• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Buffeted by wind and light showers, Peter Donohue stood on the steps of the Chula Vista police station on the afternoon of December 22 to tell the press that, according to his initial analysis of the city’s financial resources, the city is not as bad off as it has purported to be. Donahue, a consulting economist, was hired by the Chula Vista Police Officers Association to do an independent analysis of the city’s budget.

City services have been cutback, and some of those who provide those services have received their pink slips, terminating their contracts on January 6. Since November’s election and the failure of Proposition H (which was to bring in additional tax revenues) the City has been saying the budget gap will have to be closed by even more layoffs.

In a recent Union-Tribune article, it was written: “They [Chula Vista city officials] lament that the additional $6 million means that instead of laying off 71 workers, including 33 police officers, the city may send notices to a total of 146 employees.”

The gist of Donahue’s revelation was that for a city claiming to be in such dire straits, Chula Vista has an impressively large general fund reserve. According to a prepared handout, “the General Fund unrestricted fund balance for 2007-2008 was $33.5 million, or 23.3% of the total General Fund expenditures…” The statement goes on to say that “23.3% is an exceptionally high reserve ratio. The typical reserve ratio is between 5-10%.”

Reserves are what a city saves for a rainy day. The question being asked is: Has the rainy day come for Chula Vista?

Reserves are also used to buy the city a better bond rate. In a brief interview after the press conference, Donahue said, “The city, when it goes out to borrow money, boasts about its reserves, how it has massive reserves, and as a consequence, people should have no doubt it will be able to pay off its debts. Looking at it from the public’s perspective or the employee’s perspective, the argument that you can’t use the reserves to provide services seems misguided.”

Chula Vista Police Officers Association secretary Phil Collum, when asked about the layoffs in other sectors of the city, said, “This is about the city’s finances, not just the police department, not just the [Police Officers Association]; it goes beyond that to the whole city.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Pancho Dec. 24, 2010 @ 6:51 p.m.

I attended that news conference as well. It was very difficult to hear the presentation. They did not provide any new information. In fact, I along with many of the other concerned citizens present walked away more upset that they wasted our time making us believe they had some new revelation about the city. The funds they want the city to tap into are things like the sewer fund, which is NOT a general fund appropriation. From my viewpoint, this was a last ditch effort by the CVPOA to place pressure back on the city and it backfired.

That being said, police should be compensated for doing what they do for us, but their union representation should not waste our time with tomfoolery.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 24, 2010 @ 7:26 p.m.

That being said, police should be compensated for doing what they do for us,

They sure should be-but NOT $200K per year. They are grossly over compensated right now.

0

Pancho Dec. 24, 2010 @ 8:18 p.m.

SP: As always, you misconstrue what I say demonstrating your visceral distaste for public servants. Thanks for being consistent.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 25, 2010 @ 7:36 p.m.

Thanks for being consistent.

No problem, it is always a hoot to see someone (usually public trough feeders) claim "visceral distaste for public servants" for making factual statements.

Please, keep up the good work.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 26, 2010 @ 9:52 a.m.

BTW Pancho, what are your tax plans now that Prop H was destroyed at the voting booth?

0

Susan Luzzaro Dec. 25, 2010 @ 9:30 p.m.

Setting the police pay/retirement aside for now, I am interested to see if Donahue's report bears out (some data was still needed). In the parallel story of Southwestern College, the school cut back on classes for budgetary reasons, but their job is to provide student services. At the same time they maintained an excessive reserve and one board member said it was precisely to get a better bond rating for building...

If there is a reserve, the public might want to have a say in how it is spent...

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 26, 2010 @ 9:53 a.m.

Donahue's report was bought and paid for by the CVPD, they would not have hired him and paid him big $$$ if he was going to issue a report that was not in their favor.

You NEVER put credibility in anything that is bought and paid for by an interested party. The money buys what the interested party wants to hear.

As for reserves, most of the time there are strings attached to what reserves can be spent on.

I would never spend reserves if there was a structural deficit, which there is now, without changes to eliminate that structural deficit.

If there were measures taken to wipe out the structural deficit then I would not have a problem with spending a portion of the reserves on employee/personnel costs, but not otherwise.

0

Susan Luzzaro Dec. 26, 2010 @ 10:09 a.m.

Post-Christmas greetings Surf Puppy,

I hear what you're saying and your comments often offer me insights. I am still going to follow the police report to see where it leads because I believe, in a different way, the city's report is bought and paid for, so it pays, pun intended, to have at least one comparison. There are so many vested and vying interests, and some of the city's leadership may have their own priorities, separate from the residents'. Meanwhile the libraries, parks and the senior citizen are practically closed down. More soon.

0

Founder Dec. 26, 2010 @ 11:07 a.m.

Post-Christmas Greetings Susan you are a ★

I suggest you follow Deep Throat's advice: ...And Follow the Money!

Since the Chula Vista Police Officers Association hired the consultant, you can be sure "his initial analysis" will be whatever they paid for; that CV is not that bad off, so don't even think about trying to fool around with OUR Pay, Benefits or Pensions!

