Thursday, August 16, 2012
No outsourcing of Pacifica Five-O
interesting press release. It says nothing. Why wasn't it discussed in public? What was the number from the county? How many new tax measures can we expect to come down the pike?
http://www.fixpacifica.com/docs/police.pdf
Everything up to this point was presented to the finance committee to make recommendations. Finance recommended a tax because they had to recommend something and there were not numbers from the county to work with. What is the budget going to look like for the second half of the fiscal year? What kind of cuts are we looking at? What happens if we don't pass a tax next June? This was decided on at monday nites closed session. Pete wasn't there. At the regular meeting they all stepped on each other on how they were going to abide by the Brown act. If it made fiscal sense to stay with our force, and it wouldn't jeopardize the integrity or our city, tell us.
Strange things afoot.
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
117 comments:
Well duh. It's an election year. What did you expect from this council? They already broke the budget down into 6 month segments to avoid making the voters mad. Put those unpopular cuts off as long as possible and try to pass a tax. Outsource the cops? It's never about the numbers (not that we'd ever see them)in Pacifica, oh no, let's base the survival of this city of 40,000 on an unscientific, amateur survey.
We're being manipulated once again.
The chickens will come home to roost.
Looking at the small group of candidates running in November, it's easy to see why council expects the new kids to support more taxes. School board veterans,
cop's wife, attorney.
Ignore council's touching, oh so sincere rhetoric about upholding the Brown Act because that's all it is. Just rhetoric. They had trouble following it before and now they simply don't have to uphold it. It is now voluntary. Expect them to have a field day picking and choosing what the public should hear. A little of this a little of that. We'll never know.
Pete was at the closed session and then took off. He was "injured" walking last weekend.
These comments are simply stupid paranoia. There is no way to keep a secret in this town. If you listen you already know everything. Stop the crazy paranoid rhetoric. You all sound worse than the Tea Party's crazy fringe.
I believe they can not talk because it involves negotiations. But if that's the case isn't it better to leave this on the table? Maybe the unions gave major concessions for dropping it? Uh huh right.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Things are predicted to get a lot worse in the next coming years. I will pay for the things that will keep us safe.
I will pay for security.
I will pay for the new sewage system.
These are the two important taxes that you need to consider.
Tax hike pending!
This push-off of police outsourcing keeps city overpaying maybe $1.5 million a year for equivalent police coveage.
HMB, San Carlos and Millbrae all save a ton of $$ with no complaints about service.
So, council will poor mouth and try a third tax increase for June 2013.
Standard council shell game:they want to increase your taxes rather than budget smart.
You actually trust this city to use your tax dollars for what they are collected for! Poor, innocent man. Fire tax passed, fire department outsourced to Daly City. Three firefighters laid off anyway. Trust shattered. They hide behind a bogus closed session and concoct some stupid ass press release to justify it. I see all kinds of trust issues. Didn't we pay for the consultants report? Why is now such a secret! Labor negotiations! I call bullshit. It's like hiding the appraisal for the old waste water treatment plant on the premise they were in
"real estate negotiations". One more bullshit to them. When does it stop. Show us the numbers. We paid for them.
We ain't payin no more stinkin taxes for overpaid traffic cops
You know how people used their houses as ATMs and got in big trouble? Big. Well it's pretty clear that this council sees the taxpayers of Pacifica as their own ATM. Worried as usual about their popularity they are unable or unwilling to make the decisions and spending cuts that need to be made now. A series of previous councils may have brought us to this precarious state but it is the failure of this council, which seemed so promising, at the most critical time in Pacifica's history that will destroy this city.
Unlike Hutch, I believe they cannot talk because everytime they do their noses grow and it's become noticeable.
Even for Pacifica, this stinks. Have you ever known this council to pass on an opportunity to claim credit and grandstand? What gives?
So the city of Pacifica issues a press release two days after the city council meeting, stating that:"...it will not make proposals in bargaining with its police bargaining to contract out police services to the San Mateo County Sheriff."
That's nice. At what public meeting was this policy issue noticed and agendized?
Was this decided at the 5:30 PM closed session meeting on Monday, and does this represent the second illegal closed session meeting regarding this subject?
Do we see Groucho Marx emerging from the city manager's office, cigar in hand, singing: "I really must be going..."
There's obviously a new knockoff of a Marx Brothers film being done here: "A Night at the City Government." Subtitled: "Babes in the Backroom."
