Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

From Last Place to First

By

As most of you are most likely aware from the front page article in the San Jose Mercury News on August 12, The San Jose Municipal Rose Garden was selected as America’s Best Rose Garden. What an incredible achievement! Congratulations and thanks to all involved including the paid park maintenance city staff and the non paid volunteers.

The rebirth of the Rose Garden could not have been done by only park maintenance staff or only by volunteers. It is the combination of both that allows for this fantastic achievement. And the leadership of Beverly Rose Hopper and Terry Reilly.

Just over three years ago, I walked through the Rose Garden park with numerous concerned neighbors and saw the decline and devastation. I knew then that our City did not have the resources to pay for staff to care for the park, nor would a band-aid approach allow the park to reach its potential.  I also knew the City was behind the times with it’s volunteer policy. Instead, I proposed a pilot for outsourcing park maintenance. That caused the unions to assemble and defend the status quo.

Bringing up the topic of outsourcing allowed for the larger message to get out that this park and other parks need attention, especially with our structural budget deficit. Although outsourcing park maintenance, even as a pilot, was not approved in May 2007,  I did push for and was successful in having council support amending the City’s volunteer policy in October 2007.

I remember asking several times then-Vice Mayor Dave Cortese to accept my friendly amendments to allow more flexibility in the volunteer policy,  including a stipulation that corporations be allowed to have their employees donate time at San Jose parks on their community service days.  This change allowed 250 Google employees and 150 Recology employees to volunteer in the Rose Garden this summer, for example.

The Municipal Rose Garden is a city landmark and now a national one.  Volunteers include residents of San Jose and people from all of over the county. The volunteers are doers and not talkers, as they enjoy giving back to the larger community. I think they serve as an example of the JFK quote (with a twist): “Ask not what your city government can do for you, but what you can do for the community you call home.”

Municipal governments will continue to shrink as revenues will be constrained as pension costs rise. Therefore—now more then ever—residents could provide small increments of their time improving their local park, trail, traffic medians etc… Waiting on government will be taking longer then ever before.

However, residents may ask a fair question as to why cities do not do more to provide services at a lower cost.  As the Wall Street Journal reported recently, San Jose will be saving approximately $4 million a year by outsourcing janitorial. The $4 million in savings was substantial enough to garner national attention and is the trend nationally.

I am very proud to live in a city where doers start with a dead vine and do not give up.  As a result of the conviction from the Rose Garden volunteers, the City of San Jose Rose Garden is Number One!

Pension Reform: Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace

By

The Rules Committee allowed my memo on Pension Reform to go before the City Council Tuesday, Aug. 3, to be considered as a ballot measure for San Jose voters this November. At the Rules Committee meeting, members of the public were few compared to the number of paid lobbyists that were in the audience.

I have a supplemental memo coming out today which will ask the Council to adopt the language below:

“To provide fiscal stability, control costs and maintain City services to residents, shall the Charter be amended to allow the Council, by ordinance and subject to the requirements of applicable law, to exclude any officer or employee hired on or after the ordinance’s effective date from any retirement plan or benefit of any plan?” (For example, this means we could exclude new employees from the 250% pension match.)

I have been a Councilmember for over three years and pensions have only increased in cost for residents of San Jose. The ability for the Council to have the flexibility and the option to negotiate a 2nd Tier would be a positive step for everyone involved, union members and taxpayers alike. Only through developing a new fair pension for new employees can we get to a point of trying to balance the structural budget deficit.  However, during my three-plus years on the Council, discussions of 2nd tier always get postponed.  “Kicking the can” is the easy thing to do, but San Jose can no longer pretend that our problems will go away.

Many of the union speakers at the Rules Committee last Wednesday mentioned that there needs to be dialogue, a process and time to discuss 2nd Tier. Actually my proposal does just that since changing the charter means we will still have dialogue and negotiations with the unions as obligated by law.  A union lobbyist said Pension Reform would waste money since a second election would be needed once a 2nd Tier was agreed upon. Not so. As stated by the city attorney on Wednesday only one election would be needed since the 2nd Tier would then be implemented by ordinance which only requires a vote of the city council. The cost to the City to have Pension Reform on the ballot now is less expensive then a special election advocated by others.

