The Malaise at City Hall

Today, Scott Herhold penned an opinion piece for the Mercury News in which he identified timidity as the cause of some of the malaise at City Hall. While he has a point, I was stunned that he chose this topic when there are so many other causes of San Jose's problems which are far more significant than timidity. Following is my response:

Scott, I am sorry, but it is not timidity from which emanates the fumes which fuel City Hall. No, that stench you detect is the reek of the excrement with which the city's manager and elected officials have treated San Jose's citizens like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them...). Now, before one - or all - of them goes and files a complaint against me for the above assertion, allow me to lay out the following facts in its support:

1. Advocates of Measures V and W asserted that their passage was necessary to preserve public safety positions and help balance the budget. 8 months later, we saw yet another budget deficit and the layoff of 66 officers.

2. Debra Figone asserted that the city could not afford to apply for the COPS grant and attempt to preserve 53 of the 66 aforementioned police positions over the course of the four year commitment that acceptance of the grant would constitute - a financial obligation totaling $9.858 million in year 4. And yet. by process of simple mathematics, logic and observation, I have repeated shown how all 53 positions could have been preserved, thereby preserving the $9.3 million investment in training which those 53 officers represent.


a. Eliminate the disbursement of $2.46 million in grants paid out of the general fund for each of the four years of the duration of the grant. (I even offered suggestions for which grants would be responsible to eliminate)


b. Simply set aside $2.46 million for each of the four years or 0.3% of the $800 million general fund


c. Do nothing for years 1-3 and simply recognize that well more than 53 officers will have retired by the time year 4 rolled around and that 53 officers would simply account for attrition by retirement.

3. Mayor Reed has repeatedly asserted that pensions and benefits for employees is bankrupting the city or causing the budget deficit and then squarely placed his crosshairs on public safety. And yet, when I directly challenged this assertion by pointing out that many other cities pay their public safety employees as well or better than does San Jose AND maintains a higher number of public safety employees per capita than does San Jose he has stated either a. that he doesn't know how he does this or b. observed that these other cities have higher revenue per capita than does San Jose. This was the result of a question I posed to him in one of his fireside chats on KLIV.

San Jose's problems are not, in the main, caused by its municipal employees, their wages or their benefits. No, it's problems are caused by a cumbersome system of rules and laws which are excessively intrusive, and toxic to businesses, by a body of leadership which, in the main, cares more about ambition, is excessively avaricious, irrelevant, inexperienced, or checking the mail for an indictment. In order to change this, San Jose needs new leadership, a simpler, more efficient system of rules and government, and a far more friendly business environment than presently exists.

COPS Grant and the Free Market System

In the following blog, I posted a comment which related public safety work to the free market system. As I have stated elsewhere, qualified public safety candidates are an increasingly rare 'commodity', competition for cops and firefighters is high, and the city is shooting itself in the foot with its rhetoric, decisions and treatment of its employees. Here's the link: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/07_06_11_cops_grant_poa_george_beattie_debra_figone_police_layoffs/

and here's my comment:

Once again, you fail to grasp the nature of the free market economy. San Jose’s police officers are not beholden to the city in any way. They are free to seek employment in other cities - cities which are more fiscally responsible, cities which pay better wages and benefits than does San Jose, cities which treat their employees in a more ethical manner than does San Jose. Apparently, you and others on this blog fail to grasp this basic notion: people qualified and willing to be police officers - or firefighters - are a diminishing resource. Competition to attract those individuals is stiff. Agencies throughout the state - indeed, across the nation - do their utmost to solicit qualified officers from other agencies as this is the most cost-effective means of recruiting officers to accommodate attrition or the needs of an increasing population. Dozens of officers have left San Jose over the last year or so to lateral to other agencies across the state and as far away as Texas.

San Jose used to do this also, just a few years ago. It no longer does. It now enjoys a national reputation for being an unethical, irresponsible, and untrustworthy employer - a reputation for which the voters are as much to blame as the leadership in City Hall

Competition for Public Safety

One of the things I've said over and over again is that the value of a police officer is not solely dependent on the pay and benefits that a city is willing to pay them but on the pay and benefits that competing cities are willing to pay. Toward the end of the comments, I describe the difference in pay and benefits between San Jose and other agencies in the bay area. here's the link: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/03_14_11_police_officers_association_shooting_layoffs/

and here's the comment I posted:

JG

For the record, I am inclined to agree with you. San Jose’s leadership (and NOT the PD) has been all too willing to bend over backwards and play fast and loose with the law. And the leadership of San Jose has done an appalling amount of damage with their decisions, policies and rhetoric.