You can't make this sh@t up.
House as the atm
This is fine and good but pretty soon you can not take any more money out. The loan market gets tougher and you can't refinance. Oh when you were dining out, going on vacations, buying new cars and toys, your income.went down. The gravy train is over.
This city is one El Nino winter or one lawsuit of being insolvent and bankrupt.
Thanks Julie, Sue,Sneaky Pete, and Jim
Typical Pacifica city council move in an election year.
Kick that cat down the road.
The next council will probably have one of the most important votes in city history. Bankrutpcy!
"This city is one El Nino winter or one lawsuit of being insolvent and bankrupt."
Aaaaaaaaand guess what kind of weather pattern NOAA is seeing develop? Yup.
I know Len & Mary Ann wanted to pursue outsourcing if the numbers added up. Perhaps a vote was taken in closed session and sneaky Pete, Sue and Ginny shot it down. This stinks like sheet.
We can not tolerate any more increased taxes or cuts in services.
Sorry to say but the only thing left now are drastic cuts in union contracts being negotiated as we speak. If unions don't buy it we'll have to impose working conditions and at least 10% cuts across the board like San Jose and other Cities have been forced to do.
http://www.neighborwebsj.com/san-jose-imposes-wage-cuts-on-four-unions-talks-continue-with-police/
Shoot these guys a request on how to gain access to the "secret" bid the sheriff produced. Rumors had it at more than 1.5 million dollars. Over $100,000 a month!
http://calaware.org/
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/
You people are pathetic. Your fire services are essentially outsourced.....or at least you have little control over them. You want to outsource and lose control over your police department. Your public works has shriveled to a skeleton crew. You don't want business that would bring money into your fiscally challenged town....yet you want your services without being taxed.
If this is your train of thought, what is the purpose of being incorporated? Unincorporate and give the county control!
As a former city employee who really cares for the city.....it saddens me to see such a group of dysfunctional thinkers.
California politicians always threaten to slash public safety in order to get all to behave. The State is taking more and more money from local governments to feed it's addiction to the many rules and regulations.
Have you ever heard of the California Blue Berry Commission? All commissioners get paid over $100,000.00 a year.
Have fun fighting among each other. Meanwhile, firefighters, teachers, road infrastructure, and public safety are used as the sacrifial lambs. Stupid democratic voters. Politics are for the corrupt.
Hutch
$20 dollars every time you mention Pete by his well known nickname
Sneaky Pete
Arthur said..."Your public works has shriveled to a skeleton crew."n "you want your services without being taxed."
Read the paper Arthur. This is going on in every city in California. All attributable to unsustainable pensions, wages and benefits. Why should we pay more taxes to prop up a system destined to fail?
The public unions have drained enough money from progams for the poor like our Pacifica Resource Center.
Our problem like every other City is not too little in taxes. It is too much pay, pension and benefits.
I was for outsourcing but since is off the table it's time to try and negotiate deep cuts. Otherwise impose them on the unions.
Gee, everything to do with outsourcing the cops suddenly drops into a black hole...consultant's report, discussion, numbers, council's vote...all of it. Do you think the state's suspension of critical parts of the Brown Act had anything to do with it? Well, do ya? And some of you still trust this council? Stone and Nihart are driving this clown car, make no mistake about that. Anything to avoid the public battle over outsourcing. Rhodes knew what outsourcing could save months ago. IMHO the "proposal" was a good one and it's just been put on the back burner while they try the tax approach next year. Leading up to that ballot measure they'll probably soften us up with cuts to things this town holds dear. Blame election year politics and that Dome of Stupid firmly in place over city hall.
And when we do file the inevitable bankruptcy, and outsource, the excuse is going to be the public's failure to support more taxes. You did it!
It's not off the table, it's just on the back burner. Hope they don't burn it while waiting for us to pass a new tax. Not going to happen. Make all the tear-jerk cuts you want.
I'm really hoping council is about to make a grand announcement about "deep cuts to police contracts"? They may be shy about sharing those outsourcing numbers but they love a grandstand. Stay happy, don't ask to see the contract.
Anon said "Stone and Nihart are driving this clown car"
NO, you're wrong. Dejarnette and Digre have been the constipation to any progress here. Smeaky Pete has been against this outsourcing from the beginning. Remember, he's for the sales tax or else he wants to cut the resource center (slime bag) And Digre is too busy twirling in circles to let her brain function properly.