Another union speaker was critical since my pension reform proposal did not mandate a specific 2nd Tier. This instead gives the Council flexibility in decision making as actuarial studies need to be completed as well as negotiation with our unions.  Also, this allows the Council in future years to have the flexibility in adopting changes to a 3rd Tier should city revenues continue to deteriorate.

A letter submitted by a lobbyist for the union talked about needing two to four years to negotiate a 2nd Tier.  This would be problematic—we should conclude negotiations within one year. Delay misses the opportunity to stop the bleeding.  Another union speaker claimed the city is not hiring when that is not so. The City must hire to replace retiring employees. In fact 35 percent of the workforce is retiring in the next four years and it is important to lock in those cost savings. If we do not, each new employee carries 60 years of fiscal pension liability (30 in their career and 30 in retirement).

With all due respect, I believe the union leadership is missing the point. If we do not provide new pensions for new employees then the alternative will be to lower wages significantly and/or layoff employees. Laying off employees will affect residents. If the pension costs had not soared by $60 million this last year then we would not not be closing fire stations, libraries, postponing police academies and laying off other city workers.

The criticism I have heard from non-union people is that my proposal is not draconian enough and that the pension plans should be blown up. To them I paraphrase Voltaire: “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Failing to act now will only lead to more obligations we cannot afford .  Otherwise, do nothing and we will have more layoffs. Again, the increase in pension costs of $60 million dollars this year led to the layoff of city employees who provide services.

The ball has been teed up for the public. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Aug. 3 at 3:30pm. No need for a babysitter—City Hall is open to children. Bring a book or some knitting needles or both.  If it is your first time to a Council meeting you may find you enjoy watching your city government in action.

The results of last week’s survey on November ballot measures, with 129 respondents, are viewable by clicking this link.

Pension Reform Now!

By

My memo below will be discussed, next Wednesday, July 28 at 2pm at the Rules Committee which includes Mayor Reed, Vice-Mayor Judy Chirco, Councilmember Nancy Pyle and Councilmember Pete Constant. This is a public meeting.

Recommendation
Direct City Attorney to prepare legally binding ballot language for a ballot measure to be considered at the August 3, 2010 Council meeting for the November 2010 election allowing residents of San Jose to vote on changing the City charter by removing charter language regarding “minimum benefit” and “contributions/ cost sharing” in regards to pensions (Sections 1504 and 1505). Removing this language would allow the flexibility to negotiate a 2nd Tier pension for new employees whose hiring date is after January 1, 2011. This proposal would not change current legally vested benefits for existing employees.
Background:
Public pensions costs are soaring and forcing our City to reduce essential services to residents. In fiscal year (2009-2010) the cost of pensions was $138 million. In fiscal year 2010-2011 the amount jumped to $200 million. (The $62 million increase is double the citywide Library budget).  In fiscal year 2011-2012 that number will grow to $240-250 million ( $240-250 million is approximately the annual Police budget) and could balloon to $350 million by 2015-2016 ($350 million is double the citywide Fire Department budget or more than the annual property tax and sales tax revenues)

The average private sector employer match is 3% for a 401K in the USA. In comparison, the City of San Jose as an employer matches at an 8 to 3 ratio or 250%.  Individuals with retirement plans like a 401k, IRA and SEP IRA bear 100% of the investment risk.  However San Jose employees do not have this risk and are guaranteed a net return of approximately 8% which means the gross return must hit 9%.  The average combined return on the retirement funds for the last 10 years has only been 4.4% thus the taxpayer makes up the difference; this fiscal year alone it was $52 million.  Therefore, since the taxpayers are responsible for paying the difference in pensions, I believe that residents should have the right to vote on whether or not they want to continue to pay sums such as $52 million in a single fiscal year.

It is imperative that the 2nd Tier pension be put on the 2010 ballot for the following reasons:

1). The City should give voters the opportunity to vote on the pension system.  To not allow the voters the chance to vote on this issue is undemocratic.  Some may say that we should just handle this “in house” and create a committee to look into alternatives and/or have closed meetings with the unions to try and negotiate an agreement.  Closed door meetings would not be transparent and we do not know how many years it will take to negotiate or if a consensus of any kind can be reached by a committee or negotiations. Additionally, any recommendation that may come out of negotiations or a recommendation by a committee would need to be voted on in a citywide election anyway.  We need to take advantage of the November 2010 election to know whether or not the residents of San Jose support a 2nd Tier retirement system for NEW employees.  Delay will result in missing out on the numerous “Baby Boomer” retirements that will take place and be filled by new employees.

