Faced with the failure last week of Measure S, a parcel tax aimed at offsetting plummeting property tax revenue, the ECCFPD must cut $3 million out of its $11 million budget. The moves mean closing half the district’s six fire stations and issuing pink slips to nearly half its 43-person firefighting staff.
The board considered three options presented by staff Monday:
• Three-station model: stations in Brentwood (Balfour Road), Discovery Bay and Oakley, each staffed with three firefighters. A total of 27 fire personnel would be needed, translating into 16 firefighter layoffs.
• Four-station model: two stations in Brentwood, and one station each in Discovery Bay and Oakley, each with two firefighters. This would require 24 fire personnel (19 layoffs).
• Four-station hybrid model: two stations in Brentwood, and one station each in Discovery Bay and Oakley. Three stations would be staffed with two personnel, and the fourth, possibly rotating station, would be staffed with three. This model would require 27 firefighters (16 layoffs).
“While all three staffing models will work within the District’s projected revenue, staff is recommending the Three-Station Model to provide a fully-staffed, three-personnel engine company to respond to emergencies within the District,” Henderson wrote in the staff report. “This model provides the best service model for the District as well as the safety for our District and firefighters.”
Speakers at Monday’s meeting overwhelmingly spoke in favor of three-person engine companies for the sake of both public and firefighter safety. Assistant Chief John Ross of Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District said the three-person staffing model was important to fluid command-and-control when ECCFPD units assist other agencies operating fully staffed companies.
Directors Steve Barr, Erick Stonebarger and Bob Brockman of Brentwood, along with Cheryl Morgan of the Morgan Territory, voted to keep four stations open. Stonebarger said the 3,174 calls the two Brentwood stations answered last year would be better served by two engines splitting the calls, even if staffed by only two firefighters.
When it appeared the three-station model would garner enough votes to pass, Stonebarger asked the fire board to reconsider which three stations would close, noting that Brentwood’s downtown station (now set to close) answered almost 1,200 calls last year, a workload that would be added to the Balfour Road station and amounting to almost 10 calls per day. He noted that Discovery Bay’s station answers about 700 calls per year, and would likely spend a lot of time on the road covering Brentwood calls from several miles away. He echoed a comment of Brockman: “I’d rather have two guys show up in five minutes than three guys show up in 10.”
Chairman Kevin Romick and Directors Pat Anderson and Jim Frazier of Oakley, along with Robert Kenny of Bethel Island and Joel Bryant of Brentwood, voted for the three-station model, noting the strong public support for staff’s recommendation and the need to maximize both public and firefighter safety.
“Not one of these (models) are good; in fact, all of them are bad,” said Bryant. “I have to defer to wisdom and experience. I cannot say I know more than the guys who do this job every single day, and they tell me this (three-station model) is the best way to save lives. I have to go along.”
That argument did not sit well with the other Brentwood representatives, who vented their frustration when the issue was discussed at Tuesday’s Brentwood City Council meeting.
“Brentwood got sold down the river,” Stonebarger said Tuesday, adding that the decision “lacked respect and recognition of what the voters said.”
Brockman, who also feels more residents would be helped by faster responses that the additional unit in the four-station model could provide, said he was upset that the fire board made “no viable attempt” to change the district’s operational model in the wake of the resounding defeat of Measure S. The directors who voted for the three-station model, he said, “bowed down to the firefighters mainly because there was a room full of firefighters.”
Bryant responded Tuesday that he stood by his decision. “None of (the proposed models) was adequate,” he said. “But voters knew these were the service levels we were looking at, and they were willing to live with them. The important thing now is to remedy the problem and start considering ideas the Measure S opponents came up with.”
Barr said that’s what the four-station model represented: “We missed an opportunity to implement one of those ideas.”
Also on Monday, the ECCFPD received the news that Engineer Willie West, a 23-year veteran firefighter who worked 10 years for the ECCFPD, had lost his battle against cancer. A moment of silence was observed and the meeting was adjourned in his honor.
East Contra Costa Fire District gets $7.8 million grant to restore cuts
Here's the link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21392355/east-contra-costa-fire-district-gets-7-8
It's too bad we didn't read anything in the local press about this grant possibility during the Measure $ campaign.
Think about what you have stated in the last comment regarding promises. I totally agree with the promises made that should be kept. The promise is only good for the duration of the contract. It’s not a forever guarantee of benefits unless the contract is forever. Now let’s talk about the contract that is held by the unions and the government entities or the unions and the private entities.
The union contract lasts for a finite period of time. This means they can be altered any way that is negotiated at the expiration of each contract period. Therefore, the 3@50 rule is as only as good as the duration of the current contract and everyone who is in it for that specific duration only. On a renegotiation, the previous contributions would be expected. Let’s say today a new contract is negotiated that now allows for a say 3@57 or whatever. This means that everyone in the new contract should conform to its new negotiations. The end result will and should be an average or prorated amount of the duration of each contract period. Thus, to use 3@50 example is only good if that is negotiated for thirty straight years. If it changes then the existing employees that are not eligible to immediately retire would receive prorated contributions should the 3@50 change to 3@ whatever age.
An example in my contract with a few different unions changes each time the contract is renegotiated and resigned by the parties. For me (as a union member myself) I had to follow what was contributed to me in each contract. Those contributions varied by economic conditions and renegotiations between the corporations and the unions in my trade. The end result, I still do not know exactly what I will receive because over the past 40 years the contribution credits changed. I have an idea of about what I will get but until I actually retire and collect or become of age to collect I will not know. FYI, it’s not half of what the typical firefighter gets in retirement today and my trade is in the top ten most dangerous trades unlike the firefighters.