I'll bet you anything that Len and Mary Ann are steaming about this crap.
So, Hutch, you believe the numbers from the county were good, or at least worth further consideration, Nihart and Stone wanted to go ahead, but then they and Rhodes (who's always known the idea was a money-saver) were outmaneuvered in closed session by Pete and Sue? That's the story you're going with? Interesting, but I think there's more to this pile of steaming crap than just the bad smell. Time will tell.
Winners: (temporarily) Pacifica Police senior officers who would not have fared well with the county and politicians who forget who they work for.
Losers: (permanently) people of Pacifica who have been sold out once again by city hall.
This is just a detour, a quick stop at the ballot box to reject a tax measure, on the way to outsourcing and bankruptcy.
Len is quickly turning into Vreeland 2.0. He never returns emails or phone calls.
anon 427 There are some things they can't discuss. Len has always returned my calls/emails. Maybe he's just not that into you.
What has Len done since he was on council?
<>
Anon 853: No, Anon 427 is correct. He doesn't return calls. I am a local, and the little Eddie Munster look-alike stopped returning my calls when he realized we didn't see eye to eye on certain issues. Cocky and immature. It's a shame, isn't having differences just part of politics? He's still my councilman, but he's too good for some of us.
We have $800,000 in reserves! That should scare the hell out of everyone. One blip and we're out of business. Stockton is getting hammered by bond companies who bought their calstrs funding crap. They are arguing that the money funded was sent to the state for unfunded pension liabilities and those can't be restructured. Stockton is f-----. Oh, Pacifica has 22 million dollars worth of those. Of course we didn't need to save as much as $1,500,000 a year. We're flush. Flushed down the toilet is more like it.
Councilmember Stone "... stopped returning my calls when he realized we didn't see eye to eye on certain issues." Serial Anonymous 8/17 7:22 PM, 8/18 4:27 AM, 9:39 AM, 9:49 AM.
So, what were repeatedly calling Councilmember Stone about?
Vs. "Len has always returned my calls/emails. Maybe he's just not that into you." Anonymous 8:53 AM.
Maybe your point was made, and he moved on.
anon853 He returns your calls because you shill for him. You're being used. Jaquith is a placeholder, but defending any of the other 4 is ridiculous.
Kathy Meeh: Well Kathy, I post one comment and I am labeled "serial?" Very interesting...typical......the content of our conversation frankly, is none of your business. However, Council Member Stone reached out to me and was acting like a responsive city councilman until in casual conversation he didn't like my thoughts on some issues. Now I can't seem to get a response from him on anything. He's a city councilman...IT'S HIS JOB TO BE RESPONSIVE! I don't expect citizens and council persons to always agree, but he is still a representative of our city, and needs to show a little more maturity when someone doesn't agree with him. Stop trying to protect your precious little Len.
Len is one of only 2 voices of reason on the council. What has he done lately? How about allowing the highway one widening to move forward? Sneaky Pete and twirly Sue tried to stop it like they have tried to stall every project. How about finally getting the assisted living project through the council after Sue and Pete and Vreeland stalled it for months?
BTW Len & Mary Ann have had their hands tied for years since those three have dominated the council. Hopefully when we elect one or two more like minded council persons this too shall pass.
The bond insurers involved in these municipal bankruptcies are not going down without a fight. Oh hell no. All those pensions and the bonds backing them will probably survive the bankruptcy. Then what? There's no miracle on the way. No council line-up to come from behind and save us. We are done. County, here we come!
"..the content of our conversation frankly, is none of your business." serial Anonymous 10:47 AM
Well then, you didn't really explain why Councilmember Stone chose to ignore or not respond to your phone calls or emails, did you?
There is a point beyond which responding is no longer reasonable. Maybe you were just harassing him, similar to your ditto blog comments at 8/17 7:22 PM, 8/18 4:27 AM, 9:39 AM, 9:49 AM, and 10:47 AM.
The substantive issues for which you were allegedly rebuffed by Councilmember Stone are "none of my business" according to you, except you made your serial complaint of being ignored the business of all of us. Isn't that true, anonymous serial complainer? Hence void of that insight, your comments are merely an attack on Councilmember Stone with zero rationality.
"..the content of our conversation frankly, is none of your business."
I don't blame him from not responding if you were even slightly as annoying as you are here.