2). A 2nd Tier provides flexible options.  The 2nd Tier may have a 1 to 1 match instead of 8-3 or it may have a 1 to 2 instead of 8-3 or it may be simply a new system like a 401K with a generous match from taxpayers of some reasonable percentage.  Actuarial studies must be completed and presented prior to making a final decision.  Retirement contributions from new employees and the city shall be put in an escrow account until a new 2nd Tier pension plan has been selected.

3). Reforming the pension system now will allow the city to balance the structural budget deficit and over time hire additional police officers, extend libraries hours and pave more roads in San Jose. If this is not addressed the rapid growth of the pensions will force our city to make additional cuts to essential city services or layoff more employees. Delay of pension reform may force our City into bankruptcy and raise taxes significantly. Even with higher taxes the new revenue is unlikely to keep pace with pension growth. This proposal maintains the benefits for retired and existing employees.

If the City Charter is not changed to allow the option for 2nd Tier system, the City will face continued severe financial duress.The current pension system is absolutely unsustainable and threatens the quality of life for San Joseans.  Let the voters vote!

Prioritizing Services That Touch Residents

By

Hope your Fourth of July holiday was fantastic. On June 29, prior to the holiday the Council made the final vote for a balanced budget. More than 20 people spoke at the Council meeting and all but one advocated that the Council not outsource janitorial services but rather keep the janitorial staff employed, since they provide an incredibly valuable service. You would have thought janitorial was listed in the city charter by the speakers’ comments.

All but one of the speakers advocating for the janitors were affiliated with a labor union or religious congregation. The religious leaders ranged from Methodist to Lutheran to Jewish to Presbyterian. I understand the brotherhood and sisterhood concept of labor unions uniting to advocate for spending taxpayer money to help another union member. I also understand the calls for social justice from the clergy. However I wonder if the janitor at the church or temple makes approximately $55K a year plus a 250 percent pension match and free lifetime medical (minus co-payments) for themselves plus spouse/partner. My guess is no.

The Council was called, “shameful” and criticized for “picking on the most vulnerable.” There were undertones of racism, since the majority of janitors are not caucasian.

The notion that janitors make the least amount of money is incorrect, as I have stated for months. A recreation leader in our parks and community centers makes in salary only $38,001 and a senior recreation leader makes $54,496. A library clerk makes $50,897 in salary only while a senior janitor makes $54,787 in salary only.

So since all three of these positions come from the same pot of money and around the same dollar amount, then it is a trade-off. If the Council chose to not lay off and outsource the janitors we would have to make those same cuts elsewhere to lay off staff that work in our community centers, or lay off staff that work in our libraries.

I chose and will choose to keep services that actually touch the million-plus residents of San Jose over services that do not add value for our residents. The ability to have a community center or library open is more valuable to our residents then who cleans City Hall.  The new janitorial staff will be paid like janitors at Cisco and Apple but possibly more with the city of San Jose’s living wage requirement.

A big thanks you to the Alameda Business Association and Larry Clark for another great Rose, White & Blue Parade on Sunday! Congratulations to Cleveland Ave for winning 1st prize in the parade (three years in a row) for their creative float.

Finally, as an observer early this morning it was quite a sight to see six out of 35 stations working on suppressing the fire at Trace Elementary. Thank you to our Fire Department—fortunately there were no major injuries.

Drama and Trauma

By

The two city council meetings held last week regarding the budget and labor negotiations demonstrated the need to make all labor negotiations public. If you are interested, you can click on this link and see for yourself the drama and trauma that took place that still does not have closure. This week’s meeting, June 22, will hopefully close this chapter.

I am and have been a proponent of conducting labor negotiations as a public meeting. Unfortunately, when the vote was taken last year to open up labor talks, the vote was a 9-2 against changing the process with only Councilmember Constant and I voting in favor. The process that exists is broken or to say the least, it is severely flawed. The current process of labor negotiations as private meetings hurts those it is meant to help: the employees and taxpayers.

Employees have no choice but to join their respective labor union and are dependent upon having someone else represent them at the bargaining table. It is up to those labor union representatives to inform their membership about the status and timely updates can be a challenge to a large unions. At the same time, Councilmembers are informed by the Office of Employee Relations (OER). However, councilmembers cannot really update residents of what is happening with labor negotiations and their tax dollars since these meetings are private instead of public. In addition the Council only gets one side of the story.

