Bet those Orange County lawyers are crying now about the big one that got away.

Marie:

How were all these things funded prior to the 911 fee? Haven't foot patrols and SRO's long been funded without a 911 fee?

We had a bubble economy for a few years now and governments of all shapes and sizes were building out their long term spending priorities instead of creating healthy rainy day reserves for rough times ahead.

Now, that the economic bubble burst, it seems to me everyone has to cutback.

Raising taxes just will slow any chance of recovery in the private sector. I do agree that governments should look for more cost recovery strategies and many more enterprise funds to run their programs.

The city should have put a general tax increase in front of us when they instead put up measure P.

If the same amount of people supported a general tax increase (at the time) as measure P received, we'd already have more money in the general fund.

But.... the City Council seems to be blind to all of this. I truly believe that the council does not understand how to raise money and keep the citizens happy.

BTW: I had a manager from AT&T leave me a message that told me that "the CPUC, City of Ventura and AT&T had reached and agreement about the 911 TAX, and that it would be charged and credited each month on my account". Her words... TAX.

If only the City Council had listened to the people BEFORE this boondoggle.

I am glad the City Council was rebuked in this unfair tax. Marie, instead of new City taxes, these people need to learn financial management and how to plan for down economic cycles. The current City Council is too focused on providing discounts to developers, instead of living within their means and having managed growth. I was a public servant, and the public pensions are generous compared to private sector. I no longer donate to police or fire department fundraisers, as their benefits are excessive. They should cut salaries 10% and help pay for City needs that way!

Marie, the 911 number should not have been messed with - it scared off a lot of legitimate users which is a big mistake. I think people who abuse the 911 should be billed and it is a simple matter to find out where the calls are coming from - the dispatcher can give a verbal warning at the time. A follow up written warning can be mailed.

As far as increasing the staffing? Look to the unions and look to the overall budget. Or put another tax increase to a vote. Find out what Oxnard did on their recent tax increase vote - it passed.

This being America, everyone has an opinion about how easy it is to manage and govern Ventura. "If only I were on the Council (or City Manager) I'd . . "

Here, of course, is where it all breaks down. Some would simply slash all "frills" and just stick to Police and Fire and paving streets. But then what about dealing with the homeless, revitalizing Downtown, reducing polluted run-off onto our beaches . . . oh, yeah. Then there are those who say, "bring on Walmart and new stores and car dealers!" as if there was a bottomless appetite (and discretionary incomes) for more consumption when we already produce the second-highest sales tax per capita in Ventura County (after more affluent Thousand Oaks.) Then there are those who say, "Cut the pay!" I agree that public sector pay and pensions are generous compared to the private sector (although pay is not nearly as skewed toward the top rungs as it is in business.) But Ventura has long lagged other nearby governments. We were seeing unprecedented turn-over and hard-to-fill vacancies when the Council moved to simply bring pay up the average for the agencies we compete against for staff.

I'm sure that readers still think it would be easy to balance all these factors and make better decisions. Of course, they don't actually have to campaign for office and get elected on their "look, it's easy platforms!" Nor do they have to make decisions that are second-guessed by all sides every day. Nor do they have to get a majority vote from their colleagues on the Council -- or in many cases, a majority vote (or even 2/3rds) from the voters.

I'm an armchair critic too. I look at the gridlock in Sacramento and say, "Boy, they can't manage their way out of a paper bag." But then I don't have to survive in a political environment in which Republicans must sign in blood never to raise taxes or face extinction in their primaries and Democrats must pander to entrenched special interests to raise the ungodly amounts of cash needed to flood our mailboxes with slick brochures.

In the end, we all get the government we deserve. A community with an active, involved and informed citizens who do more than whine online is the key to success. Yes, residents should expect competent, well-managed local government. And contrary to the peppery critics, by and large they get it, especially here in Ventura. But you can never take it for granted. It takes hard work, common sense and a healthy dose of tolerance for contrasting views.

And a thick skin if you want to tackle the hard work of governing.

