Back in July 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare independence from England and adopt the Declaration of Independence. However, there were several votes before the final vote that were not unanimous as some colonies voted no or chose to abstain.

Voting is an opportunity not everyone across the globe is afforded. We know that in close elections every vote counts. We also know that in our respective legislative bodies (at different levels of government) that each vote casted by an elected official has a magnified impact.

There have been many times throughout my elected tenure that I have casted the sole no vote. There was the time when I voted against spending $2.26 million dollars on golf nets for the already problematic golf courses the City owns.  Most recently I was the only vote against transferring Old City Hall to the County.  Other no votes included funding Mexican Heritage Plaza (again), raising residential recycling fees at a rate higher than inflation, labor contracts that tie the City’s hands, converting industrial land to housing, subsidizing Hayes Mansion or housing developments that do not pay property taxes yet require more services.

The City Council met on June 24 to discuss the mayor’s proposal on providing guidance on current negotiations for proposed ballot language and retirement reform. There were five councilmembers in support of the proposal put forward by the mayor and there were five against.

It came to me to cast the final vote. I could have supported the Mayor’s proposal, however, I needed the negotiations of such an important issue to be public. Negotiations really need to be made pubic, in my opinion, so that retirees, employees, residents, basically everyone, could see what is being said.

The largest union by membership, AFSCME-MEF, wanted negotiations to be public and I feel that the concept of public negotiations is good.  I attended most of the public negotiation sessions for our city attorney union and found the sessions extremely valuable to hear for myself what was being said. These meetings simply let any member of the public sit and listen. No speaking was allowed by members of the public, however they could observe.  This seemed to be a fair way of doing it instead of some suggestions like mandating that only certain members of the City Council could attend the negotiations and no members from the public, or that negotiations should be done during a council meeting which would possibly make council meetings last several days.

Issues of trust have been brought up and I feel public meetings would make those who feel there is a lack of trust be confronted with the reality of seeing for themselves what is said.

I asked that the motion on June 24 be amended to allow public negotiations for those unions that are open to having them conducted as a public meeting. The city cannot force a union to make the meeting public as they must offer.  We debated the topic for 45 minutes going back and forth. The first motion did not entertain making these meetings public if a union was open to it. The vote on the first motion was 5-6 no, which included myself voting no. After considerable discussion a final motion was made that allowed review of proposals for public negotiations. The proposals from the unions would be brought back to the Council for consideration. My preference was to automatically accept proposals that followed the city attorney union public meetings model however there was resistance on the council.

The final motion which included the opportunity for public negotiations passed on 6-5 vote, which included myself voting yes.

Sometimes a single vote can be symbolic and sometimes it can be the deciding factor. In either circumstance my votes are consistent.

San Jose’s old City Hall was given to the County of Santa Clara to settle a debt, under the threat of a lawsuit, at a time when both municipalities were experiencing serious financial stress.

As I have shared in prior blogs, issues that are discussed in closed session meetings are suppose to remain confidential until the City Attorney reports out at a public council meeting. Well, that is the way it is supposed to work anyway.

I have wondered how people associated with interest groups speak to issues that were discussed in closed session that have not been made public yet.  I will speak to that in another blog.

Votes that happen within closed session are not always unanimous. Just as in open session, councilmembers sometimes vote “yes” and sometimes vote “no.” Of course, since the voting takes place behind closed doors, the public does not know how the electeds vote. However, when the Council chooses to enter into litigation, or sometimes when a legal settlement is reached, the vote is reported out at public session.

At the June 21 Council meeting, the City Attorney publicly reported that the settlement with the County of Santa Clara and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was recorded and that the vote was 10-1 with Oliverio voting no. This is the settlement that involved Old City Hall being given to the County due to threatened litigation. In my view the City blinked by giving direction to settle.

To be fair, there was the chaos that RDA was going to end any day, and folks were thinking “how will the City survive?” The County, also fearing the end of RDA, wanted to get what it could before the governor terminated the RDA.  San Jose RDA has been paying the County each year, more money that any city RDA pays any county government in the state of California. There were some agreements reached with the County in the past so the RDA could borrow even more money. These terms carried in my opinion loan shark penalties if the RDA was unable to make the full payment—even with the situation of declining property values and thus less RDA tax increment revenue.

