This is Your Brain on Dope” Campaign.
- Livegreen: They seem to b determined to shut down Oakland and little else. They’ve forgotten Wall St. I can’t help but think the Officers who were preventing them from breaking in to City Hall could have spent...
- gregory mcconnell: The Occupest disrupted City Hall today. They managed to make it difficult, but not impossible, to go into City Hall. They demanded that people who accosted cops on Wednesday should be released. I was out...
- livegreen: I watched the M-Y mtg last night, & it was painful. Jose is a nice guy, but he has difficulty running a meeting that gets anything done. They debated for about 1 hour whether they should discuss recommendations...
- len raphael: The murder of 5 year old Gabriel Martinez. Got a call from an acquaintance who lives in East O and often gets supper at his family’s taco stand. She asked where she can sign up to help on the recall.
- Ravi: I’m sure that all of those Quan diehards (“a recall would be a waste of time and too expensive”) are very gratified that this lovely and deserving woman is having such a good time. No doubt they prefer...
- len raphael: JQ “”I’m actually having a lot of fun,” she said after rehashing many of the lower moments from her first year in office.” “http://www.insidebayare a.com/news/ci_19651889R...
- Ravi: And regarding police reform and the crime thing, Judge Henderson could decide to put OPD under Federal jurisdiction because the terms of the NSA haven’t been fulfilled by the City Administration. Those folks in City...
- len raphael: Harbinger of things to come to the City Council when they eventually have to make similar decisions. But they won’t. The Fed bankruptcy judge will do it for them.
- livegreen: Yeah, but OUSD has to do something. There are way too many schools for the school population. There’s simply no choice. At least they’re willing to make the tough decisions. Unlike the City of...
- len raphael: Are those school board recalls entirely over the school closing decisions? Different groups or one umbrella?
- Ravi: Two recall petitions for Quan; five recall petitions for five school board members.
- len raphael: City says there are now 7 concurrent recall petitions. Not clear how many are for Quan and how many for Council Members. Direct democracy at work.
- Ravi: Can the Oakland City Council lead? Nope, nor can the Mayor. It’s up to the citizens, who are deeply divided and have been for a very long time.
- len raphael: Oakland Local is the only on or offline general circulation media that shows understanding of the depths of our fiscal situation and understands that it’s causes precede the real estate crash. One of these...
- Mkilian: Related to the Cal Supremes haircut to Oakland with respect to RDA and the immediate need for a “fiscal operations plan” is another issue put forth in Oakland’s internet newspaper, Oakland Local, is...
345 Responses to “Rebecca Kaplan: My solution to police pension stalemate”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
July 29th, 2010 at 10:41 am
promising no layoffs for 3 years in a time of highly volatile budgets? Reducing contributions if there are layoffs?
Take it from someone who has to manage $5M->$15M/year budgets based on the challenge i’ve been asked to take on: that is naive thinking at its best, negligence/dereliction of duty at its worst.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am
From the public’s perspective, allowing the police force to be reduced by attrition is essentially the same thing as a layoff. A reduced police force is a reduced police force. The only people who care about layoffs are the people being laid off. Even the police union doesn’t really care. What the public cares about is the size of the police force. Right now, its at around 686. With natural attrition of 50 officers a year, it will be down to 486 in four years. Tax or no tax, this is simply unacceptable.
As horrendous as layoffs are, they are the only negotiating tool the City really has given that the City made the tremendous mistake of giving OPOA such a lengthy contract in such bad economic times. We know that the 9% pension contributions aren’t actually enough to keep the City financially stable. In fact, the concessions need to be far more significant. Concessions need to be obtained from every sector of City government. I don’t see how this proposal will address the City’s long-term financial problems, or address the need to have a police force that is AT LEAST 800 officers.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:27 am
You can’t seriously discuss the overall situation regarding the police layoffs without also discussing the proposed Measure Y “fix” the City Council voted to place on the November ballot. The City Council is out of touch with reality if they believe the residents of the City of Oakland are going to allow them to collect $20 million dollars per year under Measure Y without any restrictions on the number of sworn police officers required. If you really wanted the voters in the upcoming election to take you seriously as one who is trying to offer real solutions to this problem, you would have taken seriously the proposal made by Make Oakland Better Now! on how to fix Measure Y. That proposal would have minimized the number of police officers losing their jobs AND would not have required a parcel tax AND would have made the City Council accountable to providing at least a floor of sworn officers they could not go below. To say, “We don’t need a floor. Just give us the $20 million and trust us to do the right thing” is to fly in the face the sentiments of the residents of our fair city.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Oakland has a 2 billion dollar unfunded pension liability. That is about 5K for every Oakland resident. Even the 9% payment towards retirement is not enough. We cannot tie our hands with a no layoff clause.
I doubt many Oakland residents have a pension that is over 90% paid by their employer. I surely don’t.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Maybe I’m missing something, but a no-layoff “guarantee” which includes a provision for a reduced 4% contribution in the event that the city breaks its side of the bargain doesn’t sound like much of a guarantee. It sounds more like a way for the city to get a temporary 9% contribution for a few months, then keep getting a 4% contribution after layoffs occur. Not sure the OPOA would find that a particularly enticing offer, since they are currently contributing 0%.
Don’t get me wrong—if I had my druthers, the OPOA would have agreed to a 9% contribution in exchange for a 1-year no-layoff guarantee, but since they rejected that deal, it’s hard for me to see why they would find this offer any more appealing. Or would this 3-year no-layoff pledge somehow be more robust than I am giving it credit for?
Kudos to Kaplan for trying to find a creative way to resolve this, but I’m pretty pessimistic. I don’t see the city being able to offer any real guarantees to anyone, given the bleak fiscal situation for the next few years (and beyond), and I don’t see the OPOA having much incentive to make concessions when the city can’t offer them any real guarantees in return.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I agree w/ Dave C, kudos to R. Kaplan for putting forward a proposal.
I don’t agree with everything she’s proposed, but at least it represents fresh thinking. We really need a force of 1,200 police officers. But, if we have to lose officers, better that it be older ones through attrition, than our youngest and newest ones. (and just to be clear, I personally don’t want any shrinkage in the force)
A new $360 parcel tax will never pass. I’m also one who is not a big fan of the measure Y fix (and that’s putting it mildly).
July 29th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Well I have to at least give Kaplan some kudos for posting.
However, all I see in her post is police and 9%. I’m sorry but that mantra is just about worn out. How much longer will the CC keep blowing this smoke to the citizens of Oakland that 7.8 million (9%) is going to solve your budge problems. They already don’t believe you and they know you couldn’t balance a check book if it was only in whole numbers. Plenty of smoke here. Just wait the mirrors are on order. (paid for by your tax dollars)
Just keep up that 9% chant without saying anything about the fact you don’t pay into your pension either. Oops did I just let the cat out of the bag. How about you come up with some solutions that have been mentioned on this site, such as freeing up those parking spots from you and your entourage (+$400,000). How about you get rid of the Citizens Police Review Board who could not investigate there way out of a paper bag and cost the citizens of Oakland 1.5 million dollars a year.
“My proposal is during the next three years (the duration of the OPOA’s current contract) as long as the City honors its no lay off guarantee the police continue to pay the 9% toward their pension.” So let me get this right after you fail to stand behind any of your contractual obligation to the unions or citizens you expect them to trust you now. So when the time comes that you don’t honor your commitments these officers still get the swift kick saying hey we know we didn’t hold up to our end we will still take 4%.
Oh and since we are on the topic of “We were asked to refrain from publicly discussing our proposals”, a collective bargaining tenet and one the OPOA seems to abide by why not mention the fact that after giving back $34,000,000 in concessions the previous year that the OPOA offered this year a $15,000,000 give back and the CC turned it down. That’s right the OPOA doubled what you would save with the 9% and you and the others turned it down.
This is not about pensions or money and quite frankly with you guys no one knows what
July 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Kaplan gets credit for a bit of self-awareness. Last night there was a Police Appreciation event at the Rotunda building. It was open to the public, and officers were especially invited.
Councilmember Quan, after all she has done to destroy our police force, had the nerve to attend. Councilmember Kaplan, so far as I know, did not attend. Apparently, she has a bit more social sense than Quan.