With respect to wages, etc…for the record, San Jose’s competition in the public safety industry is pretty stiff. Following are the highlights:

SFPD: Wages $82k+ to $110k+ with 3% @ 50 retirement formula. I believe employee pays 9% to retirment

SCPD: Wages $80k+ to $116k+ with 3% @ 50 retirement formula and 3% COLA and I believe employee pays 9% to retirement.

Fremont PD: $80k+ to $98k+ 3% @ 50 retirement formula and employer pays the employee’s 9% contribution, 13 paid holidays

Redwood City PD: $84k+ to $103k+, 3% @ 50 retirement formula, 14 paid holidays, all uniforms, cleaning and equipment paid for by City

Palo Alto PD: $84k to $112k+ 11 hour shifts including 1 hour paid time to work out, 3% @ 50 retirement formula with city taking up the employee’s PERS contribution, 5% night shift differential, all uniforms, equipment, cleaning paid for by the city.

San Jose isn’t competitive with any of these cities, if for no other reason than, at about 23% retirement contribution vs. 9% max, we pay 250% more (or more) than what other cities’ officers contribute. That on its own works out to adding about $20k to the annual salary.

I questioned Mayor Reed on this topic. He acknowledged that San Jose isn’t competitive and stated that he doesn’t know how other cities compensate their police officers this way. And yet, at the same time, he noted that other cities generate more revenue per capita than San Jose does.

Well, Mr. Mayor, there’s your answer. Revenue. Other cities are more desirable locales in which to do business. San Jose’s economy, by contrast, is moribund. San Jose’s policies are toxic to businesses as is its licensing and fee structure. And, to make matters worse, the Mayor is among the majority of the other city council members who, time and again, vote for zoning conversions, allowing for San Jose’s population to increase while the (potential) tax base decreases.

San Jose, Ice Agents: All the help we can get

In the following article, I had a conversation of sorts with a couple of writers. The exchanges are too long to cut and paste, but the content is important. I criticize the City's leadership for their methods, decisions and rhetoric. I advocate for the officers and our reputation, and discuss the possibility of novel solutions to the pay/benefits issues that the Mayor keeps harping on. Here's the link. I'm writing as OfficerD

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/06_24_11_homicide_gangs_immigration_police_jeff_rosen/

San Jose Gang Shooting

Following is a post I drafted in response to another poster's comment in a blog about the POA's article covering a gang shooting from earlier in the year (http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/03_14_11_police_officers_association_shooting_layoffs/)

The readers comment was this:

If police and fire are so concerened about getting cut and endangering our city, why don’t they start giving up some of their unrealistic pensions and benefits. The average person doesn’t get health care coverage for life- no matter how heroic they might have been. No city employee should be making over 200k a year and getting continue getting a huge portion of that- years after they have stopped working.

And my reply:

Your questions and statements assume a couple of innaccuracies:

1. Public Safety pensions and benefits are unrealistic.

They aren’t. Most other agencies throughout the bay area offer comparable packages. In most cases the employees pay less - or nothing - toward their pension fund, with the employer taking up the employee contribution. Every single agency also does this while maintaining a higher ratio of officers to citizens than does San Jose. Mayor Reed admitted this the other night on KLIV. The reality is that San Jose isn’t competitive almost across the board, and almost no other agencies are talking about laying off cops. Oakland did and saw an almost immediate spike in crime. Unfortunately, that’s not on the talking points for the City Council.

2. The ‘health care for life’ issues is a canard. This adds, perhaps, a couple of hundred dollars per month to the total value of retirement compensation. Also, we actually pre-fund a portion of this as well.

3. You also state, “The average person…” Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we aren’t ‘average’. The ‘average’ person can’t make it through the background and hiring process, much less the academy and Field Training. It is a very small percentage of applicants who actually get hired to the position of police recruits. And our jobs are predicated on dealing with people and situations for which the ‘average’ person is ill prepared or disinclined to deal.

4. “No city employee should…” Guess what? The vast majority of us don’t. Certainly your average beat cop or firefighter doesn’t make over $200k. The ones who do are usually those in an ‘executive’ type position. With the PD, that tends to be Division Commanders and higher. Also, pension spiking doesn’t exist within the PD. It’s kind of hard to ‘spike’ your pension when you can only get paid for 6 hours of overtime every two weeks regardless of how much overtime you’ve actually worked.

Please.

I closed the blog with this post, as well:

For the record, I am inclined to agree with you. San Jose’s leadership (and NOT the PD) has been all too willing to bend over backwards and play fast and loose with the law. And the leadership of San Jose has done an appalling amount of damage with their decisions, policies and rhetoric.