Our City Council is a part time position. We are not a big City. This is not a major office. They have real jobs and they don't have to respond to every person in town on their own time. That is what Council meetings are for.
And while I'm on the subject. A part time City Council should not get any healthcare or pension paid by the City or cafeteria cash. Part time positions in the real world do not get such benefits and we can't afford paying this crap anymore.
Saturday night fights..shills vs trolls..right here..ready, set, fumble
Hutch, that's actually not what Council meetings are for. Ask Schlesinger if they respond to him at council meetings. FYI, they can't legally respond to anyone in the audience at a council meeting. Had high hopes for Stone but not much to show so far. Still early. Nihart? That girl can schmooze and she craves the spotlight, but no results to speak of. I think they both can have long and remarkably meaningless careers in Pacifica politics. Til the county takes over.
Stone didn't respond to a constituent and the constituent has every right to complain. That's a very rational and valid criticism of any elected official, Stone included. The public, whether annoying or adoring, is entitled to a response. Haha, I doubt Meeh, et. would be quite so understanding if the complaint were about Pete, Jim, or Sue.
And while I'm on the subject. A part time City Council should not get any healthcare or pension paid by the City or cafeteria cash. Part time positions in the real world do not get such benefits and we can't afford paying this crap anymore.
They took this golden freebee away from them..
Must you stir that pot?
When was it taken away? Thought they promised to give up the cafeteria cash more than a year ago. No proof yet if they did. Wait for those 2011 salary reports. When did the health benefits go? Was their really a pension? Seems like there would be if they tied themselves to a union job class, which they did several years ago to nget all the goodies.
They have the option of paying into a pension plan yes.
Oh that's swell. Paying into it with what? The cafeteria cash they quietly voted for themselves a few years ago? This must be what Pete has been referring to when heard by reliable sources to say he was looking forward to collecting his $25K annual pension from this city. Surprising to see a council pension benefit mentioned here so matter-of-factly. I recall some pretty vehement denials in the past. If this is true, I guess all the longtime characters will probably collect their $25K per year for life. Whoa, talk about leveraging public funds to get maximum personal return. With financial wizards like that in charge, how come we're broke? Go figure.
The main drain is still the big union contracts though. Not 5 Council members. Well actually we're paying all the retired council too but it's a drop in the bucket compared with 100 employees drawing $100K+ in wages in benefits.
Drop in the bucket? Probably a couple million dollars over 20 years. Sure, it may seem a small part of a huge problem but it's highway robbery committed by people we trusted to make good fiscal decisions. Trusted. That they have failed so miserably and yet continue to feed at the public trough is an outrage. They should get nothing more than the $400 monthly stipend that is standard for a city this size. And fitting for a city in so much trouble. Bunch of hypocrits.
This is such a load of crap. No council member gets a $25K annual pension from the city.
Confirmed they do not get $25,000 pension.
If anyone believes this I will bet you $25,000 in $100 dollars bills on the matter
So one of my spies tells me that Sneaky Pete had a run in with Wilfred the other day. And Wilfred wasn't too happy about how "Sneaky Pete" runs the city.
Bow wow bow wow grrrrrrrrr
Wow, the misinformation is running rampant here this week. The City Council gets no pension at all. (If they did, I would have run for council years ago!) They only get about $700 a month in salary, plus health care benefits. Last year they stopped getting the cafeteria plan, which allowed them to get cash in lieu of health care if they already had health care from another source. In addition, Len Stone has chosen not to receive his salary, although I don't know if that was only for his first year or for the duration of his term. One can make the argument that there are some overpaid employees on the city's payroll, but the council is definitely not among them.
Anonymous 6:23 AM said...
"Confirmed they do not get $25,000 pension.
If anyone believes this I will bet you $25,000 in $100 dollars bills on the matter."
That's not the point. A part time City Council should not get ANY pension or health insurance paid or cafeteria cash to cover them. Tell me what part time job on the outside pays these kinds of benefits?
I have no idea what Anon 7:02 comment means.
Ian
I would have beat you in a landslide.
You are part of the reason why Pacifica is dusty, dirt and bankrupt.
Sorry man just a fact!
7:02 comment means:
Pete got bit by a dog the other day.
The pooch was probably mad at him for not wanting the dog park.
Or his horrid policies and bankrupting the city.