This same thing should occur in the Firefighter, nurse, medical, law enforcement, etc. field. Therefore, those who retire today should get today’s contract agreement price plus any additional contributions that were higher in the past. The ones who remain on a job with a renegotiated contribution price should get a prorated amount of each signed union agreed price during the duration of that contract.
Everyone talks about contracts and that’s fine. A new contract and its benefits should also prevail over the old ones from the day of inception until the expiration too.
This allows entities to have a greater look at future expenditures and obligations instead of the “ Unfunded Liabilities “ that will bankrupt many municipal organizations unless dealt with today. Remember this small district alone has racked up 29 million in this type of debt. Con fire is many times this number. Something must be done before we reach the cliff of no return. Now you know what to blame. We already know who dropped the ball.
Next step is to fix it now or all the stations will be volunteer like or not.
First and foremost, this City's retirement Plan is administered by a nine-member Board of Administration composed of two City employees elected by members of the system, two Retired Plan members elected by the Retiree Associations, four public members, who are not connected with the City and have significant banking or investment experience, and another public member, who is selected by the eight Board members and approved by the City Council. The Board is appointed by the City Council and serves in accordance with the municipal codes.
Now that you know about the retirement oversight in this particular City, I can elaborate on what was communicated to me about your response. From your post above the Chair reported to me, that what you speak of resembles a private employment contract. This IS NOT the way the retirement system works for California public employees. In essence, when the union employees in this municipality took the job they in effect signed a CONTRACT that covers the TERM OF EMPLOYMENT. That means for as long as the worker is employed with this City. No changes can be made to the employees' retirement contract unless they personally agree to it. So your attempt at invalidating the significance of their binding contract does not apply to this situation.
In closing, I respect you for recognizing that we have a problem in ECCC. You acknowledge that the voters have spoken and remain proactive in providing solutions. To tell you the truth, I don't know where to begin with our City. My only hope and prayer is that our elected officials don't race to any solutions like placing students in charge of protecting our homes. The cuts are deep and the voters, including myself, have to accept the repsonsibilty for our choices. Fixing it now doesn't mean we should be hasty and patch the holes. We've seen where haste takes us. Solutions need to be considered carefully and their impacts studied before they are put in place. Unfortuntely, homes, property and lives may be lost. But we should've considered that cost when we decided to vote down measure S.
In the future, please reciprocate commom courteousy and take the time to read the context of other peoples' postings before you dispute their opinions.
As I've stated in several of my comments, the unions in the City I'm referring to, have proposed many fair, reasonable and legal solutions for pension reform.
Respectfully,
Who'stoblame.
Thank you for your response regarding the City. My comment was about the Fire District as this is the topic of this article.
It appears you have everything under control and will see to it that we all get the best service for our tax dollars.
You write as if you are an official of the city. Why would you hide under a fictitious name? Are you afraid people will not take you seriously? If you are sincere on your convictions, I would think you would be public as to who you are unless you are a politician playing all angles. Then it would make sense.
Also, when it comes to unions, retirements, contracts, etc., why should the public or private sector at beginning employment get a lifetime guarantee and still need a contract?
This is something that the legislature needs to address along with the assumptions of extreme rates of return that are overly expected in the pension investment area.
STOCKTON
Stockton is demonstrating what happens when the promises made by politicians cause insolvency. The taxpayers are not required to pay more taxes to cover the over promises. In fact, it is incumbent on the taxpayers to vote new taxes down until the politicians demonstrate fiscal responsibility and solvency.
That sucks for the public employee union folks who relied on the promises of the politicians (and their union representatives). It really sucks! And it should not have happened. However, it's not any different (or much different) than the vendor who gets stiffed for services rendered when a corporations files for bankruptcy or the contractor who gets stiffed when a homeowner files for bankruptcy. I guess I can understand the sentiment that bankruptcy is morally and ethically wrong, but I think it's better than debtor prisons.
The point is, resources are finite. As self serving and misguided as the politicians have been over the years in agreeing to these unsupportable benefit packages, the unions themselves are also responsible for encouraging unrealistic return estimates on investments. Just as the homeowner who bought more house than they need and can afford but the bank has responsibility for letting it happen. It takes two to tango and both sides have fault.
How does this end? Ask the retired public employees in STOCKTON. It's not pretty.
What's your beef with sudents augmenting the Fire Departpments (or any volunteer for that matter)? I've taught thousands (yes, thousands) of students on all facets of fire fighting, which included several days of live fire fighting drills. They all did fine. Neophytes all of them. Only real experience prior to that training in most cases was watching Backdraft late at night on cable.
We need to look at all possible solutions, and that is one that will help. You think the fire fighters manning those stations are any better than a student who graduated the fire academy? They're not. Two "experienced" fire fighters recently died in a flashover fire in SF. Just because they've been around awhile doesn't necessarily raise their ability.
Check out the NFPA statistics on how much of our country is currently covered by volunteer fire departments. It's nearly 75%.
Anyone can be a decent fire fighter, with a day or two of training. I know. I've done it.