With respect to wages, etc…for the record, San Jose’s competition in the public safety industry is pretty stiff. Following are the highlights:

SFPD: Wages $82k+ to $110k+ with 3% @ 50 retirement formula. I believe employee pays 9% to retirment

SCPD: Wages $80k+ to $116k+ with 3% @ 50 retirement formula and 3% COLA and I believe employee pays 9% to retirement.

Fremont PD: $80k+ to $98k+ 3% @ 50 retirement formula and employer pays the employee’s 9% contribution, 13 paid holidays

Redwood City PD: $84k+ to $103k+, 3% @ 50 retirement formula, 14 paid holidays, all uniforms, cleaning and equipment paid for by City

Palo Alto PD: $84k to $112k+ 11 hour shifts including 1 hour paid time to work out, 3% @ 50 retirement formula with city taking up the employee’s PERS contribution, 5% night shift differential, all uniforms, equipment, cleaning paid for by the city.

San Jose isn’t competitive with any of these cities, if for no other reason than, at about 23% retirement contribution vs. 9% max, we pay 250% more (or more) than what other cities’ officers contribute. That on its own works out to adding about $20k to the annual salary.

I questioned Mayor Reed on this topic. He acknowledged that San Jose isn’t competitive and stated that he doesn’t know how other cities compensate their police officers this way. And yet, at the same time, he noted that other cities generate more revenue per capita than San Jose does.

Well, Mr. Mayor, there’s your answer. Revenue. Other cities are more desirable locales in which to do business. San Jose’s economy, by contrast, is moribund. San Jose’s policies are toxic to businesses as is its licensing and fee structure. And, to make matters worse, the Mayor is among the majority of the other city council members who, time and again, vote for zoning conversions, allowing for San Jose’s population to increase while the (potential) tax base decreases.

Ice Agents and Impartial Law Enforcement

Following is a post I wrote in response to a San Jose Inside article covering the ICE agents who were released from their partnership with SJPD (http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/08_25_11_san_jose_police_chris_moore_immigration_agents/).

For those of you who are concerned about the rising tide of crime in San Jose, for those of you who care about an impartial application of the law instead of carving out exceptions for special interests and select groups, for those in the community who care about having an adequately staffed Police Department and Fire Department which resumes hiring - and, just as important, retaining the best candidates for public safety positions, I offer you the following. Please make your concerns and desires known. Please don’t let the whiners, the panderers, the race-baiters be the only ones with an audience among the city’s leaders.

To contact member of the San José City Council by mail, send to:
200 E. Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/council.asp

City Manager: Debra Figone
City Manager’s Office
200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113
tel. (408) 535-8100 fax (408) 920-7007
Email: debra.figone@sanjoseca.gov
email: webmaster.manager@sanjoseca.gov

Mayor: Chuck Reed
408-535-4800
Email: chuck.reed@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Chief of Staff: P. Furman’s Calendar
City Council Members:

Pete Constant
District 1
408-535-4901
Email: pete.constant@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District1@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Chief of Staff: Rhovy Antonio’s Calendar

Ash Kalra
District 2
408-535-4902
Email: ash.kalra@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District2@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/12
Chief of Staff: J. Okpaku’s Calendar

Sam Liccardo
District 3
408-535-4903
Email: sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District3@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Chief of Staff: R. Henninger’s Calendar

Kansen Chu
District 4
408-535-4904
Email: kansen.chu@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District4@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/12
Chief of Staff: S. Fong’s Calendar

Xavier Campos
District 5
408-535-4905
Email: Xavier.Campos@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District5@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Chief of Staff: J. Garcia’s Calendar

Pierluigi Oliverio
District 6
408-535-4906
Email: pierluigi.oliverio@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
Term Expires: 12/31/12
Chief of Staff: D. Fedor’s Calendar

Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen
District 7
408-535-4907
Email: madison.nguyen@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District7@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Chief of Staff: L. Moua’s Calendar

Rose Herrera
District 8
408-535-4908
rose.herrera@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District8@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/12
Chief of Staff: Mary Anne Groen

Donald Rocha
District 9
408-535-4909
Email: donald.rocha@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District9@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/14
Staff’s Calendar: P. Hamilton’s Calendar

Nancy Pyle
District 10
408-535-4910
Email: nancy.pyle@sanjoseca.gov
Calendar
District10@sanjoseca.gov
Term Expires: 12/31/12
Chief of Staff: K. Sutherland’s Calendar

POA Board Campaign Statement

By now, many - of not most - of you know that I was recently nominated to run for the POA Board. I wanted to give you all a preview of what I have to say about the things I could bring to the table as a POA director.