In the past three months two Chinese middle-aged men have been killed on the streets of Oakland. Yu Tian Sheng and Jing Hong Kang should be alive and continuing to contribute to society today. The streets of Oakland are becoming off-limits to more people at more times of the day.
Perhaps Kaplan spent part of yesterday evening touching up her proposal that Oakland should stay its course toward a police force of 500 while the Alameda County civil grand jury report just reiterated that Oakland needs at least 1200 officers.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
If we really want to do something more than rearrange the chairs on the Titanic, how about a City Charter Amendment that limits compensation for any city employee to parity with the average in the Bay Area. I would prefer 90% of parity, but that’s just me.
Our politicians have demonstrated not only how dysfunctional they are, but how irresponsible. They are paid for by the unions that will negotiate contracts with the city. The ONLY way to break the impasse is to do an end-run around what goes for democracy in our city (I prefer to call it an idiotacracy).
Put limits on the ability of the politicians to give money away (and contractually obligates us to lifetime benefits on in to the future). Deborah Edgerly is the perfect poster child for pushing this Amendment.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Don’t be fooled. All Kaplan is doing is posturing for the mayoral election. Just like she postured during the post verdict riots. (she should have been arrested for that stunt). She is trying to come across as the “voice of reason” with her proposal that does nothing more than amount to another accounting gimmick. I wouldn’t be so quick to pat her on the back just yet. Rebecca, show some real leadership by seriously fixing Measure Y.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Well if she’s posturing it’s a pretty good one given her competition. Quan votes for every tax increase she sees and Perata is in bed with the police union so he’s completely useless when it comes to police spending or reform. I don’t know if this is the answer or not but I do know that’s it’s a lot more than I hear from anyone else.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Well, since we are talking about proposals that have little chance of success, how about this. One of the justifications of Mike and other OPD who have posted here is that they deserve their high base salaries due to the under staffing in Oakland. So what about we cut base pay by 25% in exchange for an increase in the police force by 25% (to 1000)? I think I might actually agree to a temporary parcel tax in exchange.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Robert that seems like the first fresh idea on this string (not that I expect anyone to consider it very seriously). We are going to need much more out-of-the-box thinking, and both less anti-city government and less anti-police rhetoric.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Thanks Naomi
July 29th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I agree Naomi. & yes, I would seriously consider Robert’s proposal. The only way I’m going to give up more (vote myself another tax) is if a) City employees give up more too; b) I get something more for it, like more Officers for our understaffed force.
The concern I have with Robert’s proposal is can this take care of the deficit at the same time? Or, if it’s supplemented by concessions by other City Unions, can it?
If we can increase the # of Officers & take care of the deficit then I would seriously consider another parcel tax. But ONLY if it does both.
PS. Note that Robert mentions temporary. I still have to consider this.
Also, there has to be significant pass through to renters. As Byron Williams pointed out in the Tribune today, referring to M-Y, “a coalition of homeowners and non-homeowners voted for a parcel tax for which only a portion of the city bears the direct burden for the perceived overall benefit of the whole.” It’s time for all the beneficiaries share.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Isn’t part of the reason the police are being hit up so hard for layoffs right now because the fire service guys already have a no-layoff clause?
So if we now go and ring-fence the cops and agree not to lay any of them off, then who do we lay off if next year’s budget is even worse than we expect it to be?
Moreover, it was only the threat of layoffs that got the police union to the table offering concessions. Take away your one weapon and what do you have left in terms of negotiating power? Nothing.
Nobody’s job is sacred. And I want the City and the voters to have the maximum flexibility to deal with whatever happens.
RK already lost my vote with her stunt at the riots. But this proposal seems to miss the real issue.
And of course Marleen’s point about the Prop Y fiasco remains valid.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Like LOC said, what if we stop talking about the police? They are not responsible for the budget mess, the CC is. They agreed to the contracts, they gave Fire a 15% raise to cover the 9% pension contribution and agreed to no layoffs. The police opened their contract twice, fire never has and nobody is upset about that. The CC knew this was coming for two years and did nothing. They have no plans for the future, they dont care. If the measure doesnt pass they will blame the police, citizens, dead relatives, but they won’t take responsibility. They will say and do anything to deflect the blame from themselves. God forbid we force them to tell us in real terms what the heck they are going to do, aside from blaming the police, to stop fraud, waste, and abuse of the citizens of Oakland. Lead by example CC, what will you contribute?, give back?, give up?, and sacrafice? set the standard we can all follow.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I appreciate any effort in figuring out ways to keep Oakland Police without digging into the pockets of Oakland residents. We are overtaxed and underserved.
However, one of the major issues that has been left out of the debate over retaining police is reining in the bloated salaries of non-police and other non-emergency personnel at the City. When an Assistant Public Works Director makes $165,000, which is only $10,000 less than the governor of one the largest states in the country and the same as the statewide Director for Caltrans, who is responsible for billions upon billions in infrastructure, we have a problem. Every dollar counts.
The only way the City can realistically grow revenues is to make Oakland safer so that people will want to live, shop and recreate in Oakland and spend money in Oakland; thereby allowing us to capture unrealized and foregone sales taxes, transfer taxes, property taxes, and hotel taxes, and by creating jobs through the growth of small businesses.
We do that by having more police, not fewer, to act as a strong deterrent, to ensure a police response time of 5 minutes not 15 minutes so we can arrest criminals and lock them up. We do that by ensuring the District Attorney has the resources to try and convict criminals rather than pleading them out with a catch and release program. We can never be competitive with other communities until we solve our crime problem.
Throwing lots of money at crime prevention programs that have no metrics to measure success and that have, at best, dubious cost/benefit ratios for lowering crime are not the answer. You pay for those programs after you ensure the basic safety of the public by maintaining a sufficient sized police force and you measure crime prevention programs for success and fund only those that have demonstrable benefits. Not those that make people feel good and that are politically correct or garner votes because you satisfied a particular constituency. Crime prevention programs are not job programs.
This city is screwed up, City Council has their priorities screwed up, city employees have a sense of entitlement that is screwed up, and too many people are unwilling to admit the fact that we have a serious crime problem that demands a serious police presence because it is politically incorrect to support the police–or else we might have a police state–and that without a serious police presence this city will never, ever, attract the development it deserves that can support the social programs the city needs and will be left rotting under the weight of perceived and real crime and the middle class will continue to flee this city.
Go to Oakland get mugged, get shot, get killed, have your car stolen, have your house broken into while City Council dicks around playing chicken with the the police unions. Is there any reason why people go to SF, Marin, or Walnut Creek to shop? Duh! Is there any reason why people who have disposable income flee Oakland and move to safer communities? Duh! The tax leakage is like the blood that pours from people who get shot every weekend. You can’t stop it and people die.
Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan will never get my vote for Mayor. Jean Quan has helped bring this City to the brink of bankruptcy with her poor financial acumen and Rebecca Kaplan is a political opportunist. She thinks voting to approve more liquor stores, which are crime magnets, is a good economic development policy for Oakland but is really just a way to garner votes for her mayoral run from Geoffrey Pete and company.
Oakland police put their lives on the line every day for us in one of the most dangerous cities in the country. They deserve more than an Assistant Public Works Director or any other non-emergency personnel. Yeah they need to pay for some of their pension, but retaining them must be the city’s number one priority.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@We Fight Blight,
BRAVO! I could not have said that better if I tried, my sentiments exactly.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Agree fully with We Fight Blight.
I’m sick of Oakland city councilmembers talking about the Police needing to pay 9% toward funding their own pensions, when the City Council members and our Dear Mayor pay 0% (ZERO) for their own pensions!
Talk about hypocrisy!!!
Yes, ALL city employees need to share in the pain.
Stop scapegoating the police because it is so politically acceptable in certain oral minority circles to do so.
Why are you going after the police? Because some Oaklanders are anti “pig” so it’s the “cool” thing to do, even though things would be way worse without them here. You know that.
You’re going after the police because you don’t have the willpower or independence (aka balls) to go after ALL THE CITY’S UNIONS… SEIU, etc. Every Oakland city worker at this point is rather over-compensated compared to the rest of us in private sector jobs with NO pensions.