This ploy will backfire I believe when the voters come to grips with the massive reductions in services needed to keep funding all the HERO's on the Public Pension/Payroll...

If the Chula Vista Police Officers Association was really thinking about serving the Voters they should have encouraged their HERO members and all other CV Employees to take a small pay cut in order to keep the City from laying off anybody...

Hero's are supposed to help others, not just themselves!

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 26, 2010 @ 12:49 p.m.

I suggest you follow Deep Throat's advice: ...And Follow the Money!

==================== Well said Founder-follow the $$.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 26, 2010 @ 12:48 p.m.

I am still going to follow the police report to see where it leads because I believe, in a different way, the city's report is bought and paid for, so it pays, pun intended, to have at least one comparison.

Oh, if the City has their own bought and paid for study/report you can eliminate it as a credible source also.

No double standard from me!

0

Founder Dec. 26, 2010 @ 4:50 p.m.

I double agree with both you & Susan:

Both "reports" are bought and paid for, so they will probably say the same thing twice! Just because two folks say the same thing, does not make it right!

A double waste of money for $PUN half truths & fictitious facts!

0

Pancho Dec. 26, 2010 @ 9:59 p.m.

I just don't see the extra reserves this guy is talking about. I have seen the complete budgets for the past six years and this guy is referring to funds that are not tied to the general fund. They are allocated funds outside of the general fund availability and if they were used for general fund purposes, the city would be fined severely and/or the money would have to be returned.

I could be wrong and in some ways I hope I am. That way the libraries could be open more often. The senior center would be open for the more than four hours a day - four days a week, the rec centers would be open for more than two days a week, there would still be park rangers and a graffiti removal team. Ahh yes, city services. The "trough feeders" as SP likes to so eloquently call them. It would be nice to have this money for those services as well, but I just don't see it and all city employees need to pay their share of the pension for now on.

This is a last ditch attempt by the CVPOA to not make it's members pay into their employee share of the pension. Nothing more than that.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 27, 2010 @ 8:06 a.m.

That way the libraries could be open more often. The senior center would be open for the more than four hours a day - four days a week, the rec centers would be open for more than two days a week, there would still be park rangers and a graffiti removal team.

If you made these the city employees pay a fair wmount of pension and healthcare costs, as well as lowering the salaries to a market wage, especially the so called "public safety" employees who are comping $200K before any OT is added in (add in up to another $100K+ for OT), then you could easily fund all the services you speak of. You simply cannot compensate front line, entry level jobs like FF and cop $200K per year, not in this economy (and not in a much better economy).

It is simple math, when you spend 90% of the general fund budget on employee compensation there is little left to nothing for anything else.

A 25% cut for all employees with a cash salary over $100K would be the best way to get servies back, and a lower % cuts for people making less.

A return to a FAIR benefit level-especially pensions- would be a no brainer. You could easily fill all the FF positions with compenstion 1/4 of what it is today-and there would still be a line a mile long to get one of those jobs by qualified applicants.

0

Founder Dec. 27, 2010 @ 8:27 a.m.

Bullseye, Your comment is Right On The Mark!

This is almost 2011 and ANY GOOD JOB is almost impossible to find! If CV wants see this for themselves, cut the offered salary as SP suggested above and put out one or two ads for "future positions" in "Public Safety"...

When HR gets buried in responses, then maybe CV will be able to wake up to their current reality of supporting an unfair Pension System for "Public Safety" and others that are taking home over $150,000 a year now and are looking forward to gigantic Pensions when they retire!

BTW: This is not about those CV workers making less than $60,000 per year and are not looking at Pensions over $100,000 per year!

0

Pancho Dec. 27, 2010 @ 10:59 a.m.

I don't think the 90% statement is correct, but I could be wrong. It would be easier for all of us to understand everything if the general fund budget was not separated from the complete budget, but I understand why it is. I believe, with the exception of public safety, all bargaining labor groups have agreed to pay their share of the pension burden.

You still have not proven that the full compensation package for public safety is your wonderful $200k magic number. I know from previous blogs, you have suggested to go to HR and request the info. I have stated that you need to go to the city clerk's office and actually Freedom of Information Act the info. The only thing about the layoffs of PD would actually force the remaining cops to work more overtime, like they did seven & eight years ago, which would really get them closer to the magical $200k mark.

Now, I wonder what one sentence are you going to want to pull-out of this statement and have flounder comment on as well???

Bulls Eye!!! Right Flounder?

0

Founder Dec. 27, 2010 @ 11:56 a.m.

Here are some 2009 CV numbers to consider with Pension figured in, note you can sort by columns:

http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx

0

Pancho Dec. 27, 2010 @ 8:47 p.m.

Yes!!! And on here, it shows no where near what SP claims.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 27, 2010 @ 3:01 p.m.

I don't think the 90% statement is correct, but I could be wrong.

It is probably around 70%-80% right now after cuts, but IF you did NOT cut the other services and give the PD their raises then it would be over 90%-in fact it would no doubt exceed the general fund.

Once again, you cannot-and do not need to- comp public safety employees anything near what they are currently comped. There literally thousands of qualified job applicants for these jobs, especially FF.

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 27, 2010 @ 3:04 p.m.