Public sentiment is clearly on the side of the voted deals dealt thus far in San Diego, San Jose and Wisconsin, as they have soundly shown in those three cities so far. I voted for measure S, I felt that the deal seemed fair considering the services offered up. But, I knew it was doomed as I checked the box. Those of you arguing in favor of the failed measure really need to start new and go with the "more bees with honey" approach and try to win over the public.
I am jealous of your deal though. I would get an additional 20% on my military retirement if I had the same deal you all get, and that would be an additional $438 to me monthly. A new car payment for sure. From what I read in the press' accounting of your deal, I'd love to trade what I have now for yours. Currently, I'm employed in the private sector, and as it stands now, I should be OK when I retire, but, most of the guys I work with will struggle each day to feed/house/clothe themselves in the manner in which they do so now and have become accustomed to.
That's reality. Most of the private sector folks won't get nearly as much as the guvment folks will get. Doesn't help that the few FFer's I know have in their yards tricked out with jacked up trucks/suv's, new boats and motor homes, and pools in their yards. Livin' large while your neighbors watch, and then holding your hand out for more is no way to gain the upper hand.
Might want to start here and now by being a bit less vitriolic, and a bit nicer.
I've walked a few miles in your shoes; I was a Fire Fighter in the military. Tossing around the "hero/courageous/brave/willing to die" routine don't fly with a lot of us out here. Not when so many are out there right now being shot at, or blowed the heck up by bombs made to look like donkey carts, and only eligible for about half what you all will get don't swallow too well. No one doubts the risk of fire fighting. But guaranteed, my current employ is way more dangerous than yours. I know, because every time CONFIRE comes here to drill at our location, they tell us we're the crazy ones.
And again, they guys I work with do it for less than you all get, and most of us have BS’s in Engineering or Chemistry. Sure, it ain’t “Fire Science”, but it’s something…
Good luck on your quest of windmill jousting. Watch out for that truck I told you about.
Indeed, avoiding IED's and searching for an enemy that blends into it's surroundings is more dangerous than firefighting or policing. But that's not what we're talking about here. The fact that we don't take care of our military folks is another issue in itself. One of my close friends served in Desert Storm and lost the hearing in one of his ears. He now receives 3 cents a day for his impairment. Unbelieveable! But like I said, a completely separate issue... so trumping the common adjectives used to describe a domestic career and measuring bravery with your service history is irrelavent. It is unfortunate that you, like many that have written in, inflamed by my "union apologetic" attitude, have fallen into the most obvious category of,"IF I DON'T HAVE IT, WHY SHOULD THEY." Instead of looking at the fundamental rights of working Americans, the effect that an anti-union court ruling will have on the future of labor, many of you have turned the table and made it about yourselves. It's bigger than you or me.
Additionally, I'd like to clarify some of your assumptions and stereotypes...I don't work for the fire department. I've been in the private sector since 1993 and have a 401K but have family in the fire service. So there's no "deal" for me. I'm just a hard working man who's tired of political corruption and lies; like, Dick Cheney's Halliburton contracts and the federal government cover ups. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just an avid reader. All this while my honest family member fights for basic labor rights. My family member joined the fire service at the age of 35, so he'll never make 30 years of service, especially at the rate he's going. That translates into alot less than 80-90% of the 3 year average, of the highest, final salary. Puts him just about par with your retirement, somewhere around 60%. And, as far as I know, police officers and firefighters pay taxes too, so the "pissed off tax payers" comment doesn't hold any weight. He doesn't have a lifted truck, own a fancy ski boat, have a pool or motor home. What he does have, is a family that appreciates what he sacrafices for the people he doesn't know. Despite what they think, write or say about him, he still does what is right, what he loves to do. So, with that being said, I have no reason "to be a bit nicer" to the people that want to dismantle, demoralize and discredit my family member's profession and way of life.
Moreover, what YOU and many others don't know is that his union offered up an 18% paycut, which he took, reduction of retirement benefits to 80% at 30 years of service, a two-tiered retirement system for new hires, terminating sick-leave payouts, as well as increasing employee contributions to health care benefits. The City he works for turned those offers down because they want everything, including removing disability retirements, step increases for years of service and cost of living adjustments. Instead of taking the $500 million dollar savings over the next 5 years, the City turned it down. So who exactly isn't "meeting in the middle"? His local union tried to stop the truck from gaining momentum but the elected officials cut the brake lines! Do you believe that a firefighter should receive a disability retirement if they fall through a roof on a structure fire and can't return to normal duty? Where my family works, the City wants to take that away. If the employee cannot return to the position for which they were highered, and they have the ability to,"lick stamps," and that position is not available, the City can terminate the employee's right to assignment and fire them. How is that legal, fair, reasonable, and valuable to working Americans? My point being, the City and employees entered an agreement and now they're trying to breach that contract and take away a few more benefits. THAT IS ILLEGAL, morally and ethically WRONG! In the same months, this City GAVE away millions of dollars of owned land to a developer that has family ties to members working for the City. But the public will never hear of these injustices, because the media doesn't tell the entire story and the local unions can't afford to run adds to bring forth the truth. Meanwhile, the truck is running over innocent workers while they try to repair the brakes.
How come there are people still foreclosing on homes in our great city after the banks received bail outs from the federal government? Oh ya, people are still losing their homes because they SIGNED A CONTRACT and are being held to it! As I've stated before, it's illegal to breach a contract for any reason. Why should local governments be exempt? Because elected officials have aspirations for their next office, doesn't give them right to break the law and demoralize hard working people in their path. Look around you. The rich are getting richer, the poorer are getting poorer, and some corrupt politicians are cashing in. They've pitted the public against 2 revered professions and made the people doing those jobs the villans. Now ask me again, who isn't "meeting in the middle."