There is an old adage that when you owe the bank money the bank controls you, however when you owe the bank a lot of money you control the bank. This was my view of the relationship between the San Jose RDA and the County.  I felt we should pay what we could afford to pay at that moment but no more. Thus leaving a small portion of money for economic development, which helps both the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara with new private sector jobs, which increases cash flow in the local economy. Charity starts at home and we need to take care of San Jose first as the Old City Hall could have been sold to benefit the general fund.

In addition, the settlement put liens on 18 city properties, which if ever sold require the permission of the County, and probably require paying the County a portion of the proceeds of land sale. An unnecessary shackle for a future city council in making choices.

A new Grand Jury report says San Jose routinely over-deploys firetrucks, and suggests changes to current rules mandating four firefighters on every call.

In the past, I have written about how fire services are deployed in San Jose with an emphasis on the data that shows the overwhelming ratio of medical calls to actual fires. In addition, I have shared that San Jose’s minimum staffing contract requires four people per fire engine while every other city in the county requires three firefighters or less.

The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, which investigates waste, fraud and abuse, released its report last week on fire services in the county including San Jose. They found that “these agencies remain entrenched in old service and old cost structures” and that “taxpayers can no longer afford to fund the status quo.” The Grand Jury wanted to make a distinction from the 1970s by stating, “it is extremely important to separate the iconography of shiny red trucks and Dalmatians from the reality of today’s firefighting.” Inevitably all organizations need to change as the touch points that engage them change over time.

The Grand Jury interviewed all fire chiefs and public safety chiefs in Santa Clara County responsible for fire departments plus city managers. They, “generally agreed that fire department operations as currently configured are unsustainable.” Unsustainable in that, “it is common to see fire departments over-deploy multiple firefighting apparatus in response to non-life threatening emergencies, seemingly a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Each extra staffing position on a fire engine equals three police officers or approximately six librarians based on covering all the shifts in a month based on the historic 24-hour shift.

Restructuring fire services has zero to do with the actual fire department employee but everything to do with the allocation of resources based on demand and budget. Some of the interviewees described firefighting as “the best part-time job in America” and said “firefighters are paid for 23 hours of sitting around for one hour of work because that is how insurance works.”  Fair point on the insurance analogy but can this cost be maximized or do we want to increase our insurance premium for police instead?

Also from the report: “Fire departments can be more successful and cost-effective when fire chiefs have the latitude to assign and manage staff according to the situation.” San Jose does not have this latitude. Interviewees “describe union pressure to retain minimum-staffing contract clauses, also known as ‘entitlement operations.’ Yet Fire Chiefs pointed out that there are clear peak and low demands for service on any given day, day of the week or season of the year, such that a more flexible staffing model would make much more sense both administratively and economically. Those cities [like San Jose] with fire contracts mandating minimum staffing levels and crew size are at a disadvantage compared to those with the discretion to staff as needed.”  It would make sense to have more resources during peak demand time and less during non-peak demand time but not below a certain threshold.

The report also examined consolidation of fire departments across the county to reduce costs by cutting management while maintaining service levels. Consolidation would also look at sharing expensive fire equipment between cities, the cost of maintenance and personnel training.

I believe allowing fire chiefs more flexibility on minimum staffing and length of shifts would enable staffing per peak demand and at the same time produce costs saving for other city services like police.

Follow this link to review the Grand Jury report.

On a related note, council approved the ambulance contract with the County last week. State law give the County authority over the ambulance contract. Unfortunately our fire department will continue to respond to the jail for medical calls even though the jail has medical personnel on staff and it is the ambulance that actually transports the inmate to the hospital. This is totally unnecessary and an unnecessary risk to firefighters which I tried changing a few years back.

In addition, the San Jose Fire Department under the County contract will still have to respond to sprained-ankle calls. There is a re-opener on the contract which I hope will allow SJFD to stop responding to both the jail and minor injury calls.

Last week, the Council emerged out of closed session directing staff to communicate and negotiate with the unions regarding the possibility of a ballot measure and pension reform. The goal is to combine these two topics and create/work within a timeframe if possible.