Pensions are history.
Well-paid US jobs are history.
City issued “bonds” aka debt/payday loans should be history too.
Rebecca quit lying to the public. There is no “win-win” solution. Everyone must cut their fat, tighten their belts, spend less each yeara from here on out. I don’t hear this truth coming from you. Yet it is day to day reality for residents and businesses in this fine city and country.
All city council members and the mayor who have done little to beef up public security should be recalled immediately.
The entire city council should be recalled especially for cynically cutting police staff, knowing it will lead to more crime, and therefore getting ignorant citizens to vote themselves yet another property tax, so you can save all your sacred city union cows (fat pensions, fat salaries) and not have to ask your political supporters to get on a diet like the rest of us already are.
Thanks a lot. And say hello to being recalled.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:41 am
As out of the box as Robert’s thinking may be, it is not new. But I am a fan, might want to throw them a bone like housing subsidy.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:47 am
I believe that there is nothing to be gained from ranting at the city council, the police, or the citizens. Ken, a little civility would help people arrive at solutions instead of just fighting uselessly and playing games with threatened recalls, threatened crime waves, threatened layoffs, and apocalyptic predictions. While I don’t think the proposal in the original posting here is the complete solution, without a civil dialogue people will hesitate to bring forth their ideas.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:15 am
True, politics & taxes in Oakland are more like frogs slowly being boiled in water.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:41 am
V, in addition to your character minimum, can you add a character limit to cut down on rants?
July 30th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I agree with Naomi that there is nothing to be gained by ranting at one party or another. We can either curse the darkness or light a candle.
Aside from the rants, I do think this comment thread has had a lot of great analysis of what the problems are. Everybody wants more public safety and without paying a fortune in new taxes. The question is how to get there from here when we’re in a catch-22. Being an Oakland police officer is a hard and dangerous job which deserves appropriate compensation. A big part of the reason it is such a hard and danger job is that there are not enough police officers. There are not enough police officers because we run out of money paying the ones we have.
Unfortunately, there is no magic wand that can immediately allow us to add 25% more officers by reducing the overall compensation by 25%. Even if there was, a 25% increase in officers isn’t enough.
There are no easy answers. All I can see is a ratcheting — we do partial reform, pay a little more in taxes, more reform, more taxes. If we do this smart, at some point the more taxes can start coming from an improved tax base instead of higher rates.
So while I agree with the majority of folks that Kaplan’s proposal is not a full solution, it does get us moving in the right direction.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Listening to police assaulter, liquor store supporting Rebecca Kaplan on working with the police is like taking dieting tips from Deborah Edgerly while she holds a donut.
Come On Now
July 30th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Again, Rebecca Kaplan shows she is not a serious candidate for mayor.
Not that any of the other candidates are serious candidates either.
I will not be voting for any of them. This November will be the first election I sit out, at least for the mayor’s race.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:41 am
By the way, got a condescending postcard solicitation from Don P. telling ME to join HIM in cleaning up my neighborhood. In the 25 or 30 years I have been cleaning up three medians, two walkways, and a freeway onramp in my neighborhood, I have seen him exactly zero times.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:01 am
When did this comment section turn into the kind of place where people make dieting “jokes” about other people?
Come On Now.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Kaplan likely knew there were enough votes to approve the officer layoff, so she could say she voted no. She likely knew there were enough votes to approve putting the parcel tax on the ballot, so she voted no. Now, she can say she did’t support these unpopular things while she runs for mayor. When people critcize her for not having an alternative plan, she can now say, “oh, but I have a plan.” This identical post appears on her own website, by the way.
As noted above, the plan does not appear to make mathematical sense. Without some other dramatic changes, the City is not in a place where it can offer a no layoff promise. Therefore, what this plan will ultimately mean, if it were to be approved, would be that OPOA would basically volunteer to pay 4% in exchange for a couple of months of no layoffs. The City would in turn lose all credibility in negotiations in exchange for a 4% contribution by OPOA, which won’t even make a dent in the budget problems. Sounds like lose-lose, not win win. So who would go for that?
I know there are plenty of people who post here who are formally supporting Kaplan in her campaign. If they can stump, others should be permitted to criticize.
There are far better solutions to the budget crisis/public safety dilemma than the one proposed. How about revising Measure Y to redirect violence prevention money to police, in exchange for a 9% pension concession? How about a “temporary suspension” of the Kids First set aside? How much money would this generate for the City? Nearly $30 million annually!
July 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Temporarily suspending Kids First will result in a $10 – $12M annual savings not including any adjustments for proposed tax measures. That said, I am fully supportive of it and have made council aware of my thoughts on more than once. They (at least the one’s who have “responded”) aren’t rushing to support this idea.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I would not support temporarily killing OFCY, as I do believe there are good after school programs that they support. And I do believe putting those kids on the streets (not in school) will have negative impact for the kids, their families, AND citizens & safety.
On the other hand, I would be willing to consider a compromise & a temporary REDUCTION in OFCY funding.
However to do either a measure would have to be put on the ballot. & I believe it’s too late for the City Council to do that
IF they even want to.
Everybody needs to chip in, & I agree, Kids First / OFCY should too.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
-Eliminate Kids First!
-Cut Cops pay 25%!
-Oakland needs 1200 cops!
-Get rid of the violence prevention programs in Measure Y!
Yeah. Right.
When folks get back from Fantasy Island with some realistic solutions let me know.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
LG,
Have you contacted council re a temporary rollback?
As you know, I hate BB budgeting, but recognizing that this Oakland, the poster boy for government giveaways, I did suggest a temporary rollback of Kids First to 2.5% would make me more agreeable to a parcel tax. I would even support gradual increases provided certain revenue targets were met.
Personally, I just don’t think it made any sense to give the kids a raise even as you knew the economy was tanking.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
It is important that we deal with the immediate problem, which is getting the recently laid off cops back on the beat. This will give us an opportunity to work on other strategies to avoid the need for layoffs in the future. These include retirement incentives and hiring additional civilians to perform clerical duties so cops can be freed up to do more community policing.
Some are asking how getting 9% can make up for 80 layoffs so I’d like to take this opportunity to further explain how this works.
Here’s the breakdown:
• A 9% pension contribution isn’t enough to cover the money it would take to keep 80 officers.
• Because of the way Measure Y was originally written, the actual budget savings achieved by laying off 80 cops is only the equivalent of laying off 25 cops.
• And, the amount of money brought in by the 9% pension contribution (roughly $8 million) exceeds the actual costs saved by the 80 layoffs.
Others also have asked, what if we make a deal this year, but it gets worse next year and we have no choice but to reduce force?
I’d like to answer this question with a few statements:
• Let’s work to make that not happen, but with normal attrition, in a year, the force would end up reduced without layoffs.
• Anytime there’s a need for force reduction, it’s better to give departure bonuses for higher salary people, instead of laying off the recently hired and trained and thus lower paid officers.
And to address the issue of council members not paying into our pensions.
• Rather than paying a 9 percent contribution we took a 10 percent salary cut. If the police union would like us to make more concessions in exchange for their concessions to save the force I would support that.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Ms. Kaplan,
I am cool with balancing short and long term needs. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for a 4 year parcel tax.
I am not cool with JB suggesting that we taxpayers cough up the ducats for 4 years. (I did not catch if that is a calendar 4 or DL 4.) PK was spot on when she said that taxpayers would like to see us move with a bit of urgency to address the spend problem.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
The Police would argue that the reason they don’t pay the 9% like others is they gave up salary increases in the past. In fact that’s why we’re in this boat now: Only OPD is being focussed on.
& I’m sorry but your 1st & 3rd bullets seem contradictory:
• A 9% pension contribution isn’t enough to cover the money it would take to keep 80 officers.
-vs-
• And, the amount of money brought in by the 9% pension contribution (roughly $8 million) exceeds the actual costs saved by the 80 layoffs.