That said, I never claimed or said that I'd like to roll back any deals made vis a vis contracts. I'm all for honoring those deals already made. I only stated I'm jealous of their deal. AND I voted yes for measure S. You want to break it down? Here is one deal as compared to what I get:
2004 Pay Scale E-8@22yrs = $3986.40 x 55% =$2192.50 (annual Active = $47836.80/Retired = $26310)
IF I’d been FFer with 3%@50 with the above salary I’d get:
My retired pay (military scale) would have been: $2631.02, or… $438.50 (20%) MORE (this is just if I’d received 3%@50 deal for 22yrs).
Now… if’n I’d have been an ECCFPD FFer on ECCFPD FFer Pay in 2011 and retired as an Engineer with 25 years I’d get the following retirement: $5687.50 per month (annual $68250); Assuming I’m a HS Grad @18;and I take 2.5 years to graduate CC with Fire Science AS then give myself another 4.5 years to get hired and complete probation by age 25, I’d be eligible to retire at age 50. These numbers represent total salary, base OT (based on one Engineer who made $57,081.24 Base, $29,873.52 OT, & $4,128.38 “other”, for a total of $91,083.14.
God help us if Military could have charged OT.
Now… if you make the argument “you get back into the workforce at an earlier age, and make that up…” argument, then this is the outcome (and yes you can get hired at age 50 to work another career, just do it, I have and many others have as well).
I Retired at 42 from Military; if I live to age 82 total draw will be roughly:$1,073,448 assuming a 2.5% COLA increase over the course of 40 years.
If I’d have been an ECCFPD FFer and retired at age 50 from ECCFPD, and if I live to age 82, my total draw would be roughly:$2,184,000 and that is with NO COLA increases.
That’s $1,110,552 more than a retired E-8 will get, and a retired E-8 has more responsibility than a ECCFPD Engineer has.
Do the math for the COLA on the ECCFPD Engineer salary, and you go nucking futs.
I'm all for honoring the deals already made. But, the votors spoke, and our YES votes LOST. Now it's time to deal with it. Accept the way things are going, go back to school and learn something new, and get out of the public sector as quick as you can, because this is only the beginning. And that is a fact. Thanks for your thoughts, and good luck!
As you stated in your first post, I'm "windmill jousting". Frankly, I'm growing tired of having to repeat myself and sort through replies only to make the same obvious statements. My argument is not with you, or about who makes what or who's got it worse...it's about the legal issues, immorality, lies, deceit and defending what is fundamentally right. It's about returning to the values and morals that made this Nation great. As I've stated before, my family member's local agreed that pension reform was needed and provided viable solutions to their City. In that process they took a paycut, and then came back to the table to offer more, reasonable and fair solutions. They were shot down by appointed/elected officials that are driven by power and greed. The crazy thing is, it's happening at all levels of government. With that being said, I'll never "accept the way things are going", and I refuse to be tolerant of immorality and corruption, in any form. I don't need to go back to school, I'm already educated and have a career in the private sector. But thanks for your suggestion.
I leave you with some humbling and wise words from our founding fathers and presidents. Hopefully they'll provide you with some perspective and inspiration....
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln
"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature...If the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788
"If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."
Noah Webster
Dude
You really need to read both post's completely. I stated that I voted YES and that I beleive the deals already made need to be honored.
Reality check time. People are bent. Unless you're wearing a uniform of the US Military, those same people who are bent don't much care about your deals. Wanna blame someone? Blame the FFers throughout the state who are now on the list of people reaping $100K plus retirments.
I mean, if you really want to find someone to blame, they're the ones who blew it for all the regular folks just doing their jobs.
If volunteers were actually brought back, with the approval of the union, career firefighters from other jurisdictions living in the ECCFD who want to volunteer one day a month for their local community could man an empty station such as Bethel Island. This was done in the past until the union pressured these career firefighters to quit local POC volunteering.
College students taking fire science and ones who already have credentials wanting hands on experience could man a station or become a back up engine crew at peek times.
These ideas are not a fix but will surely help the district through tough financial times.
Your sarcasm is another reason why this measure failed. The LAFCO documents clearly state a combination department. This has been around for many years for you to and the rest of the commission to review. There is no reason to reinvent what is suppose to be a written document law. As soon as you clear acceptance through the union to do what it takes to save lives and property then we can move forward with a combination district. Until then everyone will keep doing the same dance for another twenty years.
What does my sarcasm towards you have to do with Measure S? I simply stated you had a good idea and should provide it to the Board with a formal proposal. That's called advice and you choose to attack me which goes to show me you are not serious in trying to work out solutions.
So if you want to pull the LAFCO thing, we can play that game. Now I urge you to take that LAFCO documentation that is supposed to be written law as you claim and provide it to the Board along with a Letter to the Editor showing why the law is not being followed and the "wheel" you refer to does not need to be re-invented.
Prior to doing so, I first urge you to re-read the document.
Would moving more equipment into the new stations at Brentwood and Oakley along with bringing the crew up to four save anything? If a possible 2 person company was within cost along with another station, then maybe 4 person stations with multiple apparatuses may be workable. This would allow two 2 person engines to respond giving more flexibility to calls.