You still have not proven that the full compensation package for public safety is your wonderful $200k magic number.

The $200K the state average-CV is the highest comped PD in the county, I am sure it exceeds $200K in total comp costs, especially if you're using a realistic discounted rate on the pension ROI (5% instead of 8%).

It is probably closer to $220-$250K in total comp costs for CVPD and CVFD, before OT is added in.

As for "proving" the overall comensation costs, the $200K is a well established and accurate cost as demonstrated in too numerous to list documentary evidence, but I am not going to hunt it down for you Pancho, just like I am not going to hunt down the fact that CV is a City and incorporated-these are already well established facts.

0

Pancho Dec. 27, 2010 @ 9:05 p.m.

still. No proof. Tough to find facts out of thin air, huh?

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 28, 2010 @ 8:25 a.m.

Like I said-it is well known fact and common knowledge-no need to prove it up to you or anyne else. Just liek I don't have to prove CV is in CA-it is beyond dispute.

All you have to do is look it up or get the info yourself.

0

Pancho Dec. 30, 2010 @ 11:17 a.m.

So, you have absolutely no proof except the world is round and the sky is blue and everybody knows that! Nice. Once again yo are consistent. If you actually take the time to look at the link provided by Flounder, you will see the average is far less than what your gut tells you.

0

Susan Luzzaro Dec. 28, 2010 @ 8:08 a.m.

Founder, the link you posted above for city compensation is very useful. The UT reported recently that Chula Vista was third highest in the state for the money they spent on council aides. This chart is a great reference. Thank you, susan

0

Founder Dec. 28, 2010 @ 8:52 a.m.

Happy to help!

It is a shame that more of this type if "real" info is out there but finding it is so tough; I was trying to locate a link that listed (in one of Don B. ScamDiego's, I think) the names of all the folks that made giant Pensions but could not find it... There are just too many folks receiving "CITY" Pensions of over $100,000 per year!
+ I hope in the future we post every employee's name and total yearly income if they make over a certain amount of money, say $80,000 per year and include all cost to the City they work for, like health or other benefits "regular" folks have to pay, so taxpayers can compare jobs and their benefits.

That way folks would know who is getting what from our Public funds!

0

dr279 Dec. 28, 2010 @ 8:25 p.m.

Man this is so typical. Reading these comments, all I see is the sheep being pulled to slaughter. City Governments including Chula Vista have done a great job of hiding their almost criminal spending and blamed budget problems on it's employees. Stop a minute and think. Do you really think the employees have always had employer paid pension? The answer is "NO" How did they get this? In Lieu of pay raises over a several year period. Meaning no cost of living increases for several years. Are you people really wanting to tap into the only retirement benefit these people have? There is no Social Security for them because they cannot contribute while working for the City. Then you get on here and put out false information about a Chula Vista Police Officers salary being $200 to $250 thousand a year?? Must be new math. You cannot and should not calculate overtime into their Base Salary. It just doesnt make since. I dont blame these Police Officers one bit for holding on to their futures. They have made it clear they are willing to give up their pay raises, which by the way were due them 2 years ago. Jim Sandoval should be fired

0

Founder Dec. 29, 2010 @ 7:22 a.m.

Here's just one idea: Add more Officers and then pay less overtime!

I'm sure that are many more ideas that could increase the level of service without adding extra expense!

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 29, 2010 @ 12:51 p.m.

Stop a minute and think. Do you really think the employees have always had employer paid pension? The answer is "NO" How did they get this? In Lieu of pay raises over a several year period. ========================= LOL....YES, gov employees have ALWAYS had a pension, a DB pension at that, they never were without one. Stop spinning, wont work here buddy.

And the only employees who have not received pay raises the last decade are the private sector. In fact public safety pay/comp has DOUBLED in the last 10 years alone, or averaged 10% per year increases. You now have GED level gov employees making more than lawyers, doctors, dentists and CPA's, all professions requyiring years of college and graduate shcool.

In addition gov employees received 50% retroactive pension increases they did not pay for or earn.

Public employees have NEVER given up raises for a pension. Flat out lie, one of the many the trough feeding public employees claim. . . . . There is no Social Security for them because they cannot contribute while working for the City. =========================

LOL...no kidding, they have DEFINED BENEFIT pensions that pay $100K plus at age 50 and are worth $5-$10 million, the MAX SS pension is $31K at age 67, worth $300K. . . .

Then you get on here and put out false information about a Chula Vista Police Officers salary being $200 to $250 thousand a year??

Heheheh...here is another GED cop who has the reading comprehension of...well.........a GED cop.

No one said CV cops earn a "salary" of $200K-$250K, what was said is they receive "COMPENSATION" of $200K plus, BEFORE any overtime is added in, due in large part to their $5-$10 milion pensions. Remember, this is a job that only requires a GED, and nothing else, not even prior work experience.

I know it must be hard for a cop like you with limited, circus chimp type brain power-but I know you can figure this out if you put your pea sized brain to work, for once. . . . . You cannot and should not calculate overtime into their Base Salary. It just doesnt make since. =======

Errr....right!....tell you what Einstein Junior-when these trough feeders stop taking OT and do it for free, that is when we will not include it in their compensation.