Please explain using different words? Thank You.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
LG,
Thank you. Bullets 1 and 3 had me doing double takes, then I just let it go? So can someone HABO? thnx
July 30th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
And what new parcel taxes will be created to resume paying the $1,000,000,000 pension obligation for 1,300 retired police and fire?
http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/14028.pdf
Oakland City Charter established the Police and Fire Retirement System (“PFRS”) and Board to exclusively control the administration and investment of the PFRS Fund.
In 1997, the City issued pension obligation bonds and made a contribution to the System of approximately $417 million. As a result, no employer contributions are required through the year ending June 30, 2011. In 2005, the City made a voluntary contribution of $17,709,888. On July 1, 2011, the City will again be required to make contributions to the System, based on July 1,2010 assets and liabilities.
Table 3, Projection of Future Contributions, shows a projection of what the City will be required to contribute in 2011-2012 if the 8 percent actuarial rate of return is met in conjunction with wage growth of 4 percent, 4.50 percent or 5 percent. It is estimated that the City will need to begin contributing $37 million annually to meet their PFRS liability by 2026.
There are currently 1,322 retirees and 3 active members. The plan currently has over six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) in assets.
July 30th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I don’t understand Kaplan’s explanation either. Also, it doesn’t address the fact that allowing the force to be reduced is simply not acceptable – either by layoffs or by attrition. Yes, attrition allows somewhat more expensive employees to go instead of somewhat cheaper ones. But then you have to pay their pensions anyway, so I’m not sure that saves a lot of money. Moreover, attrition will cause the force to drop by 200 officers over the next four years. We’ll have a force of 486 officers – are you kidding? How can we survive with that? Even if you promise to bring the laid off officers – keep in mind that 12 have already found new jobs. I just don’t see how any of this is remotely acceptable to the public.
July 30th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I thought Kaplan’s first three bullet points were saying that because measure Y funding pays the salaries of 55 cops, you only need to find the money to pay for 25 offficers, and the city can then continue to collect measure Y taxes to pay for the other 55. But if Marleen didn’t think it made sense, then maybe I’m the one who is confused.
July 30th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Measure Y generated $20 million annually. About $9 million of that went to cops. Assuming $188,000 per cop (salaries plus benefits), yes, that is around 50 cops. But in order to continue collecting Measure Y, the City needs to appropriate sufficient funding for the full contingent of 739 non-Measure Y cops. Right now, the City is refusing to do that. Even if they were to rehire all of the laid off cops, they couldn’t bring back Measure Y, because 12 of those cops have already found new jobs! And by implementing the layoffs, the City automatically lost half a year’s Measure Y funding ($10 million), at a bare minimum. In order to just break even for the loss of Measure Y funds, the City would need to lay off 106 officers ($20 million divided by $188,000) which is why the decision to lay off 80 officers never made any sense to me. Of course, the Council was never great at basic math – if they had been, they would have realized five years ago that the funding under Measure Y was not enough to pay for 63 additional cops, plus recruiting and training, for 10 years.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Maybe one of you lawyers can read through the CC proposed changes in the Measure Y fix. http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/25605.pdf
It looks like the change to Section 8 will let the city collect the full tax for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
“The tax for fiscal year 2010-2011 shall be levied and imposed at the full annual rate. ….”
It that is what this amendment means, that will give them about another 10 million for social programs.
In Section 3 they added “up to” before 25 engine companies and 7 truck companies for the Fire Department. Does this mean they can close fire houses and still spend the 4 million for the Fire Department?
July 30th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Well, the CC Safety Committee was told that it wouldn’t be enough by the then head of the MYOC when they were starting the Mayor’s recruitment drive. I know because I was at that CC meeting & remember it distinctly.
Oh Marleen, you’re so negative when all you have to do is think outside the box. In this case the box that M-Y is printed on. For example, if a solution is found to rehire the officers, it doesn’t matter that 12 of them have jobs because all the CC has to do is appropriate funding for them, whether they’re working or not. & if a solution is found there’s nothing in M-Y to prevent funds from being collected for only part of the year.
Pouf! Problems gone. & if u have a problem with moving #’s around, so sue me.
July 30th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Seriously, I wouldn’t mind if RK explains her last post again, along with $’s, to better understand. Also remember that some here have criticized her for not offering an alternative solution, when she was saying the problems are structural. Well now that she has those who did shouldn’t criticize her for offering a short-term bandaid, like JQ, JB, etc did. (Of course it is fine to criticique the plan itself).
My problem is the plan itself: I’m not voting for a Property Tax unless it fixes the deficit, all City employees chip in (not just the Officers), AND we get more Officers for it (Robert’s plan).
Now I’m just one voter so I could b wrong. But I don’t think I am. I think most voters are worried than unless a solution is comprehensive & structural the CC will come back again asking for more money. So as it stands they’re not going to vote for it.
This is yet another reason why the CC should have been working on a comprehensive, structural solution involving all City employees from the beginning. & if the CC agrees with me they should start working on that now.
If they disagree then sit and wait for the results in November. But even then they better start working on a back-up plan that IS structural & comprehensive. Because doing nothing when there’s at least a good chance of this happening is taking their responsibilities to a new low.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
LG,
What you have touched upon is the credibility problem. No one is convinced that the actions council takes today will not prevent them from coming back tomorrow to ask for more.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
The structural problem with the budget is that crime prevents us from growing the tax base, the City tries to be all things to all people, and fails to prioritize its needs and only pay for that which it can afford.
I would like RK to answer the basic question as to why the City Council is scapegoating the police and fails to even address more givebacks from non-emergency personnel. I would also like her to answer why the City Council refused to put any other voter-mandated programs, such as Kids First, on the ballot except the Measure Y fix.
Don’t be fooled, the City Council will be looking at more revenue measures next year as it is unlikely the economy will turn around and generate enough additional revenues any time soon.
July 31st, 2010 at 4:08 am
I guess this is a leadership test for Rebecca Kaplan: can she build the coalition necessary to enact her proposal? I mean, she’s currently a city councilperson, so she could theoretically get these policies enacted now. But she doesn’t seem able to do so. So why should we make her mayor, if she can’t accomplish anything as at-large councilperson?
July 31st, 2010 at 7:13 am
OK, so here’s a summary of the three mayoral candidate’s actions around police layoffs:
Don Perata:
Didn’t get to vote on it. But he did say that the cops shouldn’t be laid off, and also that they shouldn’t take any pay cut what so ever, nor should they contribute to their pensions.
Where would the money come from to keep them? First he said we should eliminate some of the City’s boards and commissions, which wouldn’t have closed the funding gap. After the press points out that his first plan wouldn’t work, he proposes a 0.5% sales tax, in a recession, in a city that’s been bleeding retail to it’s neighbors for a decade already.
Also, by portraying himself as the inevitable winner (he’s not) and by taking epic amounts of money from cops and prison guards, Perata positioned himself to be trusted to rescue OPD later. He practically goaded them into negotiating too aggressively and getting 80 of their brothers laid off. I even wonder if he did so on purpose to create a campaign wedge issue.
Jean Quan:
Votes to lay off 80 cops, and does so knowing full well that the Mehserle verdict is imminent, and that crime spikes in late summer. Then, during the public safety forum, she says we need 1000 cops to make Oakland safe, but proposes no way to achieve that number.
Rebecca Kaplan:
First she proposed a ballot measure that would address the entire city’s pension funding problem by stepping up contributions and barring the Council from signing unsustainable contracts.
That proposal languished and didn’t make it to the floor in time for the election. I don’t know if it got tied up at rules committee or what, but I suspect that the proposal was stalled because other councilmembers didn’t want Kaplan to look good. She saved the budget last year with ballot measures, but this year, an election year? I don’t think any of her colleagues would want to let her outshine them like that again.
Then she wrote the proposal above, which is imperfect for everyone, because that’s what a good compromise looks like. John Russo once told me that the best deals in politics are those that nobody likes but that everybody can live with. That’s exactly what Rebecca is proposing here. It’s not perfect for the cops, but they get something. It’s not perfect for the city, but they get something.
I think Kaplan’s genuinely trying to find a solution here, and whether or not it was accepted, I’m not sure the other candidates were even trying.
July 31st, 2010 at 7:50 am
Max –
Rebecca Kaplan never brought forth any ballot measure.