It would be helpful if the media let the public know which political candidates are receiving union contributions, so that the voters can know where those candidates' loyalties lie.
For example, Assembly candidate Jim Frazier has received tens of thousands of dollars from unions, which are by far his top contributors.
$3,000 came from the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 1230, which led the Measure $ campaign, which Frazier voted for. Other top union contributors include:
$7,800 from I.B.E.W. LOCAL UNION 302 PAC
$7,800 from STATE BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA PAC
$7,800 from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL
$7,800 from COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION CALIF. LABOR FED., AFL-CIO
$5,000 from CALIFORNIA STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL POLITICAL ACTION FUND
$3,900 from PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 447 PAC
$3,900 from INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS LOCAL LODGE 549 PAC
$3,900 from STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 342 PAC FUND
$3,900 from I.B.E.W. EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE
$3,900 from SHEET METAL WORKERS INT'L ASSOCIATION LOCAL NO. 104
$3,900 from PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL 467
$3,900 from CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION PAC
$3,900 from SEIU- UNITED LONG TERM CARE WORKERS LOCAL 6434
$3,900 from DISTRICT COUNCIL OF IRON WORKERS
$2,900 PLUMBING INDUSTRY CONSUMER PROTECTION FUND U/A LOCAL NO. 159
Can there be any question of where Frazier's loyalties will lie when he gets to Sacramento and votes on union-backed legislation that sticks it once again to the taxpayers?
It does remind us, however, just how this whole scheme went wrong. The politicians and unions knew they couldn’t justify increases in salary given the lack of revenue because salary is pain in the here and now. Rather, they backloaded their deals to pay for wonderful benefits years later. That worked fine – the Unions continued to contribute to the politician’s campaign coffers and the politicians made promises that wouldn’t be paid out until years later. Everyone wins, right? It’s hard to feel sorry for either of the co-conspirators (union or politicians), but the rank and file certainly stand to lose out.
I fully support moral, ethical and legal actions. It is imperative that the public sector unions work with the local, state and federal agencies to find a way to pay for the pensions that have been promised, reduce them to reasonable levels, or face legal financial insolvency that may well result in a worse outcome for the workers. We are seeing this played out in Stockton right now. I fully expect that the parties will come to some resolution and avoid bankruptcy, but that option does need to remain on the table.
There is nothing moral or ethical about politicians and unions agreeing on how to spend our grandchildren’s earnings. The FACT that the bargain they made is not sustainable is not the fault of the taxpayer. Unfunded pensions are always at risk when the enterprise becomes insolvent. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. It’s too bad that the unions and the politicians conspired to put themselves in this situation, but here we all are.
My favorite idea of your socialist manifesto: bring all workers wages and benefits up to the public employee union levels. Hey, I'm in! Do I just go down to the local hall and sign up foe the bennies? Sheesh! I should have done that, when I was 25 years old so I could retire now and live off the taxpayers. I really missed the boat. Where we're you when I needed you my Komrad?
As California goes, so goes the nation
– author unknown
As a conservative friend of liberal blogger Justin Rosario asked, “Why should public sector jobs be better than private sector jobs?” San Jose voters apparently asked the same question, while casting their ballots for Mayor Chuck Reed’s Measure B, which drastically reduces benefits for our public employees. The question we REALLY should be asking is, “Why have private sector jobs gotten so much worse?” Within many of our living memories, the majority of U.S. workers enjoyed secure employment and generous benefits, including pensions or 401K matching, medical/visual/dental, paid holidays, and vacation time. We forget that back when today’s retiring police, fire fighters, teachers, and other public employees launched their careers, they sacrificed the significantly higher wages then offered by the private sector to follow their calling to serve.
Now that the proverbial chickens have come home to roost after 30 years of gutting our economy with deregulation, supply-side economics, union-busting, and off-shoring, we bitterly resent the few workers who still possess a measure of economic security. Instead of voting against generous benefits for the people we rely upon to keep our City’s infrastructure up and running, we should be advocating more generous benefits for all workers, and for policies that require China, India, and other developing nations (to whom our companies outsource jobs) to rise to OUR standard of living, rather than continuing to lower ours to theirs. We cannot even hope to compete against corrupt, exploitative nations that do not conform to U.S. standards and rule of law.
When my family and I moved to Willow Glen last year, we were attracted to this community’s livability, cohesiveness, creative vitality, diversity, amenities, good schools, thoughtful urban planning policies, and robust local job base. Thanks to abundant Silicon Valley tech jobs, the recession has not hit this community as hard as the rest of California — and the U.S. in general. I greatly admire my neighbors and fellow parents for their activism in the community, general neighborliness, support for law enforcement, emergency responders, and our schools. But, having lived in a rural area in Sonoma County that was devastated by the recession (and often struggles to begin with) I find the budget deficits of our new home in comparatively fortunate San Jose, and Mayor Reed’s call for budget cuts, to be utterly terrifying. I also feel disappointed in my fellow citizens, because San Jose seemed too progressive to vote for something so vile and evil.