First, there are several people running for the board who I believe would be great in that position and many of them in the next few weeks are going to talk about what they would like to do if they were elected to the board and many of their ideas will, no doubt, be good ones.

On the other hand, you will hear me talk about the ideas I've had or participated in developing and what I've had a part in implementing over the past year. I've helped bring to the bay area the My Life, My Power program which has partners with the Los Angeles School District PD, the LAPD gang unit and various players with the Raiders and 49ers.

I have worked on developing contacts and email lists with various community groups and Homeowners'/Neighborhood groups in order to develop more effective/efficient and inexpensive means of outreach from our Law Enforcement community to the citizens of San Jose.

I have developed contacts with leaders in the county, specifically helping to solicit a candidate to run for mayor who will be more of an ally to public safety than Sam Liccardo, who will undoubtedly be making a run for Mayor Reed's position.

I have developed an association with the Sacramento County DSA who provided extensive information from the Law Offices of Mastagni, Holdstedt, Amick, Miller and Johnsen, a firm with extensive (and successful) experiences in the field of public safety wages, benefits, and contract negotiations. They have been an excellent resource documenting the unassailability of vested rights by government employers.

I have developed an association with the Law Offices Adams, Ferrone and Ferrone, a firm which, in addition to bringing expertise in labor negotiations also has extensive expertise in internal affairs investigations, workers' compensation, critical incidents, personal injury and retirement.

Finally, for the last year, I have been a tireless advocate of public safety and an unabashed and fearless critic of City Hall. You can find some of the content of my posts and articles here on my blog.

For the past year, I've been doing all this in the background and, for the most part, anonymously. It is time for me to bring all this to the forefront and to advocate for the Membership of the SJPOA in a public way, at last.

Following is post I composed as a series of questions for Mayor Reed. Although he did not answer them, except, perhaps, in the abstract and in a subsequent blog, or on the radio on one of his fireside chats on KLIV, I think the questions - and the answers which have not yet been uttered - are entirely relevant to SJPD.

I wrote this post for the following blog:

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/08_26_11_mayor_chuck_reed_interview/

Actually, I have alot of questions.

I would like for Mayor Reed to take a look at my post from here: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/08_22_11_pension_crisis_budget_mayor_chuck_reed_stanford/, and address each of those points, explaining how his votes over the past decade or so have reflected an adherence to principles of responsible and transparent governance.

I would also like for him to address the issue of attrition described in the following article: http://protectsanjose.com/content/san-joses-vanishing-police-department-calling-all-councilmembers and explain how he intends to ensure this city remains as safe as possible in light of up to (or perhaps at least) 60 additional resignations or retirements between now and the end of the year. And I would like for him to explain how essentially gifting nearly $20 million to other agencies in San Jose training dollars is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, especially since San Jose would have lost that number of officers in the next couple of years to attrition anyway.

Does this mean that the 60 + laid-off officers will be offered their jobs back? And, will Mayor Reed be sufficiently transparent as to disclose how many of those officers previously laid off have already taken positions elsewhere. Will he further be so transparent as to disclose how far below our authorized strength (1106 sworn positions, I believe) SJPD will likely be at the end of the year?

With an additional homicide today, does Mayor Reed still adhere to the notion that the increase in homicides is an aberration, or that this overall increase in crime is an anomaly? Has the city suffered an increase in violent crime overall? (I am pretty sure that it has, but what are the statistics so far?

Since Mayor Reed acknowledged a few months ago that other cities in the county have a higher revenue per capita than does San Jose, I wondered if Mayor Reed has any plans for increasing the city’s revenue that do not involve increasing taxes and fees (since we can see how well that’s worked for San Jose so far)or is his primary concern limited to spearheading via ballot measure a series of pension reforms which are illegal (as determined recently in the suit that the Orange County DSA won against their county) and immoral (as, surely, reneging on a contract must also be deemed to be immoral).

I also posted a follow-up question in the same blog as a follow-on to this question posted by a firefighter:

"SJFD staffed leaner than all major bay area departments and pay more into pensions. Why is SJ in a worse or same position as these other cities"

and my post:

This same question is just as applicable to the police department. Additionally, why is it that officers who have lateral transfered to other agencies and gross approximately the same income end up netting so much more in their take-home pay - anywhere from several hundred to a couple thousand more? Why is it that this level and type of compensation - generally including a true 3% at 50 formula - is considered sustainable by these cities, but not San Jose?