She said she was going to, and at the public safety mayoral forum she told the audience that she had put forward a proposal, but as far as I am aware, Rules Committee never even had a chance to vote on whether it should come to Council at all. She voluntarily withdrew her scheduling request before anyone could even discuss it.
If Kaplan is so confident that her ballot measure would solve many of Oakland’s problems, then she should share it with the public. I’ve never seen any language for it, except for the summary she submitted to Rules Committee. That’s been discussed at length here before, and I think the general consensus was that everyone was seriously underwhelmed.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:17 am
The tough question on the ballott measure is how far it could go and still have a shot of winning.
I’d like to see one that enjoined the council from signing a contract with pension contribution obligations that can’t be funded with real money. I’d also like to see one that mandated that the city use accounting practices that aren’t bullshit.
But the bottom line on the Mayoral candidates, and on Kaplan’s proposed compromises above, is that she’s the only one trying to make a good faith deal.
I mean, one of Perata’s solutions was literally to eliminate the Citizen’s Police Review Board and the Public Ethics Commission in order to raise money. How transparent is that? The candidate who can’t get through a single month without his ethics problems being exposed in the press wants the Ethics Commission gone? The candidate who’s sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars of prison guard and cop money wants to eliminate oversight of police? And he wants to do it to save money? Yeah right.
And Quan got us into this financial mess in the first place by voting to spend our city’s reserve funds when there was no need to do so.
I support Rebecca because I think she’s the candidate who’s most likely to negotiate in good faith, and because she’s the candidate most likely to really do her homework and understand policy before she implements it. She isn’t perfect. No politician is. But seriously, look at the competition for a minute.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:24 am
I’m looking for something more inspiring than “better than the other choices” in a Mayor.
But honestly, I don’t get this “solution” of Kaplan’s at all. I don’t understand how it solves any problems. It just doesn’t make any sense to me and seems really fiscally irresponsible. It’s surprising coming from her because I agree that her proposals are usually based in sound reasoning and research. But this one seems like a total miss. I may not like Jean Quan’s layoff & tax plan, but at least it is a plan that would actually solve the budget problem.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:35 am
Don Perata never said that the cops shouldn’t contribute to their pensions. At least he didn’t when I asked him that question point blank, in a public meeting. What he said was that he didn’t think that thc cops should have to make concessions unless the City was willing to make serious additional cuts to non-police programs. I wish he had been more specific in his answer, but he certainly didn’t say the cops shouldn’t make concessions. And he has publicly come out against the new parcel tax, which OPOA will be campaigning for.
As for the ethics commission and the Police Review Board – I don’t know much about the latter. But as for the ethics commission, I’d be happy getting rid of it. In the last 10 years or so, they have apparently only held one or two actual hearings. Mostly they throw out complaints from two or three people in the entire city who submit one or two complaints a month. The press pays no attention to what they do. Members of the public generally don’t show up. The Commission has no real power anyway. Even with the commission, our existing city government lacks ethics, so the results are not impressive.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:39 am
V,
Kaplan is more inspiring than that, by a long shot. And you’re reducing my argument to the last sentence I wrote, which is kind of silly.
The last time I saw Kaplan do something really inspiring was only a few days ago. She was meeting with a group of activists and truckers about port pollution and working conditions, and she not only understood every issue they raised, she showed serious depth of knowledge about the history of the issue. She knew problems on the ground, and she knew the city, state and federal landscapes on port pollution issues. And she knew it cold.
She also really connected with a room of hard working Oaklanders who were at their wits end trying to solve a seemingly intractable problem. She shared their frustration with the cruel absurdities they faced, and at the same time was able to offer support, strategy, and a wealth of knowledge to the discussion.
That’s inspiring. Speeches and debates and council meetings show you a little clue. But if you want to see a politician’s real potential, watch them working with a few dozen people on a real issue. Watch them focus. That’s where Rebecca shows me that she’s inspiring.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:46 am
Marleen,
The solution to the Ethics Commission isn’t to kill it, it’s to give it teeth and balls.
And the solution to our ethics problems at city hall is sure as shit NOT to eliminate an ethical oversight body if there’s any chance of Don Perata becoming Mayor.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:47 am
V, how does Quan’s layoff and tax plan work when we all know the parcel tax is polling in the 30% range and won’t ever pass?
July 31st, 2010 at 8:55 am
I completely agree that Kaplan routinely demonstrates a depth of knowledge about a wide variety of policy issues that is unmatched by any of her peers on the Council. It’s one of the reasons I like her so much. But knowledge, on it’s own, doesn’t make you an effective leader. You have to be able to translate that knowledge into action. There are some areas where Kaplan has done this very well, but from my perspective, dealing with the City’s budget shortfall is not one of them.
July 31st, 2010 at 11:06 am
So Max, where does RK stand on getting control over bloated non-police salaries and how is that tied to her campaign strategy? She seems to be silent on that end of things. Does she need the City employee union and is she unwilling to piss them off by advocating their salaries be cut?
July 31st, 2010 at 12:49 pm
How about change the parameters around measure Y so that the $20 mn kitty funds armed private security. That would put an additional 200 cops on the streets of Oakland instead of just keeping or detracting from our current force. Is that allowed in our city charter?
This would put more pressure on the OPOA to negotiate in good faith and give our moronic city council less incentive to create stupid tax proposals to support the unsustainable train wreck that is Oakland. All these new tax proposals are absurd and do nothing to address the long term structural issue at hand.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I don’t know if council has been attempting to freeze out RK but I am not convinced that council always acts in the best interest of Oakland. One can serve their district and still do what is best for them and for Oakland.
Max,
I do not disagree with you regarding speeches, debates and council meetings. But to hear how they really think it often requires dollars for access. One wonders if more people would be engaged if politicians just spent more time speaking with average citizens as opposed to dialing / digging / begging / whoring for dollars.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The budget & tax measures will be part of the Mayor’s race, but that doesn’t mean they should be framed by the Mayor’s race. All the proposals so far are based on concessions by the OPOA that are not enough (by themselves) to solve the problem, and by tax measures that will leave us with the same amount of Officers or less, won’t address the following year’s budget crisis, and most importantly, won’t pass.
The only solutions has got to be comprehensive. Then at least the budget measures stand a chance.
It would be better for the CC, the City & it’s residents if the CC started working on this now. Not sit around waiting for them to fail to address 2010-2011, and wait for the winter and spring of 2011 to address the 2011-12 deficit.
Based on history the CC will chose inaction over action like they did for the current year (we’ve been discussing this since at least June of last year). INSTEAD, it is time for the CC to address the whole problem. If they do then the budget measures might actually stand a chance of passing (a la Robert’s plan).
Time to bring in the SEIU and get down to business. Not procrastinate and vote for the CC member who procrastinates the least, or who comes up with the least bad plans of a group of bad plans, none of which will work.
July 31st, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Rebecca’s solution won’t solve the problem. The numbers are not sufficient to even solve our short-term financial problems, let alone provide a long-term solution. In addition, we will be making more promises we can’t keep.
There is a solution, but it will require a transition time. I’m talking about a legal financial reorganization, which can secure the financial integrity of the city. It will allow the city to dismiss collective bargaining agreements as well as retiree benefits. Then the city can restructure these agreements to levels that will be healthy and sustainable into the future. Part of the plan will require the police to contribute 9% to their pension. Then both fire and police will need to take a 10% cut in pay. It will also necessitate bringing in new officers at a lower starting pay of $50,000 plus benefits. New officers will, of course, be required to contribute their share to the benefits. Once these steps have been taken, the police can begin a long-term process of rebuilding the force to 1100 sworn officers. This plan should produce a budget surplus of $20 million plus, but we must keep in mind that each of the next five years is forecasted to have progressively larger deficit.
In addition to making the general fund sustainable, the city is facing a still more vexing problem: a $2 billion unfunded liability for employee pensions and retiree health care costs. Solving this will require a serious commitment on the part of both the City Council and next Mayor.
Immediately after initiating the financial reorganization, the city should reaffirm all debts to creditors and bondholders. This, along with a balanced budget, will secure the city’s ability to continue to access credit markets.