For savings to occur, it is important to have something fully implemented prior to next year’s budget. The key word is “implemented,” as savings need to be delivered in advance of the city manager’s budget in 2012 so that we can save services from being cut and save additional city employees from being laid off. Otherwise every city department better hope that federal grants come raining down for every city position because our budget will be entering a $70 million dollar deficit year. Who knows, maybe once-plentiful federal money will be pouring out of the sky since there will be a presidential election.

I am concerned that the truth regarding pension reform is not being shared appropriately. I think that the process needs to be public so residents, retirees and city employees can hear the information first hand from both sides. The council chambers should be used each time to allow a public audience to observe first hand about the realities and limitations of the current pension system and hear the proposals directly from the negotiator’s mouth.

This would eliminate any disconnect from union representatives and the union membership. It would also allow retirees to be fully plugged in as they cannot rely on the current union membership to fully support their interests. Finally, a public process would allow residents to see what each side says as the residents will be the final judge who would approve through a ballot measure. Even changing the the current pension match from 250 percent to 249 percent requires voter approval.

For too long we have wasted time back and forth about what was said or what was not said and even the tone of voice in which words were delivered.  There is nothing to hide, so let’s get it all on the table. If we cannot come to agreement then it is off to the ballot box with an actuarial sound set of pension reforms that include management and the city council. However, if there can be an alternative, through negotiation and education, which delivers true savings to maintain city services then that would be ideal.

Moreover, it cannot be reducing a 250 percent pension match to 230 percent. The savings needs to verified and substantial since the problem is not small. These changes must go to the ballot box to alter the City Charter whether by fiat or mutual agreement.

Otherwise, we head down the same road of mistrust on both sides with silly games and political posturing with closed-door meetings. Pension systems have dramatically changed as we know in the non-union private sector, however they have also changed in unionized organizations like the construction trades. Local governments are next.

This topic is too important to have behind closed doors. Let’s suspend all boards and commissions not in the city charter and put these meetings as the top priority and on TV. There could be no other topic more important to San Jose so let us focus and get it done.  We need to move past this expeditiously so we can focus on the San Jose of the future, which is not solely about reducing services.

In other news last week the Council voted 10-1 to exempt affordable housing projects that are in the pipeline from paying park fees. I will let you guess who voted no.

Inviting volunteers to staff some city-financed programs in San Jose’s libraries would allow more libraries to stay open longer.

Last week I featured some of the budget memos I submitted to the mayor. Here are the rest that I submitted. Budget memos are only allowed to be signed by one councilmember. Doing things differently in some areas means we can spend more in other areas.

Strong Neighborhoods Program (SNI)
The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) spent $105 million on the neighborhoods deemed to be within the SNI areas. These areas represent roughly a third of San Jose. The SNI program is another example of a program that was started with “extra money” the city had in the early 2000s. The current budget proposal allocates $585,721 from the general fund to support a scaled-down SNI program. I propose using all of these monies for specific code enforcement issues throughout the city of San Jose. At one time the city had 19 code enforcement officers; now we have 2.5.  If we use this funding for code enforcement, we could increase the number of code officers to at least eight code officers.

Boards and Commissions
The City Charter requires the City to have a Planning Commission and a Civil Service Commission. However the other 40-plus boards and commissions are not necessary. These boards and commissions require paid staff to attend, prepare and manage them. The staff includes employees from the city clerk, city attorney, city manager, city department staff and City Hall facility staff to set up meeting rooms.

I propose eliminating all commissions and boards that are not in the Charter. Another option would be to have these 40-plus boards and commissions meet no more than two times a year, taking into consideration that if there is a time-sensitive issue and/or project that necessitates the need of a meeting, then those exceptions could be warranted. These reductions would save the city money on employee costs. This suggestion is not new. Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed the elimination of 43 state commissions and boards. The City of San Jose would be wise to follow suit.

Information Technology
Management Partners’ study for the City of San Jose showed that we spend less than 1 percent of the budget on information technology while other comparable cities spend 5-7 percent on information technology. Because of this the City of San Jose, for example, currently runs on desktop software that is 10 years old. The Capital of Silicon Valley needs to do a bit better.

The City of San Jose has two phone systems. One is a VOIP system that costs approximately $300K a year. The other system is a legacy Centrex ATT system that costs approximately $2.1 million a year.  To replace this legacy system will cost $1 million in one-time costs. However it would generate approximately $1 million in annual savings afterwards. There is $600,000 in reserves for this project however $400,000 is needed to move forward.