He voted for the dog park, as did the rest of council. People may not be happy that it took so long to get one, but the fact is that this council supported it when it actually mattered.
I think there is a pension plan for council. Too many rumors about it and where there's smoke there's fire. Especially in Pacifica. When they quietly voted to give themselves full union benefits why and how would they knowingly exclude this big one? Anon 8/18 735, I believe you. Best we can hope for is it was truly optional and some of them didn't opt. Yeah, sure. They grabbed the cafeteria cash, they'd take a pension.
Ask Ritzma about that pension stuff. Should be a simple thing. She was there. She and the upgraded benefit package happened about the same time, give or take.
Ian, you say council gets health insurance paid by the City like that's no big deal.
At any rate, a part time position in the real world would never get free health coverage. Damn even full time positions now days have huge deductibles and co-pays.
Time to get rid of this fluff.
Like that's ever going to happen.
It doesn't seem hard to find part-time jobs with health insurance. There were plenty of examples when I googled it. For example -
http://outofyourrut.com/20-part-time-jobs-with-health-insurance/
It doesn't bother me if council members get health insurance, although if they're covered by a plan from work, I'd prefer they use that and not collect in lieu cash from the city.
Absolutely, plenty of part-time jobs offer health, dental, vision, life insurance and other goodies. Starbucks, for instance. The info is out there if you want to be accurate and fair. If not, your rant is personal not factual.
I have no problem with council getting health ins from us if they need it, but that's all. No cash in lieu or any other benefits. And as a matter of principle and leadership the monthly stipend should be rolled back to CA cities standard $400 not $700.
Sure hope they really did give up that cafeteria cash. Time, and the pending state controller's salary report for 2011, will tell us who's making what. After hearing council drone about big cuts being made, I want to see decreases across the board. Trust but verify.
Oh bull crap.
Steve you gave examples of billion dollar companies like Target and Starbucks paying health insurance to part time workers. Really?
No sorry, we are almost bankrupt. Name some regular LOCAL companies that pay their part time employees health care. Let's see, Columbo's NO, Firestone NO, Nicks NO, Ross NO, Oceana Market NO, Ace Hardware NO, No No No.
Wow anon 944 who can argue with that kind of reasoning? It's stunning, really. But your original statement that no one gives benefits to part-time workers
is, as you yourself have noted, wrong.
I am a member of a small tree trimming cooperative that offers health insurance to all of our employees that work 20 hours a week.
It's important for all of our sake that anyone who is charged with running our city not have to worry about getting medical care.
Also, as a side note: in the history of this country, no one has ever lost an election to an anonymous opponent!
"Name some regular LOCAL companies that pay their part time employees health care."
In San Francisco it's the law that any company with more than 20 employees provide health care for each employee that works more than 8 hours a week.
Hey, I'm convinced, but don't expect anon 944 (Oh Bull Crap) to start listening to reason or sharing in reality. We've established that lots of part-time employees in all kinds and sizes of businesses are offered medical insurance benefits. Done!
Well, there's paying for health care and then there's paying for health care. Are we paying 100%? Because many companies now provide health insurance but with huge deductibles and co-pays.
Bottom line is we can't afford to pay health insurance for a part time City Council.
"Wow, the misinformation is running rampant here this week. The City Council gets no pension at all. (If they did, I would have run for council years ago!) They only get about $700 a month in salary, plus health care benefits. Last year they stopped getting the cafeteria plan, which allowed them to get cash in lieu of health care if they already had health care from another source. In addition, Len Stone has chosen not to receive his salary, although I don't know if that was only for his first year or for the duration of his term. One can make the argument that there are some overpaid employees on the city's payroll, but the council is definitely not among them."
Ian, old buddy, you should go back and look at the piece I did on Riptide several years ago showing that this city council is the second-highest compensated in San Mateo County.
At that time, they had tied their compensation to the management unit's contract, and were receiving yearly increases automatically in their benefits. That would have been a good one to test in court - it may have been unique in the county.
To her credit, Ms. Nihart spearheaded an effort to stop that practice, and was successful in 2009 in doing so.
But anyone who thinks this council's compensation is reasonable ought to look at the workload of councilmembers in cities like Menlo Park - they meet EVERY week and have huge agenda packets to go through. All for smaller pay than Pacifica.
Ridiculous.
ian butler said...
"I am a member of a small tree trimming cooperative that offers health insurance to all of our employees that work 20 hours a week."