Aside from my liberal biases, here are five logical, pragmatic, and business-friendly reasons why Mayor Reed’s “pension reforms” are the WRONG way to go about balancing our budget:
Pension reforms reduce our city’s competitiveness for recruiting quality personnel: Less than a month later, we’re already seeing the negative effects of Measure B. Actually, we’re a total laughing stock amongst public agencies. In the wake of mass resignations from the San Jose Police Department following the passage of Measure B and resulting shortages of trained law enforcement personnel, the SJPD recruiting sergeant emailed other police departments across the country encouraging them to spread the word about our new job openings. Steve James, president of the Long Beach, CA Police Association responded via email, “To be very candid with you, there is no way in good conscience that I could recommend your department to anyone at this time due solely to the efforts of your mayor and other elected officials to decimate the pay and benefit structure you currently enjoy.” San Jose has long proudly boasted of being “the safest city in America.” Let’s see how long THAT lasts. Gee, long hours and risking my life on a daily basis for reduced pay and sucky benefits? Oh yeah, gimme some o’ dat.
Pension reforms and other cost-cutting measures will erode San Jose’s quality of life, and (eventually) local real estate values: Despite continued foreclosures and sagging home values elsewhere, the real estate market here in Willow Glen and other San Jose neighborhoods remains sizzling hot because home buyers are attracted to our various and enviable quality of life indicators, including (as previously-mentioned): Public safety, timely emergency response, good schools, parks and recreation facilities and programs, friendly neighborhoods, public transportation, pedestrian/bike/scooter/skateboard friendliness, well-kept roads and sidewalks, abundant jobs, and intelligent urban planning. Unfortunately, these standards will be difficult to maintain if we continue demoralizing our public employees and de-funding services. Neighbors have recently expressed concerns about police responsiveness, as well as the reduced hours of our wonderful public libraries. At the rate we’re going, it’s only going to get worse. How can a city whose home buyers steadily bid up the prices of $500K “starter homes” POSSIBLY be unable to afford its pension obligations?
Pension reforms sets a VERY BAD example: Measure B was widely covered by the national media, because of its potential for setting precedents for the rest of our country. If a comparatively vibrant and affluent city like ours thinks it can’t afford to maintain a decent level of public services and employee compensation, I shudder to think about what will happen everywhere else. As some business maven of old once said, “It takes money to make money.” Hasn’t the past 30 years of budget cuts taught us that austerity only makes things WORSE?! Despite the occasional scandal, the public sector is highly efficient and already runs on a shoe-string. If we expect functional public services — and when push comes to shove, most of us do — then we need to be willing to pay for them. Thanks to Proposition 13 (which bases property tax rates on the original purchase price), long-time residential and business property owners do not pay their fair share of property taxes, and this is part of why San Jose — and most of California — runs deficits despite our state’s comparative wealth. Expecting younger generations to pay disproportionately exorbitant taxes for fewer services, when they are fewer in numbers and generally less prosperous, is disgustingly unfair and discriminatory. Since Federal and State taxes are often disbursed for local services, we need to lobby for tax policies that ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share (I’m not talking about “soaking the rich,” I just think it’s fair for the more fortunate among us to pay the same percentage of their income and assets as the rest of us pay, since they, too, benefit from tax-funded public infrastructure and services). In the meantime, we should seriously consider raising local taxes to maintain acceptable levels of public infrastructure and services. (self-disclosure: we are currently renters, but assume that we will indirectly pay for any property tax increases via raised rents). I also strongly oppose tiered benefit structures (for all unions) in which younger workers/recent hires receive inferior benefits, because they foster inter-generational resentments and are flat-out discriminatory. What kind of message are we sending to our young people when we tell them we don’t give a crap about them?
Pissing off our public employees makes NO SENSE, plus, we should keep our promises: These workers accepted lower earnings throughout much of their careers in exchange for their excellent benefits packages, plus the warm, fuzzy feelings one gets from public service (many silents and boomers were genuinely idealistic and rejected the corporate world). So-called “pension reforms” are, in reality, an offensive breach of contract, and I don’t blame San Jose’s unions for suing the City (the defense of which will cost our city a bundle of money that could be better spent). By voting for Measure B, we are demoralizing the people who keep us safe, teach our children, drive our buses, run our libraries, process our paperwork, and maintain our parks, roads, and public spaces. How can we even look these folks in the eye, after effectively telling them that they’re blood-sucking leeches whose contributions to the well-being of our communities are worthless to us. If we can’t trust our local, state, and federal governments to keep its promises, then who CAN we trust? Seriously, anti-government, privatization proponents need to think things through and seriously consider whether they would REALLY want private sector, corporate entities to provide our law enforcement, emergency response, education, and other public services … or worse yet … not have these services at all.
By accelerating our “race to the bottom,” we endanger ourselves, our futures, and everything we care about: By de-funding public employers, we further reduce private employers’ incentive to compete for employees with better wages and benefits. Do we seriously want to continue on this road of making the Good Old U. S. of A. more and more like our third-world competitors? If so, let’s keep on voting to destroy our own government, so we can experience the joys of living in a dysfunctional, post-apocalyptic “Mad Max” world, because that’s where we’re headed. How could anyone in their right mind POSSIBLY consider widely-despised private sector companies like AT&T, Walmart, and Comcast to provide better value for our dollars — in terms of efficiency, transparency, cost-effectiveness, responsiveness, customer service, and accountability — than the public institutions we support through our taxes and our votes? Face it … American workers cannot possibly compete with their counterparts in India’s Bangalore or China’s Guandong Province. When President Barack Obama asked Steve Jobs why he can’t bring Apple’s manufacturing jobs home, back in January, Jobs flatly responded, “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” because Apple and other U.S. companies (which now consider themselves to be “multinational” rather than “American”) can basically force workers to accept squalid third-world working conditions that are illegal in this country (well, that’s not what he actually said, but it was clearly the underlying subtext). If the governments of developing nations like China and India had to play by OUR rules — including transparency, openness, worker safety, minimum wages, health insurance, intellectual property laws, environmental protections, etc. — outsourcing jobs wouldn’t be nearly as profitable, and more middle-class jobs would stay in the U.S. The wages and pensions we pay to our public service employees have also played a major part in keeping the effects of the recession from being even WORSE than they are now, because their continued purchasing power has helped keep the economy afloat. In the midst of a fragile economic recovery, this is NOT a good time for cities to cut benefits and lay off more people.