Licensing, Towing, and Safer Streets

Following is a post I composed as a question for the SJPD Chief of Police and concerns itself with a policy he implemented at the beginning of the year which severely and, in my opinion ,unreasonably restricts the ability of officers to impound cars driven by drivers who are either unlicensed or suspended:

A few years ago, a little girl was killed by an illegal immigrant woman who was an unlicensed driver. A couple months ago, in mid-August, another illegal immigrant unlicensed driver killed a four-year-old boy in a hit-and-run collision. (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18721994?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150280488499476_17961737_10150281328774476#f1217d8d3e9716c)

Unlicensed to Kill”, a study conducted by the AAA Foundation investigating fatal traffic collisions between 1993 and 1997 found the following:

“Of the 278078 drivers involved in fatal crashes in the United States between 1993 and 1997, 3.7 percent were unlicensed, 7.4 percent were driving on an invalid (e.g., suspended, revoked, etc.) license and 2.7 percent were of unknown license status.
20 percent of all fatal crashes in the United States—one fatal crash in five—involves at least one driver who is unlicensed, driving on an invalid license, or of unknown license status.

Between 1993 and 1997 some 42,049 people were killed in crashes involving at least one driver who was unlicensed, driving on an invalid license, or of unknown license status.”

“Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel” documented similar finding and further made the following recommendations as a means of combating driving without a valid license and associated deaths:

“-Implement and enforce administrative license revocation and suspension laws
-Establish vehicle impoundment, seizure, and immobilization
-Implement plate removal at the scene
-Implement special plates or stickers as an automatic probable cause for a traffic stop
-Establish mandatory jail time for multiple offenders
-Establish strictly circumscribed ignition interlock programs
-Establish a separate law enabling license status checkpoints
-Block registration of vehicles by drivers lacking a valid license.”

My question is this: In light of these events, studies, findings, and recommendations, at what point will you rescind your order from earlier this year severely limiting the circumstances under which the officers under your command can impound cars driven by people who are unlicensed or improperly licensed? The rules governing licensing and impounds were placed on the books for a reason and studies show that they have at least a degree of success in curtailing traffic-related fatalities.

In reality, the above post could serve as a follow-on to an earlier post I composed which you will find here: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/08_10_11_police_chris_moore_mercury_news_sean_webby_homicide_rate/

Since the title is ‘Reporting Crime’, I felt that the following two articles deserved mention. The first is the Mercury News article which reported that a four year old boy had been killed in Santa Rosa in a hit and run collision committed by an unlicensed driver with two prior arrests for driving without a license.

Frankly, I think that it is gross negligence bordering on the criminal on the part of the Fourth Estate that this horrific crime received a scant six sentences while muckraking Sean Webby sees fit to devote numerous paragraphs attempting to insinuate that the SJPD C.O.P. is somehow doing something improper in taking various trips.

At least the San Francisco Chronicle had enough decency and enough honesty to write a decent article describing the incident (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/20/BAAK1KPJCV.DTL) and follow it up with an additional article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/23/BAKT1KQCNH.DTL). Why is it that in both articles, the Chronicle is honest enough to note that the suspect is an illegal immigrant while the Merc gave absolutely no mention of this even though the information was available in the original article.

Additionally, I would like to hear where the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Law Alliance, Justice for Palestinians, Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network; East Side Heroes Nonprofit, Most Holy Trinity Church, and Pax Christi - East San Jose all stand on this incident. I suspect that they would either remain silent or try to convince the public that these are isolated incidents. They are not. It has happened here in San Jose, and these organizations were just as silent then. Furthermore, it would be disingenuous for them to attempt to assert that illegal immigration and gang violence in San Jose are unrelated issues. The whole Norteno vs Sureno thing is practically predicated on illegal immigration owing to the fact that Surenos are largely derived from illegal immigrants, that gang violence is generational and that Nortenos will attack anyone who they think looks like a Sureno (whether or not they are) providing that the opportunity and means are present.

Lastly, Chief Moore recently instituted a policy in which cars driven by unlicensed drivers are largely left with the unlicensed driver to be driven away. I wonder if Chief Moore was aware of the two studies (http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/unlicensed2kill.PDF and http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/UnlicensedToKill2.pdf) conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety which found that 20% of all fatal traffic accidents involved at least one driver who was not properly licensed at the time of the crash. Twenty Percent. This is an average that is consistent in California. In light of these findings by a non-partisan, non-profit research organization I wondered if Chief Moore might not revisit (and hopefully revoke) this policy in the interest of public safety, which is, after all, our raison d’etre.