Rick Cole
City Manager

Marie, those who backed this fee can still continue to give to the city. In fact, if they donate $2.00 per month to cover those who opted out, the same revenue stream is still there. People can agree to have their credit cards charged every month. No legal hassles, minimal administrative expense, and everyone is happy. These "tribute" funds should be set up for all city departments.

Private sector best practices must be adopted by government. It CAN work. But we must think outside the box. The system keeps trying to stuff everyone back in it. Our staff is plenty talented and the ship can be steered in the right direction if the citizens help. As City Manager Cole says, critics should also offer strategy or solutions.

Rick, thanks for taking the time to post. Given the condition of our state budget, I really thought your gridlock paragraph was very, very accurate.

I agree. Thank you for posting, Rick.

To answer a few questions posed earlier by Scott: The SRO positions were formerly funded by a grant which is no longer available. Attempts to look for another grant have not been successful.

I wrote about the Downtown foot patrol issue in an earlier post. Click on my name to read it. It is really needed on the weekends now since our Downtown has turned into such a nightlife center.

Wendy, I would gladly help establish a fund to pay for the SRO program. I just don't know now how much longer it can continue. Sigh.

From what I hear, the City Attorney makes $249,000 per year and lives in Santa Barbara. Rick Cole and Nelson Hernandez are the other top salaries. Am I mistaken or is Rick Cole appointed, rather than elected? Seems the City Council are the officials who have to deal with the electorate at only modest salaries? Maybe that City Attorney who is Ventura's highest salaried City Employee can move to Ventura and help increase revenues by actually living here? Nelson Hernandez, another top City salary lives in Camarillo. Perhaps he could move to Ventura and also increase revenues by living here?

Marie's suggestion of shopping downtown is a good one. I have been doing that. The lights have also been a welcome addition, although I thought the prior ones wrapped around the palms looked better. Tourism is still the biggest revenue draw in my opinion. I encourage my friends to come here and show them around. The lack of excessive commercial development, and small-town charm are what makes them want to return here and spend time here. This all helps revenue. I also find the Mission interests quite a few people I know. However, the vagrants and homeless are discouraging to some. The City does not do much about it, and the police I do see just drive by them and don't do anything about vagrancy anyway. Another officer or two driving by, doing nothing, would not help all that much.

Retired safety personnel can be recruited to take over SRO duties on a volunteer basis. In this economy we need to unmonetarize some functions, and those with healthy pensions are best in a position to contribute.

The "tribute" funding I'm referring to would be a mechanism for ongoing, at-will contributions to either the city's general fund or to specific funds (yet to be established) per the donor's wishes.

Studies show that individual happiness is directly correlated with trust in government, and happy people donate more. It's win-win.

I agree 100% with whalderman! The retired safety personnel have the expertise to volunteer in that SRO regard. I volunteer for city park and beach clean-ups, etc. We all have varied skills, and if each volunteers a little, it can save the city money in these hard times.

Rick Cole says:
"Then there are those who say, "bring on Walmart and new stores and car dealers!" as if there was a bottomless appetite (and discretionary incomes) for more consumption when we already produce the second-highest sales tax per capita in Ventura County (after more affluent Thousand Oaks.)"

The Ventura residents who shop at Wal-Mart are giving their (VENTURA) tax dollars to Oxnard. There aren't bottomless discretionary incomes, but why not keep as much of that discretionary income in VENTURA?

"We were seeing unprecedented turn-over and hard-to-fill vacancies when the Council moved to simply bring pay up the average for the agencies we compete against for staff."

And it had nothing to do with management? It is all based on pay and benefits? I'd tend to believe that some of your turn-over is due to mis-management of the city.

"In the end, we all get the government we deserve."

Really? We get the government that the City Council gives us. Sure, we elect the city council, but they make the personal decisions (like hiring Rick Cole) that effect us all. And yes, we can vote the bums out, but only on election night (unless someone wants to spend untold gobs of money on a recall election)

"A community with an active, involved and informed citizens who do more than whine online is the key to success."

