Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

All New City Employees Should Be Given Second-Tier Pensions

By

The city of San Jose should put a hold on hiring firefighters until the firefighter union accepts a lower cost, second-tier pension plan for new employees. This would achieve cost savings and keep the city on a fiscally responsible path. Doing so would allow us to dedicate more funds to hiring police officers.

My prior work experience before joining the City Council was in the high tech industry, so pensions and their financial obligations were new to me. However, given that the annual property tax revenues collected by the city were not sufficient to cover the annual pension payment, it was obvious that action needed to be taken. Nearly three years ago, I initiated a pension reform ballot measure that allowed the city to establish a lower cost, second-tier pension plan for new employees. Voters passed Measure W with more than 72 percent of the vote. The city was then able to negotiate a second tier pension plan with 10 of the 11 city unions, including the police officer’s union. The firefighter’s union is the one exception.

The firefighter’s union set themselves apart from the other city employee unions, and simply refused to negotiate a two-tier pension plan. In order for the city to sustain itself and provide day-to-day services to residents, a second-tier pension system for newly hired employees, including firefighters, is not only the financially responsible option, but it has become essential.

Every other city employee union has realized that the only way to keep the city viable, and the existing pension system intact, is to accept a second-tier pension plan for new hires. The firefighters have shown their objection to joining fellow city employees through their unwillingness to start arbitration on the issue. The city was forced to request that a judge compel the fire union to arbitration, and, on June 17, the court ordered the fire union to arbitration pursuant to the city charter. Even with the judge’s recent decision, final implementation of any changes could take approximately one year.

Filling any future vacancies with new hires on the first-tier pension plan is not only financially costly, but it is also unfair to the other city employees who have agreed to the two-tier system. Continuing to hire firefighters under the old single-tier system simply increases the unfunded pension liability that has plagued the city for years, and it impedes the city’s ability to meet its critical needs in the future, such as hiring additional police officers. Among all the proposed pension reforms, a second-tier pension plan for new employees has always had the strongest support from the public. The fire union should not be exempted.

I appreciate and respect the work of all San Jose firefighters, but I have found the fire union bosses to be obstructionist in their dealings with city officials. They have historically been unwilling to work towards the necessary solutions that are required, so that San Jose can have both adequate police and fire protection for residents.

San Jose’s 5-Year Sexual Harassment Anniversary

By

Today represents the unfortunate five-year anniversary of a very painful situation for the city of San Jose. As reported previously in the San Jose Mercury News, 2008 was the year city officials terminated, or at least tried to terminate, a firefighter on charges of sexual harassment against female co-workers.

This misconduct included “unsolicited massages, kisses, birthday spankings, and other inappropriate touching and banter.” Such behavior clearly falls within the legal guidelines of sexual harassment. Yet, the firefighter union came to the defense of the accused firefighter, and ultimately argued that termination was excessive. This same firefighter had prior complaints involving issues of sexual harassment in 1998 and 2002.

When the firefighter was terminated, the firefighter’s union appealed and took it to arbitration. It is important to note that arbitration can also be used in ways the general public may be unaware of, because arbitration proceedings are conducted behind closed doors. In 2009, an arbitration award was issued stating that the city did not have “just cause” to terminate the male firefighter for sexual harassment. The city was also required to pay out wages for the years spent under litigation.

The city then chose to go to court to appeal the arbitration decision, and the firefighter union once again opposed this action. As a result, the case went all the way to the California Supreme court. In 2011, the court ultimately denied the petition to review and ruled in favor of the firefighter union. The city, now faced with the challenge of reintroducing this firefighter back into the workplace while simultaneously trying to minimize potential lawsuits, attempted to place the firefighter back into service in a way in which his interactions with female employees could be supervised. However, once again, the firefighter’s union objected and filed a charge against the city of San Jose with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in 2012. We are currently awaiting a decision from PERB.