There should also be a careful assessment of each department in City Hall to determine where money can be saved and more money should be spent. Some departments are inefficiently overstaffed, while others are woefully understaffed. In my visits to City Hall and CEDA I’ve observed both.
Using financial reorganization, we can restore the city to a sustainable future without additional taxes. Then, the leaders should begin the process of dismantling many of the measures that were put into place to support the unsustainable budget. Among these are fees and fines, including parking and traffic enforcement.
In addition to all of the above, the process of addressing long-term deferred maintenance should begin. This should include streets, sidewalks and sewer systems but these projects should not be paid for from the general fund.
http://www.harland4mayor.com
July 31st, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Max, the test of whether a mayoral candidate will be independent of the various unions, would be asking them to support a charter amendment allowing outsourcing of any and all non-safety employee positions; and forbiding binding arbitration in public safety negotiations.
Just don’t see Q, K, or P supporting both of the above.
If they can’t support both of those changes to the charter, no way they have the integrity to put residents above city unions as the clock is running out on deciding whether to pay retirement benefits and high wages or provide decent services.
-len raphael
temescal
August 1st, 2010 at 12:20 am
The way I see it,the city will have to layoff more workers,cut programs,increase efficency,get concessions from all the unions and raise taxes or face bankruptcy. Anybody who says otherwise is not being honest. The only reason this might actually happen is that all of us are in the same boat and everyone is worse off if the city does go bankrupt.If we don’t change course soon we will look back on these as the good old days.
August 1st, 2010 at 7:50 am
remarkable numerical gobbledy gook from RK.
What is clear is her Plan is attrition followed by hiring at lower cost. No problem with that if we had the time and people’s safety wasn’t affected.
-len raphael
temescal
August 1st, 2010 at 8:49 am
Politicians in Oakland do not put residents and the City as a whole above their own interests: election and/or re-election. They cobble together whatever coalition and voting blocs that are necessary for them to get into office and stay in office.
A comprehensive solution to this budget crisis, which involves dealing with all unions head on and getting salary and pension give-backs, is a politicians nightmare for election/re-election. They are more willing to ask the electorate to pay more out of our own pockets than to address head on non-emergency staff salaries and pensions.
So, we are really going to approve a $360 parcel tax and pay more in other sundry tax hikes so that SEIU can maintain bloated salaries and we can still lose police through attrition –because that is the trade-off. On top of that we are going to approve a $195 parcel tax for teacher salaries. Sounds highly unlikely since most of the public get poor service from City employees already.
Like I said, the structural problem with our budget is crime. The amount of revenues we lose from crime is astounding and is likely to be in the millions if not hundreds of millions. Anyone figuring out how laying off more police helps to stem that loss?
City Council cannot even get past this year’s deficit problem, forget looking to the future. If this were a boat with a hole in it, we all should be looking for our life preserve and abandoning ship cause it’s going down.
If we can’t arrest our way out of crime, as some like to say, can we tax our way out of this deficit? We can’t arrest our way out crime since there are not enough police, and we can’t tax our way out of this crisis since you have an uwilling electorate. Sounds like CC better start looking at bloated salaries, further reducing city services, and figuring out what programs need to be cut. No more sacred cows. Focusing only on unrealistic revenue generation seems sadly misguided. But isn’t that how we got into this problem in the first place with Ms. Edgerly.
August 1st, 2010 at 8:49 am
Len if you are going to give a short characterization of her plan, you should also include growing the tax base. By easing zoning requirements, reaching out to business, and licensing cannabis, etc., Kaplan is working to bring more money into the system.
I am not really sure what the alternatives are to a reduced force if people don’t want to pay more taxes and the OPOA doesn’t want to make concessions. Sure there are non-police funds that should be repurposed, but despite singling out individual employee compensation there is not a huge pot of funds. In addition, reducing Kids First!, non-police pay, etc. also all take time.
Unfortunately decades of mis-management have lead to such intractable problems that we need to do all of these things. If we tried to do everything at once, nothing would happen.
August 1st, 2010 at 9:45 am
If the council had different priorities, it could have voted to rewrite Measure Y and Kids First for change on the November ballot, in exchange for concessions from the police union. This would have given us an additional $30 million a year by November. And, it would have been more likely to get passed than the current proposals. The reality is that the Council doesn’t want to hear the noise from all the angry non-profits who would would lose their handouts. They’d rather listen to the wimpering of the poor taxpayers. So who gets served? The unions and the non-profits. The residents get screwed.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:03 am
Daniel, i’m basically with Blight on this. RK tries at the margin to make Oakland more biz friendly, which is more than most CC even think about. But it’s the crime and the schools that’s the biggest obstacle to business’s and well to do residents decision to passover Oakland for other CA locations.
There is perhaps an even bigger problem that many of the clean light industry jobs we need to employ our most likey to commit crime residents, wouldn’t even chose California because of very high regulatory costs and delays.That is not tea party bs. Approvals that takes weeks and months in other states, take two years in California.
Daniel, attrition into a two tier hiring system is not an option because it will take years, and as ML pointed out we will have to devote most of our budget to paying for retirement costs of current employees for next 20 years.
Outline of the solution: make a credible threat to declare Chapt 9, give current employees a choice between drastic pay cuts and layoffs if they don’t agree to changes to their retirement benefits.
Concurrently, we should join with other CA muni govts to bring a test case to see if the medical benefits for currently retired employees can be lowered to the benefit levels we negotiate with current employees.
Also find a CA govt in Chapt 9 and join as amicus whatchamecallit to try to get the fed courts to override state legal protection of muni pensions. long shot, but worth it.
Help pass a charter amendment allowing outsourcing of all non elected positions except (maybe) public safety.
Impractical? of course without credible threat to recall every one of our cc and a cooperative mayor, it will not happen until we can’t make payroll.
If we do nothing and stumble along, with a patchwork of increased taxes and decreased/deferred services, we’ll drift into maybe a Cleveland situaton, maybe even Detroit. Or simply a Richmond CA.
August 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
It’s a circle of trouble, Len.
You can’t bring down crime without more cops, you can’t get more cops without more businesses and residences to contribute to the tax pool, and you cant get more businesses and residences without bringing down crime, and you can’t bring down crime without more cops, you can’t get more cops without more businesses and residences to contribute to the tax pool, and you cant get more businesses and residences without bringing down crime….
As for the Schools, I blame the voters! There’s nothing the council or the Mayor can do directly. Our problem is voter apathy and ignorance. Christ, we have a guy on the school board who got caught having a tryst with a student, and it looks like he’s running unopposed to keep his seat.
The Tribune and every other schoolboard member called for Chris Dobbins’ resignation. And the voters in district 6 couldn’t get it together to find another candidate. And then Jean Quan accepts his endorsement for Mayor, and nobody but me gives her any flak for it.
Voter apathy. I really hope Great Oakland Public Schools can cure this problem before we go back into state receivership.
August 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
@Marleen,
As an aside, which councilmembers voted to violate measure Y? I’m interested in the committee vote and the full council vote.
August 1st, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Max,
I somewhat agree with you in principle on the vicious circle, but I do think that despite the “crime” people continue to flock to Oakland. The downtown rentals are at capacity and buyers are flocking to The Ellington. This indicates to me that when the market returns and if the city can gets its act together to let developers build quality market rate homes we will have buyers.
This will also help with the schools by increasing the tax base and lets face it these parents will be engaged. And the city needs to acknowledge how their mismanagement harms the schools. If a man only has a buck he can not give that buck to both the city and the schools. Tis a shame no one is looking at running for that seat you referenced. There was a story not to long ago about school boards being the easiest way to get involved in electoral politics.
——–
We need a real business expansion plan. While I like taxing the dope fiends, I am not a fan of hanging our hopes on the future of dope revenue. Hard to know which businesses who avoid the city because of its dope accepatance. Also not sure what problems you invite but going after the dope money.
———-
Len,
The judge in the Vallejo bankruptcy allowed the city to adjust OPEB. Would love to be able to do the same w/o going the bankruptcy route.