A community with an active, involved and informed CITY COUNCIL would be nice as well. How any of them thought that the 911 TAX would fly is beyond me. Maybe the 1/4 million dollar city attorney pulled the rug over their eyes.

Many people who "whine online" also attend City Council meetings. They are also very involved with other activities. The reason people "whine online" is so that the message gets out to as many people as possible in as many avenues as possible.

"Yes, residents should expect competent, well-managed local government. And contrary to the peppery critics, by and large they get it, especially here in Ventura."

Unless your name is Helen Yunker.....

"But you can never take it for granted. It takes hard work, common sense and a healthy dose of tolerance for contrasting views."

And you would expect that the City Manager wouldn't be posting that he thinks citizens "whine online" about issues.

Interesting letter to the editor today from former City Council candidate Mike Gibson criticizing the 911 fee.

Just for the record, here is what Mr. Gibson had to say about the 911 fee exactly one year ago in a story in the Star:

12/12/07

Resident Mike Gibson, however, applauded city leaders for being creative and following through on a pledge to provide greater public safety resources. Officials estimated the revenue would allow the city to hire six police officers and three firefighters and buy necessary equipment. Even with the new personnel, staffing levels in the police and fire departments would lag state averages.

"The fee is the most palpable and acceptable approach," said Gibson, who ran unsuccessfully for a council seat last month. He said the roughly $20 annual cost per phone line "is a small price to pay to add six officers and three firefighters on the street."

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/dec/12/ventura-council-favors-phone-fee-for-public/

To answer a few more questions: The way the SRO program is set up, it would not be effective without a consistent presence, which I really don't think you can count on volunteers to maintain. Also part of what they do is visit the homes of truant kids. There is a reason why these kids are truant and it isn't often pretty.

Also, sworn active duty officers can do arrests. We're dealing with kids who are known gang members, and bring drugs and weapons to school. Retired volunteers cannot arrest anyone. I just had lunch with one of our school board members today who told me that expulsions and suspensions have been incredibly low this year and she thinks it is due to the SRO program being back.

To John Doe: I believe our council members who voted for the 911 fee did so to provide funding to keep us safe. They are all active, informed individuals who spend hours and hours reading to prepare for meetings, talking with constituents and staff, going to outside board and commission meetings and answering many emails and phone calls each day. (Our mayor literally gets hundreds of emails a day.) One is also a bank vice president and another owns his own business and is a nationally known planning expert.

You told me on an earlier post you didn't even have the time to attend Midtown Community Council meetings to keep up on your own neighborhood.

I take the time to watch all council meetings, sit on a city commission, attend meetings all over town and am an active participant in many things.

Is everything perfect? Heck no. But I will not criticize the credentials and knowledge and commitment of those who choose to serve.

And I greatly appreciate Rick's comments here.

I would like us to concentrate on issues and not personal attacks.

John Doe makes some fair points, so in the same spirit let me offer these responses:

"The Ventura residents who shop at Wal-Mart are giving their (VENTURA) tax dollars to Oxnard. There aren't bottomless discretionary incomes, but why not keep as much of that discretionary income in VENTURA?"

My point is not that we shouldn't have a Walmart. But while some people may cross the river to head for Oxnard's Walmart or Costco, even more (dollar wise) cross the river from Oxnard to head for the Pacific View Mall and our Downtown. So in John Doe's ideal world, we would have every store Oxnard has and some they don't, but there is a limit to the discretionary income in our region and pirating each other's sales tax dollars is a self-limiting game. If we captured every dollar of our citizen's spending (and every other city in the county did the same) we'd end up with less revenue, not more.

"And it had nothing to do with management? It is all based on pay and benefits? I'd tend to believe that some of your turn-over is due to mis-management of the city."

Rather than make cynical assumptions, we conducted an experiment. To get our finances back in balance, I asked our unions to forgo raises (in some cases for three years.) Turn-over went up and our ability to recruit went down. When we got our budget in balance, we moved to get back to average and turn-over went down and our ability to recruit went up.