Over the past three decades, Silicon Valley — and its leaders, regardless of political affiliations — has served as a shining beacon for the amazing possibilities and benefits of technology and progress for improving our quality of life and advancing our society, despite the general decline of other industries and the American middle class. Alas, too many of us have forgotten that the technological advances we enjoy today — along with the big stock option pay-outs which enable a small number of us (not me) to afford those fabulous million dollar homes with hardwood floors, sub-zero refrigerators, and granite counters here in Willow Glen — were originally researched, nurtured, and funded by government agencies. Our collective financial, civil, and intellectual contributions to “Big Government” lifted multitudes from poverty, promoted American ascendancy, and made this country the envy of the world during the latter half of the 20th century. Maintaining moral, technological, intellectual, creative, and economic leadership as a region — and as a nation — requires investments in research, development, and infrastructure that cannot be adequately provided by the private sector. The current dysfunctional state of our health care system, and uneven outcomes of the once-lauded for-profit charter schools (as reported by Rand Corporation) prove this in spades. Governments are much better at delivering investments and services that benefit society as a whole and foster economic competitiveness, but which do not generate the short-term profits required for our businesses to profit and stay competitive.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
I also like the article in the Cal Watchdog.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/06/15/voters-douse-most-tax-increase-fires/
It appears from comments on that site that most fire taxes are not being passed.
It may be time for Con Fire , East County Fire, and the BOS to start some planning for the future if this is the norm from the public.
1)Americans' rights are easy to defend. In the case I'm speaking of, the law is on the union's side. Whether the court upholds the law is yet to be seen. If they don't side with the unions, it will have a profound, negative effect on workers' rights and this country will be one step closer to imploding. More homes will foreclose because legal contracts will only apply to hard-working Americans, not the government. The economy will continue to dive....meanwhile, the CEO's of big banks, Chevron, HP, APPLE and other large corporations will continue to make profits, and then send labor overseas. The borders will continue to be open, allowing ILLEGAL immigrants to flow in. They'll burden a system that they don't pay into and steal the only remaining jobs. Then when the tax payers and your grand children go to collect, ALL of these things will have contributed to it's failure. So, when is it time to uphold the law? When do we stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of public servants, when, clearly, there are other issues contributing to the "enterprise's insolvency." RIGHT NOW! This entire country needs to go back to what made it great...starting with following the laws already in place. Stand up for what's legal for goodness sake. And if it isn't, don't allow it. It's that simple. Quit teaching tolerance and making exceptions; no one will ever fear the consequences of their actions unless there's a price to pay. Now do you understand why I'm so bent on upholding the law? It's not the only thing we need to fix, but it's great place to start....enforce the rules, no exceptions.
2)We can't assume or genralize that all unions and politicians are working together to solve this issue, but the union I'm talking about offered a proposal that would've saved this city $500 million over the next 5 years. That's after the employees took an 18% salary cut. The offer was shot down by this city's mayor and council...so, I really can't stand the fact that you keep mentioning the lack of solvency on the employees' part. They've come to the table with real solutions and keep getting "an all or nothing" attitude.
3)You use the term "tax payers" like public employees don't pay taxes too. We all put our money into the pot. And you're right, it's not the tax payers' fault, nor is it the fault of the police and firefighters who pay taxes. Most of them weren't there when the ink was drying 20 years ago. They only came to a profession, knowing what they would receive for fulfilling their duties. Can you blame someone for wanting to provide for their family and be taken care of after you throw your life on the line for people year after year. They didn't know the economy was gonna tank. At the time these substantial benefits were awarded the DOT COMers were buying multi-million dollar homes. Everyone was doing well. Now that the tide has turned, everyone's looking back at the current public employees like they robbed a bank. Pension reform is needed, and I've spoken to more than a few public servants that agree, but we need to stop blaming innocent workers for ALL of the Nation's economic problems. Moreover, we need to support those that are fighting the issue of contractual obligations. We need to support the LAW! We need to stop separating (us)the taxpayers from the (them)public workers, because we'll all be affected by the future court rulings, in one way or another.
4)I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just a man that's convicted by standing up for what's right. I believe in holding government officials accountable for the promises they make, the lies they tell, and the devastation they create during their quest for power. You probably already know that Govenor Brown was supported by the unions; he's now a proponent for pension reform. Quick to turn his back on the unions once he determined their pension issue would propel him into his next office. Politicians will sell us the world when they're thirsty for power. This is why they and the government they become, should be held accountable. They should not be exempt from promises or contracts. No one should be above the law.
I leave you with some humbling and wise words from our founding fathers and presidents. Hopefully they'll provide you with some perspective and inspiration....
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln
"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams
"Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature...If the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces."