Stop spinning, your "talking points" might work good at a purple shirted SEIU BBQ,or a cop beach party but it will not work here!

0

Founder Dec. 29, 2010 @ 2:45 p.m.

I think I just heard SurfPuppy HOWL!

0

Susan Luzzaro Dec. 29, 2010 @ 8:46 p.m.

We should set aside our gripes for now. Like San Diego, and redevelopment issues, stadium issues, there exists the possibility that the city of Chula Vista might not be prioritizing spending in the way that best accords with what citizens need. Spending on mayor and council member aide funding, redevelopment promises, council members who retain their car funding...etc...I agree, as I have said before, all employees must pay their share of their retirement, but aside from going after worker's benefits == are there expenditures as mentioned above that we need to put into the public pot, the one that affords library hours etc.

0

Pancho Dec. 30, 2010 @ 11:26 a.m.

Susan, you really need to do more homework before dangling this carrot article in front of us. Many council aides are non-paid interns. Observing you at the news conference, you seemed almost in love with the attention the CVPOA gave you. Yes, I saw you sitting there with the three other reporters and you were clicking photos with your small digital camera. The money that PD wants is money that cannot be used for general fund purposes. You need to talk with people like Maria Kachadoorian (sp?), Finance Director, and Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager. My impression is that they are giving the face man, Jim Sandoval, all the budget data.

0

Founder Dec. 30, 2010 @ 12:27 p.m.

Right On Susan The Greed and Pork Payoffs are everywhere in California:

Example:Denise Ducheny* +$128109 / (12 months x 120 minutes) = $88.96 per minute!

No wonder these folks like to have power lunches & Dinners. --> That way they don't have to pay for their own meals.

*From http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...

0

dr279 Dec. 30, 2010 @ 8:19 a.m.

"Errr....right!....tell you what Einstein Junior-when these trough feeders stop taking OT and do it for free, that is when we will not include it in their compensation"

Surf Puppy. You spew Rhetoric and Lies. This last statement speaks tons about you and your intelligence.

By the way these GED educated employees hold Bachelors, Masters and PHDs. But what they really have is MORALS, and COMMON SENSE, which is really what makes them intelligent (Something you lack). Yes I am a retired Chula Vista COP and proud of it. My retirement benefits come no where close to the numbers you portray and neither did my salary. Do your homework before you spread this crap. In the early 1990s Chula Vista City employees went without pay raises and it was at this time the City began picking up their Pension contributions.
Anyway I will take the high ground and remind myself of this famous quote: "Never argue with an IDIOT they will just bring you DOWN to their level and beat you with experience of being an idiot".

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 30, 2010 @ 9:31 a.m.

The educational requirement for cop is a GED, nothing more. That is the standard established by P.O.S.T. 80% of ALL cops in metro areas hold just a GED or HS diploma at hire, yet they all CLAIM they are Phd's and lawyers and doctors.

While some (15%-20%) are hired with a Bacholrs degree, it is a very small minority. Some may get a degree LATER, after they were hired, many times using taxpayer $$$ to pay for it, but that is not a requriement of the job and they were not hired with the degree.

CVPD is on the 3%@50 retirement scam, don't know what YOU retired under, but no one anywhere in the real world gets anything even close to that. You don't EVEN PAY YOUR OWN PORTION!

CVPD never went w/o pay raises, but EVEN if you did, when you get 5%-10% ANNUAL pay raises (500% above the COLA) then it is the same as getting a double raise for every year you went without one. SO in fact you have never, ever went without a COLA. The 3%@50 pensions were GIFTED out retroactively, you paid NOTHING for it. A 50% increase worth millions of dollars that you did not pay one dime for. Do the math. I will even help you out here;

. http://www.pensionjackpot.com/ .

Your sense of entitlement tells us everything we need to know about you. I have a suggestion for you and your co-conspirators, if any of you are unhappy with your compensation then to take that big, bad, awesome GED or HS diploma out into the real world and make more with it. Simple solution. Until that time keep your SPIN to yourself, and fat, little, greedy fingers out of everyone's pocket. Earn your own way instead of stealing from the poor and middle class.

0

Evelyn Dec. 30, 2010 @ 10:35 a.m.

Then what are your benefits? And what was your salary?

A curious mind wishes to know.

0

Founder Dec. 30, 2010 @ 12:29 p.m.

Fair Question, I hope we get a fair answer!

0

Susan Luzzaro Dec. 30, 2010 @ 1:02 p.m.

Pancho, it's not clear why your comment deteriorated to the personal, but please be clear that yes I was at the police officer's press conference, but no I was not clicking away with a little camera--I don't own one and did not take a single picture. As for lapping up police attention, how would you know when you have already misidentified me? I stood in line to ask individuals questions like everyone else. I'm not clear why you would launch this kind of attack.

0

Pancho Dec. 30, 2010 @ 8:39 p.m.

so who took the picture? From what I saw, the UT editorial guy, Don S., stormed off right before the press conference ended because CVPOA had nothing new. There was no line of reporters, just you approaching them after the conference ended. That's what I saw. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.