That's real big of you Ian. Do you pay 100% of their health insurance costs? Do you think our City Council works 20+ hours a week on average?
Steve Sinai said...
"In San Francisco it's the law that any company with more than 20 employees provide health care for each employee that works more than 8 hours a week."
--------
That's great for San Francisco Steve. Unfortunately that's not the law here.
Hutch, someone said that no part-time jobs pay for health insurance. That was shown to be wrong.
Then someone said no small businesses paid for health insurance for part-time employees. That was shown to be wrong too.
Now it's about whether small, Pacifica businesses pay for health insurance for part-time employees, and whether they pay 100%.
It reminds me of something the great pro-wrestler and sage Rowdy Roddy Piper used to say: "Just when you think you have the answer, I change the question."
Steve I'm just saying it's great that these fortune 500 companies are paying a portion of their employees health insurance.
Same with the City of SF. That's great.
But we are neither a rich City or a profitable company.
This data from 2010 says we did contribute to their pensions then.
City Council Councilmember — $19,247 2.5% @ 55 — — —
City Council Councilmember — $20,231 — — — $1,649
City Council Councilmember — $20,184 2.5% @ 55 — — $1,440
City Council Councilmember — $13,570 2.5% @ 55 — — $7,753
City Council Councilmember — $7,316 2.5% @ 55 — — $7,830
Here's what San Bruno Council got. About 1/3 wages of our people.
City Council Councilmember — $5,832 2.7% @ 55 — — —
City Council Councilmember — $12,624 2.7% @ 55 — — $15,806
City Council Councilmember — $5,832 2.7% @ 55 — — $12,219
City Council Councilmember — $5,832 2.7% @ 55 — — —
City Council Councilmember — $5,899 n/a — — —
Hutch clearly is obsessed on this health insurance issue and is unable to let it go no matter what the facts are. That's very quirky, but he's not my neighbor so, duly noted, and I don't care. However, if his latest post showing the tell-tale 2.5%@55 pension calc for councilmembers is for real and not, ahem, another quirk, then WTF is going on? What is the source for that info? Are the rumors true about a $25K per year pension for qualifying councilmembers? I certainly understand why council would keep it a secret and that bunch knows how. What's the source, Hutch?
San Bruno gets a pension too? Smaller salaries but a pension? You'd think that with the down and dirty way of Pacifica politics that this little nugget would have been uncovered before. It's been denied on here. I recall Council talking about giving up cafeteria cash. Nothing about a pension. Is this info for real?
Call the cops if we don't get a Hutch post with sources for his little nugget. He could be in all sorts of danger. Oh wait a minute, Hutch wants to cut their salaries. They may not respond. And they're not so good at finding people, lately. But then again he's pro-police and fire. What to do, what to do? Call RoundTable!!
Ha Quirky? You guys are hilarious.
My source is the State Controllers website
http://gcc.sco.ca.gov/
The data is from 2010 like I said so not sure what the numbers are now.
There bigger now, Hutch.
Yikes! Looks like (unconfirmed) that council does get a pension. Checked Hutch's source, the state controller's site, and it does indicate a pension of 2.5%@55 for 4of 5 councilmembers. Why 4 of 5? Maybe one of them opted out? Years of service required unknown, usually 5? I looked at 2009 and 2010 and it's there for both years. Council at that time was Nihart, Vreeland, Digre, Lancelle and DeJarnatt. Can't go back farther on that site but I bet this started when cafeteria cash started which was about 2007 or 2008. Nice, huh? Thanks Hutch! Please, somebody deny council gets a pension.
I don't deny that council members get some sort of pension or payment into a retirement account of some kind. But it's not true that any council member gets a $25K annual pension from the city. That was the original assertion. If you want to know the details, ask Ann Ritzma. It's public info. The city has to give it to you if you request it.
When Council was nobly falling all over themselves giving up that cafeteria cash did any of them mention this little bonanza? I guess we just didn't ask the right questions of them and you know how shy they are about full disclosure to the paying public. Has a pension always been part of their deal? Just how many are we paying?So that rumor out is correct that Pete really is going to collect a $25,000 annual pension for life for his 12 years of very PT service? That's more than social security for many people. I can't believe this but the evidence is pretty hard to ignore.
And I don't know that they get a pension now. That is not confirmed.
Another thing. Is the health insurance paid for life like other public employees or just while they serve?