August 1st, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Max – did I say the Council voted to violate Measure Y? I don’t recall saying that. But it is true nonetheless. They voted unanimously to approve Dellums’ $7.7 million recruitment plan – a clear violation of Measure Y. (They did so even after receiving my letter and an opinion by the City Attorney’s office). They then approved canceling the 2009 police academy – a deliberate effort to reduce the size of the police force, knowing that this meant that they weren’t even “appropriating” anough money for the required baseline staffing. They also all voted to appeal the decision in my first court case (except for Brunner, who voted against). Oh, and they all violated the Brown Act on that vote too, since they failed to report out the vote after closed session, until I advised them of the mistake. There are a ton more violations, but don’t want to get the conversation too off track.
August 1st, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Rebecca’s solution won’t solve the problem. The numbers are not sufficient to even solve our short-term financial problems, let alone provide a long-term solution. In addition, we will be making more promises we can’t keep.
There is a solution, but it will require a transition time. I’m talking about a legal financial reorganization, which can secure the financial integrity of the city. It will allow the city to dismiss collective bargaining agreements as well as retiree benefits. Then the city can restructure these agreements to levels that will be healthy and sustainable into the future. Part of the plan will require the police to contribute 9% to their pension. Then both fire and police will need to take a 10% cut in pay. It will also necessitate bringing in new officers at a lower starting pay of $50,000 plus benefits. New officers will, of course, be required to contribute their share to the benefits. Once these steps have been taken, the police can begin a long-term process of rebuilding the force to 1100 sworn officers. This plan should produce a budget surplus of $20 million plus, but we must keep in mind that each of the next five years is forecasted to have progressively larger deficit.
I also think there should be some charter amendments made to level the playing field between the city and the unions. The first is to remove binding arbitration because the opportunity for appeal is limited and bad decisions are difficult to correct. The next is the ability of the city to outsource, and my initial suggestion would be to outsource the payroll. This would provide better oversight, especially tracking overtime on a real-time basis.
In addition to making the general fund sustainable, the city is facing a still more vexing problem: a $2 billion unfunded liability for employee pensions and retiree health care costs. Solving this will require a serious commitment on the part of both the City Council and next Mayor.
Immediately after initiating the financial reorganization, the city should reaffirm all debts to creditors and bondholders. This, along with a balanced budget, will secure the city’s ability to continue to access credit markets.
There should also be a careful assessment of each department in City Hall to determine where money can be saved and more money should be spent. Some departments are inefficiently overstaffed, while others are woefully understaffed. In my visits to City Hall and CEDA I’ve observed both.
Using financial reorganization, we can restore the city to a sustainable future without additional taxes. Then, the leaders should begin the process of dismantling many of the measures that were put into place to support the unsustainable budget. Among these are fees and fines, including parking and traffic enforcement.
In addition to all of the above, the process of addressing long-term deferred maintenance should begin. This should include streets, sidewalks and sewer systems but these projects should not be paid for from the general fund.
http://www.harland4mayor.com
I’ve posted a link on my web site on the left side, to down load an excel spreadsheet to play with the city budget. If you’re familiar with excel you should be able figure it out.
August 1st, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Greg,
Generally speaking you have a very hard time convincing people to accept a wage that is 75 – 80% of their fellow worker for the same job. Also going back to my favorite example Baltimore, if Baltimore pays its officers $47K and we know there is a bay area differential, which even private employers recognize, how do you expect to hire any officers @ $50K/yr?
Outsourcing the non-core stuff is a must. I would make your first order of business defining the core responsibilities of the city. Anything not part of the core needs to go. Budgeting should be outcomes based.
Since I believe that producing an environment that is core to a city’s purpose eliminiating parking and traffic fines seems like a bad idea.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:13 pm
GH, i take it that by “legal financial reorganization” you’re using a politic euphemism for Chapter 9.
I’d like to see the citation and actual court case where a Fed bankruptcy court overrode state laws on muni pensions, because i thought that was the situation in CA?
My reading of the current legal envoirment, was that it was likely that Chapter 9 or maybe even just contract negotiations with current employees could override unfunded post retirement medical benefits.
When you say “serious commitment.. 2Billion” without raising taxes. ignoring interest costs, funding the obligations/deferred maintenance with the 20Mill/year surplus, 100 years?
Nope, i wouldn’t rush into promising affirming obligations to anyone.
Implementing Donald Shoup’s parking charge the way he supposedly recommended with the fines going to improve the local district, seems like a good use of the fining/taxing power to communicate the true costs of private vehicles to users of same.
Marleen would say it’s not kosher to charge more for a fine than the cost of collection plus civic damage, but one can rationalize around that.
Wonder how many of our current council members besides RK would know how to edit a spreadsheet? It would be beneath Dellums dignity to dirty his hands with such detail.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:50 pm
No doubt muni bond underwriters are still in see no evil hear none mode, so if a serious contender or an elected official kept using the b word, there’d be a temporary increase in borrowing costs.
but then why should there be except on the general obligation stuff? which is relatively small. if anything, bankruptcy could allow us to pay off debt that otherwise we’d need to rework.
but wouldn’t you think that the risks of B are already taken into account by the market?
then a bunch of muni borrowing is done using those federally guranteed loans now.
if our fearful leader don’t start talking about bankruptcy, we’re even more likely to go into it without any planning.
August 2nd, 2010 at 4:39 am
If Rebecca Kaplan cannot organize support for her policies among her colleagues on the council, what makes anyone think she’d be able to as Mayor? I dunno.
My thoughts on leadership skills and the Oakland race are here:
http://georgewillcoxon.com/2010/07/05/why-i-support-don-perata-for-mayor-part-i/
August 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 am
George, last year Rebecca was instrumental in getting unanimous support of the council for four ballot measures. Those four ballot measures passed by overwhelming margins. You may remember the campaign signs for those measures, they were in Kaplan’s colors, ’cause she ran the campaign. Result? Millions in new revenue, without parcel taxes or sales taxes.
Don Perata tried to get consensus out of the City Council this year. He tried to get them to vote against instant runoff voting. He essentially asked them to look at a law passed by the voters and void it by decree. I believe the only people who took his side were his good friend Ignacio De La Fuente and his ex-girlfriend Jane Brunner. Does a man who makes a miscalculation and overreach such as that look like a good Mayor to anybody?
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 am
“Labor laws that make it easier to organize unions.” That alone is reason enough not to vote for an individual.
Max,
Can you identify the four ballot measure to which you refer?
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:47 am
Max, we were discussing leadership during the recent budget crisis. Cherry-picking other events to back up your unlimited (blind?) support for Councilor Kaplan doesn’t make your argument more persuasive, it makes it less persuasive.
And “ex-girlfriend?” Keep it classy, Max. We don’t have a politics of personal destruction in Oakland, and we should keep it that way.
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:47 am
George, before you link to your blog, it might be fair to point out that you censor comments that do not agree with your position.
Oh, and also, that you’ve known Don Perata your entire life and that he is a close family friend. Pretending that you’re using your powers of being a trained Political Scientist and having evaluated all of the candidates to determine that Don is the only logical choice goes beyond being merely deceptive.
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 am
Ralph,
First, as to the starting pay for new officers, I start with the premise of what we can afford, not with what they would like to earn. Right now police are being laid off in many cities and unless they return to active duty with in 60 days they have to go through more than 130 hours of training to get re-certified with California P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer Standards and Training).
To answer your question about the parking, I was not clear in what I wrote. I meant reducing fines and fees to tolerable levels – not eliminating them. I also think we should have strong enforcement to eliminate the use of illegal disable placards. Last week while walking downtown, I noticed that every car on the two blocks that I checked was either a city vehicle or had a placard hanging from the mirror.
About the outsourcing, I agree that it could save a lot of money putting much of the non-core work out to bid. Other cities are already doing this and realizing substantial savings.
August 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 am
Wow Daniel, that’s not why I deleted your comments at all. They were ageist and personal. Like this attack. Can I publish our email chain? Nowhere do I claim that my training as a political scientist solely leads to my support for DP. My disclaimer on my website is clear.
I think your posts are textbook definition of trolling, but thanks for contributing to raising the level of political debate in Oakland. Our community is stronger for it.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:00 am
Daniel, as I noted, you are welcome to publish dissenting opinions on my blog that meet my comments policy, as, for instance, our blog host, V-Smoothe has done.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:05 am
My comments were no more ageist than Don Perata is progressive. The problem is your unlimited (blind?) support for your family friend leads you to distort the meaning of these words.