0

dr279 Dec. 30, 2010 @ 8:08 p.m.

I will answer as fairly as I can without getting too personal. Only because I want to show how ridiculous SP is with his analysis. I am not part of the 100K club and left under the Golden Handshake offered by the City 2 years ago. I also purchased more years of service credit out of my own pocket. As did a few others. No discounted rate either and it cost approx. $34K per year for up to 5 years of service credit. My retirement is approx 81 percent of my salary at 27 years. Retirement is calculated using the last highest year's salary. It is based off of salary, education pay, shift differential, and bilingual pay. OVERTIME is NOT calculated into retirement pay. My retirement rank was the Officer Level The City of Chula Vista does NOT pay for Medical expenses once retired. This medical expense is approx $1200. per month The medical benefits are also NOT calculated as part of retirement. My retirement is significantly less than $80K per year and a far cry from SP's misinformation.

0

Pancho Dec. 31, 2010 @ 9:58 a.m.

Thank you for clarifying. I thought the city was paying something toward a health benefit for Police only after they retire. Was that put into place after you retired or am I confused on that matter?

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 2, 2011 @ 1:03 p.m.

My retirement is significantly less than $80K per year and a far cry from SP's misinformation.

errrrr......sure, we all believe you.

I also bet you used to walk to 20 miles to school everyday as a child, in snow storms no less!

0

dr279 Dec. 31, 2010 @ 11:14 a.m.

There is a POST retirement Health Benefit plan, which was put into place, and it is a very small monthly contribution made by the City. This was again in Lieu of Pay Raises we were due in June of 2009 and Jan 2010. It took effect Jan. 2009 The employees have to contribute all of their Leave time into this plan at the time of retirement instead of cashing out. I was on the back end of this just before I retired. All of my leave time had to go into the plan and I cannot touch it until age 55. It can only be used for medical issues and there is a maximum monthly amount that can be taken. It will not cover anyone's monthly premiums for Medical.

SP is also feeding a line regarding a 5 to 10 percent pay raise each year. Never in my career did I receive that type pay raise over the course of 1 year. The most I have ever seen is 10 percent over a 5 year contract and that contract got extended to 2013 making it 10 years. The average COLA in the private sector is 2%. Since I retired I have also gone witout COLA increases. This will be the second year without. I am supposed to receive a max of 2% COLA each year. I can also tell you. The CITY was less than cooperative when it came to to report all of my service credit and it took almost 1 year before I received my full retirement benefit. I left in an attempt to help the CITY out of the jam they were in. Management did nothing to take advantage of it, other than taking advantage of me thru my benefits, Which regardless of SPs comments I earned every dime of. I am not living the high life as people like to portray nor is any other retiree I know. I am working a full time job and continuing to pay taxes. In order to keep my family fed.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 1, 2011 @ 1:10 a.m.

SP is also feeding a line regarding a 5 to 10 percent pay raise each year. Never in my career did I receive that type pay raise over the course of 1 year. The most I have ever seen is 10 percent over a 5 year contract and that contract got extended to 2013 making it 10 years. The average COLA in the private sector is 2%.

The average COLA for "public safety" in this stae the last decade has been just under 10%.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 1, 2011 @ 1:18 a.m.

I left in an attempt to help the CITY out of the jam they were in. Management did nothing to take advantage of it, other than taking advantage of me thru my benefits, Which regardless of SPs comments I earned every dime of.

You received a 50% retroactive pension increase that you did not work for nor earn. So that whopper is shot down right off the bat, and your spin won't change that. Sorry, but the hero whoppers won't fly here.

The fact of the mater is you would have to have contributed in excess of $2 million to "retire" after just 27 years of work-with 33 years of "retirement"- for you to kick it with at $80K per year COLA adjusted pension. That would have probably exceeded your entire take home pay for probably every year you worked.

The entitlement mentality of gov employees-especially "public safety"- and how they "earned' these scam pensions never fais to amaze me.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 1, 2011 @ 1:21 a.m.

Council Pay and their raises has been something of the absurd. They contend that they cannot change their pay raises because their pay and raises are tied to a percentage of what the county superior court judges get paid and in order to change the council members pay, they'd have to change the city charter.

It is very common for public unions, and other gov employees, to tie their wages to state judges-and this is actually relatively new, within the last 15 years or so.

They can untie it as easily as they tied it.

0

Pancho Jan. 1, 2011 @ 11:29 a.m.

common for elected officials and executives leaders of city government, not other gov employees.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 1, 2011 @ 2:24 p.m.

common for elected officials and executives leaders of city government, not other gov employees.

================ No, not just elected officials and executives of gov-but many PUBLIC UNIONS.

The CHP and the prison guards BOTH have their pay tied to superior court judges. Last time I checked those two public unions were not elected nor executives of gov.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 2, 2011 @ 1:01 p.m.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/psdpay.html http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Career_Opportunities/POR/Pay.html

====================== LOL...you just posted to their pay scales (of a CHP DISPATCHER no less!), which has nothing to do with what I said-which was their pay scales were tied to the pay scales of superior court judges.

Man, it is getting old spanking so hard in public like this. Do you like this abuse>??