"Really? We get the government that the City Council gives us. Sure, we elect the city council, but they make the personal decisions (like hiring Rick Cole) that effect us all. And yes, we can vote the bums out, but only on election night (unless someone wants to spend untold gobs of money on a recall election)"

And who is "the City?" If I understand John Doe's attitude, decisions about hiring key personnel (City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Chief Financial Officer) ought to be done by public referendum. We have two levels of government that follow that model more closely: county and State, where District Attys and Sheriffs and Controllers are elected directly. Does John Doe really think they are run better or more efficiently? REALLY?

"Unless your name is Helen Yunker....."

Oh, come on. A funny line, but the standard for judging the competence of city government is a person who sued the City and lost over a slope failure (that has yet to actually damage her home)? A case now ten years old? Yes, she is unhappy. Yes, many people sympathize with her plight. But if spending a quarter million tax dollars to fix a slope so one resident can sleep better at night is the standard, that's a gold-plated standard and we'd all have to pay significantly higher taxes (or be able to support 10 Walmarts.)

The most valid point, I save for last:

"Many people who 'whine online' also attend City Council meetings. They are also very involved with other activities. The reason people 'whine online' is so that the message gets out to as many people as possible in as many avenues as possible."

I used too broad a brush if my phrasing implied that everyone who offers criticism online is 'whining.' I withdraw the implication. Everyone who "only" whines online is what I meant. Given the empty Council Chambers each year when the budget is debated, I'm not sure that many people who whine online also attend Council meetings. Of course, since they don't give their real names online, neither you nor I would know that. I do know, that many of the viewpoints expressed are totally without basis in fact or elementary math. Informed criticism is vital to a healthy, functioning democracy. Reckless, personal criticism can actually undermine it. "Sounding off" without a scintilla of knowledge is what I would call "whining" and I see quite a bit of it online. Perhaps I live a sheltered life working, living and raising a family here in Ventura, but I seldom encounter that level of vitriolic and ill-informed prejudice talking to people face to face at the supermarket or at a parent meeting or in a public forum. Maybe people are being polite but they don't call the City Council "fools" or "idiots" and they don't assume they spend like drunken sailors nor that if the personally were free on Monday nights that they could slip into those chairs and do a far, far better job than the people they elect. Instead, the citizens I encounter appreciate that the Councilmembers have a hard job, that they will sometimes disagree with them or criticize their actions, but on the whole, they will give Councilmembers (and staff)the benefit of the doubt that perhaps things are a little less simple than they seem just reacting to newspaper stories or urban legends.

It is much easier to be a bully or to lob personal attacks using a fake screen name. I think blogs are very valuable but I always pay more attention when a real name is used (and verified). I have a buddy who checks names against a database because there is at least poster who uses fake real names. And there is another poster who has given out a fake last name.

I try to set a good example by using my real name, never making ad hominem attacks and always using primary source material or public record. It drives some people nuts but so far nobody has had the guts to complain using their real names.

Agreed. Using your own name is the preferred method of getting your point across. It lends credibility to your posts and keeps you from going overboard.

But I understand why some people use pseudonyms. I have a couple of bloggers who make great contributions but need to maintain personal privacy. That's fine.

The 911 fee is gone now so hopefully we can all take a deep breath and enjoy our holidays!

:-)

Marie - your blog isn't so bad but the Dennert Blog has some absolute nutcases that blog under a multitude of fake names.

I like your blog because people often post under their real names.

I use my real name and would have no problem providing my address, if that were required. However, pseudonyms for privacy are pretty standard on the Internet. Anonymity does not take away that it is a citizen making a point. That is what blogs are about, not tracking who a person is, or whether by some chance they have multiple names. It is about information and idea exchange, not identity.

I would be more concerned with people like Katie mentions who cross-check names against a Database. That is getting kind of wacky! May even violate some privacy protection? Also, that is a sign of a person getting way too personally involved. Marie does a good job dealing with wackos, and has to struggle keeping things "on topic", just like this blog now.

No, lying about the name is wacky. There was one blogger who many "real names" and posted lies galore. Call me cautious as to who I really listen to and don't lie to me. Simple. I don't lie and expect others to be honest. But in the famous words of RR, Trust but Verify.