I would suggest allocating the first $400,000 from the portion of the Council offices’ rollovers that will be swept into general fund (as was done last year in the Mayor’s budget) be allocated to this upgrade. The ongoing savings should be allocated to the Information Technology Dept to allow for the further investment of money, time and implementations of new web-based technologies that allow for residents to interact easier with city government. as we will need to do more with fewer resources.

Libraries
Eliminate all services and programs at libraries and reallocate. Use the savings to increase library hours to keep libraries open including the opening of newly constructed libraries yet to open.  Libraries are in the City Charter and should be funded so that they are open for business. The additional programs are not part of the Charter. Consideration should be given to programs that are 75 percent or more volunteer driven. (This would save $1.2 million and allow one of the three libraries that are currently closed to open four days a week or add 2.5 hours a week to every library city wide).

The topic of increasing volunteer opportunities in our libraries should be discussed with the union to see if there is a way for volunteers to augment current library staff to allow branch libraries to stay open longer.

The City should gather pricing information regarding outsourcing a branch library or multiple branch libraries from a company such as Library Systems & Services, which has been providing library services since 1981 and currently oversees libraries throughout the United States, including in 47 cities in California and cities in Oregon, Texas, Tennessee and Kansas.  The City has an obligation to San Jose residents to investigate all options to keep libraries open.

Dept. of Finance
The City should outsource payroll services the way that Cisco (70,000 employees) and most other companies have. The money saved can be used to save finance positions for other core services like the oversight of the City investment portfolio.

Last week was the deadline for councilmembers to submit their input in writing to the mayor. Budget memos are only allowed to be signed by one councilmember. Here are some of the budget memos I submitted:

Outsource Park Maintenance
In 2007, I proposed a pilot program specifically to outsource park maintenance at the Rose Garden Park. At that time, my proposal was refuted by the council.

Now, 2011, the Parks Department has put forward a proposal to outsource park maintenance as a way to continue to provide service.  The potential cost savings deems this action worthy of council’s support. Currently it costs $4.1 million to maintain parks (and keep bathrooms open) that are two acres or less in size.  If the City outsources this activity, the cost is said to be reduced to $1.3 million providing a possible $2.8 million in savings.

$12.8 million is the cost to maintain the parks larger than two acres. Outsourcing park maintenance for these parks would most likely yield at least 50 percent in cost savings. This savings could save 36 police officers from being laid off if the council chose to use the savings for this purpose.

If the savings is more than 50 percent than those dollars could go back to the Parks Department to pay for the watering of the parks. The goal is to reduce watering at parks from $3 million to $2.5 million. Therefore, the City should try to save as much money as possible to pay for watering to avoid killing the lawns during summer. Additional savings could go to maintain “dog poop bags” (In fact, there is no reason why the stocking of dog poop bags could not be done by the private contractor.) If there are additional savings, perhaps the city could remove the policy of not opening any new parks and instead use the additional savings to move forward with opening parks city wide.
HNVF
The Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF) began in in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. These monies are a result of the tobacco industry settlement.  At that time, other municipalities used these funds to pay for infrastructure costs.  San Jose, however, decided to use these costs on starting a new program, HNVF.

For the past decade, the City has given out tens of millions of dollars to non-profit/charity groups with limited oversight.  Further, these monies go to pay for the staff of the non-profits/charities rather than to the services themselves.  Instead of having these funds go to groups outside of the City Charter, I suggest using the millions of dollars on services within the City of San Jose Charter as listed below:
Six police officers
Two attorneys
Two planners (focused only on economic development)
One city clerk
One auditor
One information technology specialist

Fire
The traditional 24 hour shift may not be the best utilization of our skilled workforce. We should know if there are any advantages by staffing alternate shifts of 12 hours, 10 hours, etc….to keep all fire apparatus running including re-opening the now closed fire station on Communications Hill.
Water Pollution Control Plant
Investigate cross training of police and fire fighters on disaster preparedness of the WPCP.  This would allow the Alviso Fire station and police officers to be funded by Environmental Services Department (ESD) 24/7. Council should make it policy that the crossed trained fire fighters and police offers are on call for the WPCP and therefore should be paid by fees.

Thanks and praise to all those who have died in military service to our country allowing you and I freedom on this past Memorial Day.