Nice try.

0

Pancho Jan. 2, 2011 @ 2:12 p.m.

You're right, wrong link: http://www.chp.ca.gov/recruiting/osalary.html

I still call BS on your statement! You have proven nothing, I on the other hand have countered your numerous BS claims. Again, it's put up or shut up time SP or is BS more appropriate for you?

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 2, 2011 @ 3:12 p.m.

You're right,

I'm right, you're wrong, same old same old.

0

Pancho Jan. 2, 2011 @ 3:17 p.m.

No proof huh SP? Or is your name BS now? LOL

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 3, 2011 @ 12:18 p.m.

I don't need to "prove" the sky is blue to a trough feeding apologist.

0

Pancho Jan. 3, 2011 @ 5:10 p.m.

Again, no proof about any BS information you spew. Good work SP on NOT proving me wrong.

0

joepublic Jan. 2, 2011 @ 12:23 p.m.

Maybe you’ve seen those counters online that show how much taxpayers’ money is being spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan “wars” everyday. Some mayors have placed the counters in public squares for all to see what it’s costing the taxpayers in their particular communities. I think it would be interesting to see what San Diego County taxpayers are spending on a daily basis. No doubt our cities are financially strapped, but to blame the average salaried public employees' pension costs is ignoring the bigger issues. Note that I say the average salaried worker, not the manager/administrator class whose salaries as well as pensions should be questioned. How about a discussion about national spending priorities and the greediness of a small class of higher-ups instead of all the recent bashing of rank and file workers who have spent all their lives working with the hopes of earning a financially secure existence when they retire.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 2, 2011 @ 12:58 p.m.

No doubt our cities are financially strapped, but to blame the average salaried public employees' pension costs is ignoring the bigger issues.

The "wars" have nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with local gov budgets.

To claim public employee salary and benefits are not a major problem just goes to show that you are a public employee milking the system and trying to divert away from the scam, because no one makes that ridiculous whopper unless they are on the receiving end of the scam.

Public unions today are a direct threat to the survival of the private sector middle class and poor.

0

Pancho Jan. 2, 2011 @ 2:14 p.m.

Public unions today are a direct threat to the survival of the private sector middle class and poor.

==============

Your true feelings finally comes-out. How does it feel? Man, who wronged you? That's the real question here?

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 2, 2011 @ 3:15 p.m.

Your true feelings finally comes-out. How does it feel? Man, who wronged you? That's the real question here?

====================== Finally comes out!!! Man, where have you been living?????? Under a rock??

I have been beating this drum for the last 5 years now, and virtually everything I was saying 5 years ago has come true (like CV would eventually go BK from over comping their public safety by so much).

The poor and middle class need protection for public ssector unions hwo are daily trying to raise their taxes so the public unbions can take even more of a limited income pie. Sales tax is their most often go to tax, it has gone up more than 50% in the last 22 years-a direct correlation to the increase in public compensation.

Collective bargiaining should not be allowed in the public sector-which are non competitive, non free market monopolies.

There is no natural opposition to public unions to keep their scams in check.

0

Pancho Jan. 2, 2011 @ 3:18 p.m.

so, you have always had this visceral distaste for public servants? Did you fail the police academy or something? LOL

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 3, 2011 @ 12:18 p.m.

The TRUTH hurts the trough feeders, just deal with it-the jig/fraud is UP!~

0

Pancho Jan. 3, 2011 @ 5:09 p.m.

The way I look at it, you're the trough feeder. You want city services, but you don't want to pay for them. The jig is up on you! Reap it! All citizens will feel these pains this year in Chula Vista. Even if they don't think they you use city services, it will be felt in more ways than you can imagine. Then again, you and Flounder don't really even live in Chula Vista, so what does it really matter to either of you?

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 3, 2011 @ 5:17 p.m.

The way I look at it, you're the trough feeder. You want city services, but you don't want to pay for them.

Nope, Never have said that and never have proposed that.

I will be glad to pay for gov services, but I-and the vast majority of taxpayers- do not want to pay Cadillac compensation for Yugo services, and when you comp GED employees $200K per year that is what you are doing.

Sorry, but your deflection won't work here-we are immune to it.

0

Pancho Jan. 3, 2011 @ 8:38 p.m.

No proof yet on the $200k BS number huh? Maybe, for you, if you say it or rather type it long enough, you really start believing your own lies.

0

dr279 Jan. 3, 2011 @ 8:04 p.m.

SP you are so full of BS it smells thru the computer. I can only imagine you at your keyboard collecting unemployment.

You do not know what you are talking about in your posts. I on the other hand have real life experience. In the early 1990s Chula Vista Police Officers went for 5 years without pay raises. An average COLA is 2% per year. Instead of pay raises the City began picking up the 9% employee paid contribution to their pension. Not in one lump sum, but over that 5 year period. Now the City wants to take that back. If that is the case then maybe the City should give these Officers a pay raise equivalent to what they want to take away. That makes about as much sense as your opinions (Not Facts). Your mistake is you make things sound or read like facts when there others like me that lived it and know you are full of BS.