Oh Hutch I think they're still in the pension plan. Otherwise we would hear all about that nobel sacrifice. Not hearing anything about it are we? Those pensions for Pacifica councilmembers (2.5%@55) are outrageous but not unusual. From the state controller's site and other sources it looks like most but not all CA city council/town council members are eligible to participate in a mgmt class pension plan. Some cities are even more generous. Daly City offers 3%@60. I guess anyone who meets the years of service requirement would get one. That is probably 5 years. Cafeteria cash is still offered by many cities as well. Not the broke-ass cities like Pacifica but places like Beverly Hills. Oddly enough, the city of Paradise offers neither pension nor cafeteria cash.
Very timely Fix Pacifica. Pensions for elected officials in CA are a target for reform by the state legislature as we speak. Pensions for councilmembers are offered in Pacifica as 2.5%@55 and they are also offered in more than half of all CA cities. In Pacifica a councilmember can opt out. As Stockton slogs through it's bankruptcy one of the hot items is the city's unlawful enrollment since 1991 of 14 city councilmembers and 3 mayors in the Calpers pension plan. Unlawful according to the city's own charter. San Jose voted in January to end Calpers pensions for council. Citrus Heights is currently involved in a scandal centered on its council voting themselves retroactive pensions to beef up their lowly $600 month stipend. Dumb schmucks. They should have waited for the Brown Act suspension. Anyhow, it's all under review in Sacramento and who knows? AB 3664 in 1994 opened the door to pensions for city councils and maybe this legislature will slam it shut. Or not. Plenty of info on the web if you have the stomach for it.
anon 310 Now let's not get huffy. I don't think the original assertion on the 18th was ever that just any councilperson would get a $25K yrly pension. Although we don't know for sure that a one-termer wouldn't, do we? The original comment was about a rumor about Pete saying he'd been overheard talking about his $25K city pension. That and an assumption that anyone else with longtime service would get the same. That's it. I guess we could ask Ritzma how many of these are in our unfunded pension liability.
So, is Ian gonna run?
ian butler said...
Wow, the misinformation is running rampant here this week. The City Council gets no pension at all.
So is Butler gonna run or not? We got pensions!
I want to hear candidates say they'll opt out of pension and pay, I really do. Use the health ins if they need it. Tired of paying full price for minimal effort.
Pres Obama is asking for 30 billion to bail out america's education. Teachers will be laid off if he doesn't get some money.
We need pension reform and fast.
Illnois State Gov (D) is supporting majority of his citizens that want and are demanding pension reform. We need reform to save jobs otherwise they will lose their jobs and the cities will bankrupt. I don't want to see that happen. I don't want american cities to have to default on their bonds. This will devastate pensions and investment more. We need a politician that will be real with Americans. Stop lying about our sitiation.
Americans will not vote for tax increases. I will not.
Meanwhile our Federal Reserve Bank prints money. Inflation sets in. A hidden tax that hits all classes of people. This is a slow death.
Mitt Romney, like Republican Ca State Gov Arnie, never took a paycheck when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney did not take a paycheck when he workd for the Olympics. He put them back in the black. Mitt Romney donated 7 million dollars to charity in two years.
We need tax reform and pension reform.
Young people are starving. Think of the children. Time for all of us to compromise. Police, Fire, Teachers, Public Works, Gov. Workers , we are all neighbors. You know that we need pension reform for the near future.
Mayor Ed Lee (D) is giving business tax reform. We need tax reform. Time to face the facts.
Wow you people have nothing to do but come up with rumors and paranoia. No wonder you think the council makes too much, you all apparently are not busy with a productive use of your time. Lead a cause, volunteer or run for council yourselves. Stop whining and get out and actually work to fix a problem. Really. Geez
@1115, Council had the knowledge and the opportunity, but didn't fix the city economic problem over 10 years, that's why we're here. Get a clue, you've reached the "lead a cause" action conversation network. But this time the whining is all yours.
Pete didn't get a pension from the city for the total of 25k. He paid into it like every other city employee. The city could have matched what he put in.
Its not like Sneaky Pete got 25k free from the city.
Also the stupid rumor of Vreeland getting 12 months council pay was not true.
You people seem to make shit up as you go along.
And when did Hutch become the city schill? That was Butlers job!
Is that a Yes answer?
Two words...election year.
Anon 528 we may be broke but we can afford an extra shill or two when we need em'. And we need 'em!