Having worked more than 17 years in the high tech industry, I can say that the issue of sexual harassment in the private sector is taken very seriously. If termination is required, it is done in a swift manner and without union interference. This is not only an issue of responsible and legally sound corporate governance, but such policies also foster and promote the kind of work environment that is conducive to professional growth and safe for all.

In addition, by choosing all means possible to protect someone who would otherwise have been terminated without further thought in the private sector, the firefighter’s union not only exhibited poor judgment, but also created negative PR for unions in general. This same union also filed a formal grievance over the city manager’s attempt to clarify San Jose’s sexual harassment policy at co-ed fire stations. Incidents of pornography at fire stations have cost the city at least one $200,000 payout to a female firefighter.

The union should cease fighting for such causes that ultimately undermine their credibility. Firefighters are vital and appreciated city employees, and I can’t help but think that the efforts of their union would be better focused on negotiations that pertain to higher wages and benefits for its members who do good work throughout our community.

The attempt to terminate this one firefighter alone has cost the city an incredible amount of money and time. Fees for outside legal counsel and the work hours that city staff dedicated to this effort divert resources away from vital city services. But even more significant than the tangible costs associated with such efforts, the psychological toll that workplace sexual harassment can take on employees must also be taken into account.

The city of San Jose prides itself on providing a safe and healthy work environment for all its employees. We can do better than this. We owe this much and more to the courageous and brave women who testified before the city council in public session. It wasn’t an easy task, and we honor their voice by doing all that we can to make sure this does not happen again.

Prioritizing Future City Spending

By

At the upcoming Aug. 7 City Council meeting, the discussion will focus on how to prioritize city spending IF revenues increase. So, in the example below, if revenues increase by $10 million—either by revenue growth or tax increase—this is how I think it should be spent by percentage. We will still be spending money on all of the city services included in the current budget, however, this example is for future potential revenue that is above the budget passed in June:

53% — Police $5.3M
15% — Road Paving $1.5M
5% — Planning, Building & Code Enforcement $500K
4% — Libraries $400K
2% — Tree Planting & Tree Trimming by Our City Forest $200K
2% — City Attorney’s Office $200K
2% — Information Technology $200K
2% — Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety-slowing cars down in neighborhoods $200K
3% — Pay down Debt $300K
2% — Save Money for Rainy Day Fund $200K
10% — Discretion of City Manager with Approval by Council to be Distributed to Human Resources, Finance, Public Works, Economic Development and/or a Need That Becomes Apparent in the Future $1M

There is no extra allocation for the Fire Dept., as Fire Chief William McDonald and staff have been successful in obtaining federal grants. Federal grants are great in the short term, but they will make it more difficult to allocate future funds to hiring police officers—which is why the majority of future revenue is allocated to police. In addition, I agree with the 2011 Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury that San Jose could utilize three firefighters on a fire engine like every other city in the county. The data in San Jose shows that calls for service are 4 percent structural fires and 96 percent non-fire calls, mostly medical. Any cost savings from realigning resources to match call data should go to police.

We need to allocate general fund dollars to the Planning Department rather than increasing and relying on fees. Development can be sped up this way, increasing our tax base and private sector employment base to fund city services. Funding of Code Enforcement to keep our city safe/looking good and also could bring in revenue by assessing fines to irresponsible property owners—especially apartments that are ill kept.

Adding some funding to libraries is good, but much more can be done with volunteers to keep the doors open than is done today.

One way to make San Jose more visually attractive is through more tree planting, including maintenance, which also has other positive environmental attributes. Putting 5 percent aside to pay down high interest debt and save for a rainy day fund is prudent. Allocating something, even though small for Information Technology, must be done to achieve efficiencies and put a down payment on upgrading the financial software of the city to enable more sharing of financial information with the public.

The city manager, as chief operating officer, needs flexibility in allocating funds where the council or general public may not be aware of the need today. Of course, any action should require Council approval, but 10 percent between so many different needs may not provide enough. The city manager will have to make do.