0

Pancho Jan. 3, 2011 @ 8:57 p.m.

dr279, I saw your post on the KGTV website tonight about the FF giving into paying their full pension and forgoing their COLA. In reality, CVPOA must be feeling the pressure to give something. You have to admit, CVPOA will come-out looking bad in the public's eye if they don't agree to some terms of agreement with the city on both pension contributions and not accepting their COLA. What do you think CVPOA would be willing to give the city at the point, if anything?

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 4, 2011 @ 11:31 a.m.

SP you are so full of BS it smells thru the computer. I can only imagine you at your keyboard collecting unemployment.

====================

LOL, this coming from a trough feeding welfare queen. Oh the irony!!!!!

You never gave up any raises-ever. I have already shown that public safety comp has doubled in the last 10 years- that is 10% per year- and that you received a 50% pension boost you never worked for nor earned.

There has been NO 5 year period when CVPD did not get pay raises, and certainly not in the 1990's when they were getting big COLA's.

Stop whining, you have a GED job that comps $200K per year before OT, and that is just for the front line-the supervisors make much more.

0

Founder Jan. 4, 2011 @ 10:49 a.m.

It is sad to me that this type of discussion is going to be happening all across America because most Leaders need BOTH Union and Big Business support to get elected and then once elected tend to support raises for those same Unions and doing business with those Big Business's.

It is a vicious circle that has now put our Country and many of our City's into financial hot water and is now pitting those working against those that are now unemployed!

Now that the SCOTUS has allowed political donations, the problem will get worse for everyone except the Ultra Wealthy and the Leaders that are getting the donations...

We, as citizens need to reconsider the long term effects of budgetary "gifts" and demand that our Leaders do what is right for US instead of what is good for them!

This, to me, is the greatest reason to support Fair Elections where everyone has the same amount of money to spend during their campaign because if we continue as we are now, I fear for our Country!

0

dr279 Jan. 4, 2011 @ 5:13 p.m.

SP never once did I whine about my pension and Will be darned if I am gonna allow the likes of you to fool people into thinking we haven't earned our pensions and pay. I hope all the readers see right thru ur BS. You have no proof of anything you have written here and it is nothing more than the same crap Jim Sandoval is trying to make all believe. The POW has stated over and over they are willing to discuss giving up or postponing the raises. However Sandoval will not agree to a side letter protecting certain items in the contract. Sandoval flat out refuses to do this. If they do not protect themselves with a side letter and open for negotiation. The City could declare an Impasse and impose what they want. So why won't Sandoval agree?? He could at least save the amount on up coming COLAs.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 4, 2011 @ 6:15 p.m.

SP never once did I whine about my pension and Will be darned if I am gonna allow the likes of you to fool people into thinking we haven't earned our pensions and pay.

I said you were given 50% pension increases you did not work for nor earn, and that is 100% factual. That whopping 50% increase was retoactive, you did not pay for nor earn any of it.

You are given a compensation package that is unheard of in the real world, $200K per year for a job that requires NO prior work experience nor any education beyond a GED. That is ALL factual. A job that comps more than doctors, lawyers, dentists, CPA's and many other PROFESSIONALS who are essentially the best and brigthest, spent 7-15 years in college, sacraficed 7-15 years of the best, prime years of their adult working life amd incurred hundreds of thousands in debt- yet a CV cop/ff can make more with a GED at age 20.5. You are not worth that, and you certainly do not deserve that kind of compensation.

You have a defined benefit pension WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that allows you to "retire" at age 50, which even YOUR employee portion is paid for by taxpayers. Again, unheard of in the real world, where social security MAXES out at $30K per year, but not until you reach age 67.

You need to stop complaining and be thankful for a job that comps you at a level you could never dream of being compensated at in the real world.

If I were in charge I would CUT your cash salary 25%.

0

Pancho Jan. 4, 2011 @ 8:41 p.m.

Here we go with the $200k make believe number. If you have the proof your magical number is true, prove it. Put up or shut up time SP. You have no proof and you now it.

0

dr279 Jan. 4, 2011 @ 8:57 p.m.

He cannot prove the $200K because it is make believe. If that was the case I would be make much more in Retirement and would not continue working. SP is full of crap and I am thinking his true name is Jim Sandoval. All he wants to do is badger and demean the hard work of our Police. To Clarify he is in a fantasy world read all my posts. At no time have I complained I was just pointing out his lies. Also funny how he re-directs the attention when Sandoval's isues are brought out. SP is full of crap and his information is his own fantasy. They wont hold water in the real world. All Sandoval has to do is agree to the side letter and the Cops will give up their raises. I would bet on it.

0

Founder Jan. 6, 2011 @ 8:31 a.m.

What is this "Side Letter" several of you are referring to?

0

Pancho Jan. 6, 2011 @ 9:16 p.m.

My understanding is that a union would prefer to have a "side letter" before they meet with city management to negotiate while they are in the middle of the contract. The side letter guarantees that they will only discuss certain things, like pension reform, and all other subjects are non-negotiable, such as health benefits. A "meet and confer" would allow either side to negotiate with the other and all the unions appear to dread this option because it makes them very vulnerable in the middle of a multi-year contract timeline to city administration will to change certain key items, such as professional enrichment reimbursement, etc.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 7, 2011 @ 5:14 a.m.