Okay am I on the payroll then?
Ha Anon 528. Afraid of reveling your true identity? I love it when anonymous people try to tell others what they can and can't say.
Maybe we wouldn't have to guess about all this if the City wasn't hiding some things.
So don't be mad about citizens talking. Last I checked we still had that right [even in Pacifica.]
How's Hutch a shill? He gave his source about council's little known pension and the conversation went on from there.
And, yes, Virginia, there is a pension.
"Pacifica City Manager mum on move to kibosh Police Outsourcing Plan" That's the Patch headline today. Well duh, no shit Sherlock!
Mr. Rhodes and a few others could tell quite a story if they weren't afraid for their jobs.
We all should be impressed with just how devious and clever this bunch is to use attorney/client privilege to hide their actions. That's what they're hiding behind, not that lame union crap. It's a maneuver that takes real planning and careful forethought. Be impressed Pacifica, and worried. That kind of devious, manipulative behavior is addictive.
Hiding police out-source documents.
You would think they would have had one public hearing on this! San Carlos, Millbrae and HMB save a ton of money and Pacifica fumbles.
Per May 14,2012 Council agenda, consultant to evaluate out-source bid hired by city atty., amended item 10. Cost: $15-20K
Staff driven. No Council action required (per agenda notice)
All 5 council members present.
Per Council minutes, zero discussion of or questions regarding the city atty making the hire, nor any awareness the consultant's documents would be kept from the public. No mention whatsoever of the consultant report being used in contract negotiations. So, if the argument is now being made to keep the consultant report secret due to labor contract negotiations, that excuse would seem to have been made very conveniently right now and not at Council on May 14.
The Patch article is interesting. Mentions again that ongoing union negotiations are the reason for the news blackout on the outsourcing proposal. But then they quote police chief Tasa as saying his "department wasn't involved". When asked if he was surprised by the city dropping the proposal Tasa says "I didn't know".
Huh?? Who was the city negotiating with? Or is this another of those Pacifica things where you've got to ask the right question in iambic pentameter on a Tuesday under a full moon while wearing orange and eating a crab sandwich to get the whole story?
Even more interesting is one of the reader comments made by Pacifica Index following the article. The Index comments that the city is hiding behind attorney/client privilege to block public access to that consultant's report and the decison to drop the outsourcing idea. Hard to get past that even under the Freedom of Information Act. They tried. But as Pacifica Index points out, for attorney/client privilege to apply means the city attorney retained or was the lead in hiring the consultant months ago. Why? Council has hired more consultants through staff than Charlie Sheen has hired hookers. Why the convenient change in m.o. now? Did someone anticipate the need for secrecy on this? Did they ask the city attorney the right questions at the right time and then plan months ahead to block public access to this information? I agree with the Pacifica Index commenter...the implications of that possibility are fascinating. Think about it. Do you like being played?
It's time to go to the DA and/or Grand Jury about this crap.
But Charlie Sheen hired good looking hookers. The best of the best!!!
The DA laughs and the Grand Jury laughs every time they see Pacifica.
It's all about this being an election year. Remember that when you vote in November.
You'd think that even this council would know and remember that it's just as important for elected officials to avoid the appearance of wrong-doing as it is to avoid wrong-doing. Open and transparent government is the people's only protection against self-dealing, corruption and failed leadership. Mess with it at your peril.
Gov't is under a microscope and it
should be because there's plenty
wrong at city hall. And there are
no heroes. Not a one.
New blood in November!
anon 634 Can we see the consultant that was hired? Could we hire Charlie? Could we draft and elect Charlie? I can see him on the dais now. Alone, with a crown and sceptre. He'd call bullshit and bye bye council.
@anon634pm, You're right. Handle the problem locally. Just don't vote for these bumbs.
anon 634 Can we see the consultant that was hired?
The consultanting firm that was retained was Management Partners.
Uh, thank you Index. Almost like seeing. Let me put it this way..would Charlie Sheen have hired Management Consultants, Inc.?
Ha, just as I thought. Front page of Trib. Stone and Nihart seek public release of outsourcing study. They made a formal request to their fellow council members.
I'll bet anything it was Dejarnett, Digre and Jaqueth that voted to take it off the table.
What kind of bargaining strategy is this anyway. And if it is no longer on the table how could it effect negotiations to release it to the public?
Post a Comment