I am personally deeply offended that someone who is running for mayor of Oakland has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Prison Guards Union. That someone can call such a person ‘progressive’ is absurd. When I point this out I get called a troll. Who’s keeping it classy now, George?
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:28 am
Greg,
Thanks for the clarification. So based on what you are saying when revenues go up (or savings realized from outsourcing) we can pay officers more. Aside, you may want to remove the list of officers from your page.
Personally, I think the fines are too low. The city should not be setting fines in accordance with what people can pay. You assess the fine because someone is doing something that is not for the good of society – running a red light, hogging a time limited parking space. Children should be able to cross the street safely a $10 fine may not discourage one from running a redlight but a $400 fine (such as it is in Palo Alto) will. Businesses need customers. A $10 fine for not moving one’s car may not motivate one to move, but a $65 fine will.
Daniel,
I would agree that the political science training on GW’s site is more prominent than any disclaimer. I had to search before I found the disclaimer. But it certainly seems less than forthcoming if the family history is correct.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
George, the reason I mention the long standing personal relationships between Brunner, De La Fuente and Perata is simple. It illustrates that the only people Don could get support from on IRV were people who had decades of loyalty to him. The law said “up”. Don wanted the council to say “up” meant “down”. Only two of them capitulated.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:32 am
And, Daniel, you are welcome to make those comments on my blog, just not make generalizations based on peoples ages, races, gender identifications, and other obvious stuff. I think misrepresenting my decision and our subsequent discussion says a lot more about you than it does about my blog. You were actually civil in your emails!
For those interested, internet trolling is a common behavior in blog threads. Making outlandish, often factually inaccurate, claims in order to provoke a response. The default policy is “not to feed the trolls;” that is, don’t reply to them, in the hopes that they get bored and leave. Obviously I didn’t follow that policy here, but it’s hard not to when strangers call you a liar.
From wikipedia:
a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Daniel, can I publish our email thread?
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
Ralph, the port workers I was referring to are 1099ed, breathe toxic air, and were duped into accepting grants for upgraded trucks that were not enough money, forcing them to go into debt to cover the difference. That’s not a union-run-amok issue. That’s a human rights issue. Those truckers don’t even have bathrooms accessible to them while they wait for loading.
As for the ballot measures, remember the Yes4oakland campaign?
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 am
George, your intimations that I am somehow bigoted are just not going to fly. You might want to supplement your PoliSci training with a Sociology course when you get back.
Of course I am not willing to let you publish my emails while censoring my blog comments. That’s crazy.
We’ve gone too far astray on V’s blog, if you want to discuss further you have my email address.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
Unfortunately, the fundamental problem with Ms. Kaplan’s suggestion is that when Oakland violates the “no lay-off” pledge, it will presumably do so because of continued economic stagnation/ decline. Therefore, restoring some of the benefits to fewer officers will simply worsen the budget problem, and lead to even more layoffs and yet another budget crisis.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 am
Regarding censorship, by the way, I think I know Vsmoothe’s policy pretty well, and I support it. Outright hate speech and spam get deleted, but she doesn’t even delete hate speech if her readers have responded to it and deletion would confuse the meaning of the thread.
Censorship for the sake of quashing dissent is cowardice. It implies that you fear Dan’s views so much that you’re afraid to have an exchange with him.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
Max,
Forgive me my age but I don’t recall discussing the port issue. I don’t know if I would call it a human rights issue but from what I know there were indeed some issues with the grant process. They definitely should have at least a honey bucket. If anyone is getting screwed it is the people living over there and breathing the dirty air.
As to the Yes4Oakland campaign, before I posted it took me 5 minutes to recall that we even voted last year. I am firm believer if the accomplishment is worthy of trumpeting, then trumpet it in its entirety so people know exactly what the individual did. I still can not recall what measures RK proposed and if others can’t it may lead them to believe that the measures weren’t that noteworthy.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
Len,
Yes, I’m talking about chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. My experience has been that when I mention the word bankruptcy people immediately stop listening. I know it is controversial to talk about, but it’s a reality we have to face considering our growing deficits. I think of it in positive terms as a way to reboot the city and start anew. Chapter 9 is quite different from the type of bankruptcy people are normally familiar with. Below I’ve included a few excerpts from a description on the U.S. Court’s website.
“Although similar to other chapters in some respects, chapter 9 is significantly different in that there is no provision in the law for liquidation of the assets of the municipality and distribution of the proceeds to creditors.”
“Municipalities may also reject collective bargaining agreements and retiree benefit plans without going through the usual procedures required in chapter 11 cases.”
I’ll post the entire document on my website and link so you can download it. The link will on the first page left side below the spreadsheet link.
Regarding the $2 billion unfunded liability for employee pensions and retiree health care costs. This is will be a difficult problem and I think that will take a combination of payments and investment strategies with a close eye to business cycles. Fortunately we’re at the beginning of a new cycle and with careful investment we can make up some lost ground. I also think we really have to think carefully before we make overly generous promises. Another problem I believe is offering “defined benefit plans”. These are also unreasonable promises that have left us in an untenable position. I think the only reasonable plan is a “defined contribution plan”, but that’s another discussion.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:13 am
Back to the topic of the post, I want to respond to MarleenLee’s comment:
“If the council had different priorities, it could have voted to rewrite Measure Y and Kids First for change on the November ballot, in exchange for concessions from the police union. This would have given us an additional $30 million a year by November.”
I completely agree that this would have been a much better policy. I am no fan of Kids First!, though, I would probably recommend a multi-year phase out so as not to completely kill-off programs that might be working that we’ve invested millions in.
I am just not sure Oakland’s inability to further such a policy was simply a lack of political will on the part of the council. Certainly that was a big part of it, but we also had the continuing absence of the mayor. More importantly, OPOA has a contract and needs to agree with any concessions. They seem to be pretty set on their demand of no concessions without a three year moratorium on layoffs. I do not see anyway council could agree to such a condition.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 am
So the Kaplan supporters have now said in this thread that I am a liar *and* a coward. Max, I thought I knew you better. Rest assured that Dan’s deleted comments were in bad faith, and my invitation for Dan to post appropriate comments was also in good faith. As I invite him to publish those appropriate comments now. Like the other opposing comments that are currently on my blog. I fear Dan and his arguments so much that I WANT HIM TO POST THEM.
My comments policy is here, and is also very standard:
http://georgewillcoxon.com/2010/07/20/comments-policy/
Dan, I don’t know you, but I guess publishing the emails would contradict the lies you are now spreading about me. I can understand your hesitation, as our conversation about the problems with your comments was pretty mundane.
Outstanding work fellas. I look forward to ignoring such top notch political commentary for years to come. I just wonder if your candidate thinks these tactics are worthy of her presumably good political future. If the tone, and disingenuousness, of this pushback is any indication, the fall election is going to be a GREAT political season.
With friends like these, Oakland doesn’t need enemies.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:34 am
George, every politician in the Bay Area calls her/himself a “progressive” to the point where it’s a meaningless label.
i’m venturing into your professional territory, but my understanding of the Progressive movement of the 1880′s to 1920′s as embodied by the expulsion of Tammany Hall in NYC, and the enabling of ballot propositions and recall election through out the country and in CA culminating by election of Hiram Johnson?, would disqualify almost every politician in the Bay Area on lack of independence from vested interest groups alone.
Btw, the Citizens Union of NYC, a non partisan group founded during the Progressive era, came out (reluctantly) in favor of term limits for city council members.
http://www.citizensunion.org/home
I can’t ask you to speak for Don P, but what’s your opinion on term limits for Oakland city council members?
-len raphael
temescal
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
Len, I encourage you to post a reply on my blog if you want. I love substantive feedback, just not feedback that fails the comments policy I laid out.
Maybe I can post something about the modern definition of a progressive, and term limits, in the future.
Also, I don’t speak for any campaign, if that’s not obvious.
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:41 am
And, V, sorry this thread was jacked. I apologize for my involvement with that, but I think most of the blame lies elsewhere.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All