James Garfield
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."
President James Madison (1751-1836) speech, Virginia Convention, 1788
"If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."
Noah Webster
You are a crybaby.Everyone loves firemen.Nobody that I know thinks less of them.Why are you crying about everything?People all over the world have dangerous jobs.Your words are like a little boy who didn't get his way.What you should think about is that those big businessmen that control the banks hurt the same people you want money from. I lost half of my life savings.That was suppose to help me until I die. Maybe you should go somewhere else if you think you can do better.I love firemen,I do not like crybabies.Good night it is past my bedtime.
The indemic problem of overcompensation and grotesque pension benefits have still not been resolved. They lay off by seniority so we are stuck with the most expensive of the lot.
Until there is balance on pay and pension nothing has been accomplished. It will have to happen so stay tuned.
#1) A new entire combined county fire.
#2) Serious Pension reforms that should now include tiered contributions that directly affect the end pension pay out so we pay as we go.
#3) Keep the management of the district separate from the union.
#4) Consider contracting out fire services.
#5) Consider 2 person engines as in the past.
#6) Consider increasing the reserve force.
#7) Consider entry level positions to lower overall costs.
#8) Change the shift schedule to reduce operating costs.
#9) Reduce the operating costs by eliminating leased office space while the district has vacant stations empty that could be used.
#10) Consider the district as one unit instead of who pays what where. Take the politics out of the management of the district.
#12) Consider a moratorium on all new permits for construction that affect fire services or 100% mitigation in those areas
#13) Enact any new approved development within the district to mandate a specific benefit assessment district. ( this does not need a vote of the public, just a vote of the developer/landowner)
#14) Ask the municipalities to supplement within their City/CSD/ County limits. Each has funds that may be used from the BOS down to the Cities.
#15) File for bankruptcy if the district is truly independent, see if the state will step in.
#16) Once serious reform/reorganization is modeled to be more in line with a permanent solution, a lesser tax could be reintroduced.
#17) Change bargaining unions
#18) Any other suggestions from people that are prudent, logical, and cost saving.
#19) Reduce the (management) BC's as well. The cost of a BC and the overhead for that BC can put probably two firefighters back to work. The responsibilities of the laid off BC's could be spread among the Captains at all the stations.
#20) If the capitol funding account for the district is falling behind in funding for new equipment and facilities ( i.e.: a ladder truck ) then there should be an increase for building permit fees from the County, the City of Brentwood, and The City of Oakley. This idea was provided two years ago. I wonder if they acted to make that increase recently.
#21) Screen calls for nonemergency calls for situations such as flooding and people locking themselves out of their vehicles, minor medicals, not fatal animal rescue, and calls as such could be approved or non approved response by the chief officer.
#22) Offer associated non-emergency fire call
at a charge.
#2 Tiered systems do not provide any immediate relief. BTW, unfunded liabilites are based on acutaries. A city's debt due to pension cost can change based on what timeline the author chooses to depict. For example, a 5 year projection would look worse than a 30 year. So I can paint a horrible picture if I base my budget deficit on a 5 year. Actuaries don't take into account, a postive turn in the economy. They're only based on the current economy because no one can predict the future.
#4 Contracting out services has already been proposed. Cal Fire ring a bell? Contracting out does not guarantee quality of services, nor does it ensure costs savings. Have you looked at this issue in bigger cities. For example, San Jose has a private contractor providing graffity services. NBC did an investigation on this. They've been over charging for services and the payments haven't been audited because the city cut the position.
#5 A 2 person engine company is worthless. Federal regulations or OSHA requires a,"TWO-IN, TWO-OUT," rule. That means that firefighters cannot conduct an offensive, interior attack on a fire that is beyond it's incipient stage, unless there are 2 firefighters outside, free from other tasks, to rescue the two engaged in interior fire supression. Considering that fire quadruples in size every minute, 2 person engine companies are not effective. If you have kitchen fire, and 2 firefighters show up, they can't contain the fire to the room of origin until the next engine arrives. If that's 4-6 minutes, that fire will consume more property that could've been saved. If you just want them to keep other homes from burning down, I guess 2 firefighters will do. If you ask me, I'd rather have the stuff I worked hard for saved, than let it burn, while they wait for other companies to arrive.
#6 Paid call or reserve firefighters are awesome, but they're are not as efficient as people that get paid to do the job every day. If my life's in jeapordy, I'd rather have someone that's trained and is required to keep their skills up on a daily basis.
#7 Entry level positions? Does that mean you want the least experienced person cutting you out of a car? Job related experience is invaluable and contributes to a higher level of service. If we turn firefighting into a summer job,what kind of service do you think we'll get? Don't you look for the most knowledgeable doctor or dentist for you and your family? Why would we want to hire someone, just because it's cheaper. You get what you pay for. Turn over in a small department is slow. I'd rather have people working for our City that want to be here and have a vested interest in doing a quality job, as opposed to using our city as a stepping stone. We would become a training ground for other cities. Look at San Jose. They're leaving in droves.
#17 Change bargaining unions? You mean take the workers voices away? Sounds labor friendly.
#21 We already have priority dispatching in Contra Costa County. Because of cut backs, and the expectation of efficiency, local Police, Fire and ambulance agencies have already gone to a standardize Emergency Priority Dispatching System. It's been around for years.
In general, putting more regulations and costs on new business, will keep businesses from coming to Brentwood.