At both Council meetings last week, we saw the drama unfold of broken promises, innuendo, conspiracy theory, stories of personal financial hardship, co-opting of religious clergy and the reading of prepared statements. Behind the smokescreen of this drama were the real people feeling the pain and getting hurt, the employees and residents of San Jose. Both of these groups had to undergo the trauma of being tossed around in public with no one being able to share the full story.  As I said at the meeting, 99 percent of city employees do a great job and are real people not faceless bureaucrats.

These city employees protect our safety, our property, our water, our young people, etc.  However when you interject labor unions and secret meetings then it can lead to demonizing city employees when this is not fair. The blame should be on the current process which is maintained by both the labor unions and the city of San Jose management.

The taxpayer ultimately has the most at stake since they are the single largest group in San Jose yet they are the least powerful. The taxpayer has a right to know early on how much we have and what we can afford. Only through this dialogue can there be the opportunity for everyone to be on the same page and understand that if we as a city want more services or the same services we might have to pay more for it. On the other hand, if everyone is on the same page then structural change can be demanded so services are delivered more efficiently.

I am hopeful that the June 22 meeting is peaceful and we accomplish our duties civilly.

On a happier note, I am hosting the raising of the Rainbow flag at City Hall at 1PM, Tuesday, June 22 in celebration of the accomplishments and contributions of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LBGT) community in San Jose.

Walk in Their Shoes

By

The Good News: The City has a counter offer from seven out of 11 unions to take a temporary reduction in compensation (by paying more of their pension contribution temporarily on a pre-tax basis). The Not So Good News: The offer is equivalent to $14.6 million of the $118 million deficit, thus layoffs and service cuts are inevitable.

The “Not So Good News” reminds me of what Bob Brownstein said at the meeting I attended about the budget deficit hosted by the labor unions last month: “Layoffs are unavoidable since the deficit is so large.”

First, I want to thank those unions that made a counter offer to the Council direction. The Council directed the city manager to ask for a 5 percent ongoing pay/compensation reduction and another 5 percent in one-time reductions for a total of 10 percent. Although the offer from the unions is only a temporary reduction and is less then 10 percent, it is still an offer which should be respected.

I think it is important to look at this current situation from the union’s point of view. Unions have their own internal power structure. There is the union business agent and other hierarchy that need to satisfy their membership while at the same time managing the unions overarching goals.

The membership is divided within a union; there are those would wish to not be represented by the union but they have no choice. Other union members object to the larger policies the union hierarchy may support and these policies may have nothing to do with the workers that are represented. Beyond that, there is more division between union members that have seniority and those who are new on the job.

I think it is an extreme challenge to be a union boss at this time. You have public opinion that has plummeted in viewing labor unions more negative then positive; falling union membership in this country to approximately 12 percent (or in other words 88 percent of Americans are not in a union), government revenues declining, residents resistant to tax increases and a membership body that is divided and oftentimes upset.

With this said, I think it is a big deal that labor unions made the city of San Jose a counter offer. I believe the union leadership has taken a lot of punches internally just for making a concession.

The concessions offered (although thoughtful) are not enough and the City will still have significant layoffs and service cuts to residents of San Jose. One-time cuts push the problem out to future years as past city budgets have done. Pushing off discussions regarding new pension benefits for new employees is problematic. Also, draining reserves at a time when we see falling property valuations in Santa Clara County which will result in lower property tax revenue for cities, instability of the economy, our “pick-pocket” state legislature that constantly takes money from cities are all reasons why draining the economic uncertainty reserve now as suggested by the unions is risky.

If concessions are not easily understood by the general public, then the public may continue to distrust both unions and city government (Another reason we need to have these negotiations held as public meetings). This distrust may not allow for any potential increases in taxes that may have merit for city services. For example the city of Campbell raised their sales tax to pay for city services. San Jose may indeed look at a November ballot measure to raise taxes like Campbell.

Therefore, I would encourage discussions at the negotiation table to see where the gap can be bridged between the Council’s goal of $49 million in concessions from these seven unions and the present offer of $14.6 million in temporary savings.

On a separate and happier note, hats off to the Willow Glen High school varsity baseball team and Coach Mike Reilly with an incredible record of 27 consecutive wins.

The 2010 San Jose Budget Trade-Offs Survey closes this week.