A "meet and confer" would allow either side to negotiate with the other and all the unions appear to dread this option because it makes them very vulnerable in the middle of a multi-year contract timeline to city administration will to change certain key items, such as professional enrichment reimbursement, etc.

Oh, boo hoo hoo.

Our little pampered trough feeders dread facing the truth of economic times and might even have their "professional enrichment reimbursement" cut. Stop the presses, the world is ending.

Let me shed a crocodile tear or two.

0

Founder Jan. 8, 2011 @ 8:01 a.m.

Thanks, now how about explaining what "certain key items, such as professional enrichment reimbursement, etc." means...

How many "specialized" terms are there for getting paid? No wonder taxpayers cannot understand what they are being asked to pay...

Maybe Susan or you can provide a glossary, for us...

0

Pancho Jan. 18, 2011 @ 7:03 p.m.

Sorry for not getting back sooner. There are many reimbursements, such as professional enrichment, all public entities give to their employees. Most agencies require employees to be certified in things by state codes and the professional enrichment helps pay for some of that certification.

The following link provides all of the MOU's with the various unions the city works with:

http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Administrative_Services/Human_Resources/Bargaining/MOUs.asp

On there, the largest union, CVEA, has different different classifications in the appendices A, B, & C. Some job classes get more of the chunk because they get uniform reimbursement items, etc.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 19, 2011 @ 8:58 a.m.

Most agencies require employees to be certified in things by state codes and the professional enrichment helps pay for some of that certification.

Baloney. You don't need any certification outside of what the job and P.O.S.T. require-and it is ALL PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYER.

Once again for the feeble minded, cop, FF are both GED jobs. They require neither prior work experience nor education beyond the GED.

The jobs are grossly over compensated for the skill and experience they require. The employer pays for ALL the training.

I hope CV files BK and gives all you whiney little cry babies a HUGE pay and pension haircut. Well, the pension haircut will come sooner or later, hopefully sooner.

0

Pancho Jan. 21, 2011 @ 8:06 a.m.

You really are just clueless and hell bent on hammering public safety.

I emphasized the CVEA union, mostly the blue collar workers in the city, because these are the direct services I use with my family in the city I live in, such as the public pool, the public recreation centers, and the public libraries. It is easier for me to understand their MOU. Unlike you, I have take the time to read each MOU and side letter of all the unions. Employers, public and private, are required to pay for certain trainings for their employees if they are required by a federal, state or local code/law.

For example, the State of California mandate that all swimming pools, pubic and private, have all their lifeguard staff go through the Title 22 First Aid training. These are generally park & rec employees or community service employees and by state law, the employer has to pay for the trainings. Additionally, street crew workers have to continually go through trainings and certifications. City arborist, the same. The list goes on and on.

You are just a moron wanting to point out the faults of public safety and thinking all you need is a GED to work for any city. Where, in fact, most workers for most public entities are highly skilled and highly trained. I have never worked for a public entity, but I can say that the City of Chula Vista employees are far better than any other city I have lived in. Being that we all know you do not live in Chula Vista, you have no clue.

0

SurfPuppy619 Jan. 21, 2011 @ 8:52 a.m.

You are just a moron wanting to point out the faults of public safety and thinking all you need is a GED to work for any city. Where, in fact, most workers for most public entities are highly skilled and highly trained.

Pancho, your nose is growing again.

I have lived and have worked in CV, and San Ysidro-so once agaion your know it all comments are as off base as the rest of the BS you spout.

But it makes no differnce if you live or do not live in CV-it is a PUBLIC city, and the muni decisions affect everyone who is within it's boundries.

BTW- life guards are NOT required to have their "training paid for" by the muni-another whopper. It is a REQUIREMENT to have first aid and CPR training before being hired as a life guard-at the applicants expense. You would not even be interviewed without that safety background.

CV is run by a bunch of clowns, and the employees are GROSSLY over compensated for their skills and education-especially the cops and FF's. That is why you and every other resident are being taxed to death for little to no service.

0

Pancho Feb. 4, 2011 @ 12:29 p.m.

You have lived, but you currently do not live in Chula Vista.

Regarding lifeguards, agencies prefer to hire lifeguards with previous certifications and often make this a requirement so they do not have to pay for their training. At times, staff are hired prior to certification. Tis ids true two years ago in the City of Chula Vista with the hire-a-youth program. It is more prevalent with summer camps and YMCA's. They get the training/certifications when they start working.

According to California Health and Safety Code Division 2.5, Chapter 3; Article 5. Personnel; Section 1797.182:

"The training shall be provided at no cost to the trainee." ....

Also, in the Title 22 law where it pertains to lifeguards, they must be certified within the first six months of their hire date. Many agencies that just hire for the summer season, such as summer camps, never even train their staff in the Title 22 advanced first aid protocols.

You are the clown. Obviously you do not even live in Chula Vista because you would be feeling the effects now. Quiet please. Real people are trying to solve real problems, not wannabe's.

Thanks and have a nice day.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close