Rick Cole says:
"Oh, come on. A funny line, but the standard for judging the competence of city government is a person who sued the City and lost over a slope failure (that has yet to actually damage her home)? A case now ten years old? Yes, she is unhappy. Yes, many people sympathize with her plight. But if spending a quarter million tax dollars to fix a slope so one resident can sleep better at night is the standard, that's a gold-plated standard and we'd all have to pay significantly higher taxes (or be able to support 10 Walmarts.)"

I know that you weren't involved from the begining of Ms Yunker's problems but: When the slope fails and she is killed, will the City be ready to fork over many more millions of dollars for a wrongful death suit?

All along it seemed to the average citizen that the city had a grudge against Ms Yunker and her hill side. Had the city did the honorable thing 10 years ago we wouldn't be talking about it.

There are many reasons to use pseudonyms. One of which is the freedom to speak your mind without fear of retribution from the government. Also, what should it matter who is posting as long as we get our point across. I respect that the City Manager and City Attorney have ventured on to this and other blogs and comments sections of the Star. But sometimes their posts seem a little 'Holier Than Thou'

That will be on my tombstone, Rob:

RIP
Here lies Marie
She did a good job
dealing with wackos

A comment on the city attorney: Mr. Calonne, who just recently ended his one-year probation for his antics in Boulder ( stupidly threatening to " kick your ass if you touch my dog" (his elderly female neighbor in Boulder) and bad-mouthing her yet again while in the presence of a local cop ), promised the Ventura city council he would be worthy of his high salary. He literally, according to one councilperson at the time, begged all the councilpeople individually for the job after the aforementioned news became public. He only answers to the city council - not the citizens. His was the idea of the "opt out" and this was his first "test". The city council, in groupthink mode, thought he must know what he was talking about - after all, they hired him. My question: what has he done so far ? Where is he worthy of his high wages ? This kid who grew up in Mar Vista has done all right for himself. He's fed at the public trough his entire adult life and obviously knows the game. He's apparently commuting to his job in Ventura from Santa Barbara and sort of slides in under the local radar. He, like Cole, is unelected, but look at the hassle one man's "advice" has already generated. I say hasta la vista, baby.

Comment to Mr. Cole above re. Monday night attendance:
Yes, councilpeople work hard for their $800.00/month salaries. They put up with a lot - every week. Most people run a business or are employed somewhere, while simultaneously attending to faily matters. They have to trust to some extent. You get paid ( by the very same public ) six figures and get a free house to attend these meetings and the public hopes you have their interests at heart. You encourage citizens to participate. Yet the woman you most vociferously "whined" about, the "view lady", was made to wait some six hours to speak her piece recently on a Monday evening - her "item" had been interestingly placed last on the agenda - when there was no one left in the audience to hear her.

Marie:

Thanks for clarifying the funding history of those programs.

Mr. Cole: While this may sound like a dumb question, are you speaking on behalf of the city on this blog in an official capacity or is this your personal opinion?

If it's a personal opinion I say post away, but if you are writing as the city manager on behalf of the city, I'd prefer that you spend more of your time educating readers like me with the challenges going on in the City of Ventura.

Calling tax-paying residents "arm-chair critics" or "whiners" does nothing to advance the city's position in these tough times.

If individuals are off-base in their opinions, isn't it your responsibility as the city manager to provide facts and create bridges to greater understanding, even if you believe it not worth your time?

Lincoln once wrote, "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"

Perhaps, instead of adding to the acrimonious blogging environment, you could provide data and facts to rally the community behind a new shared commitment in these tough times.

Just my two cents...

The blogging environment isn't acrimonious for the most part - there are only a couple of bloggers that are nasty. They hope to spoil the whole cart for everyone else but that isn't happening.

Rick Cole has a right to offer up his perspective and at least he uses his real name. He also maintains a "city manager" blog on the city website.

Rick's blog can be found here:
http://www.cityofventura.net/cmblog/

He's been really great about explaining city issues there.

An interesting exchange...

As for the 911 fee/whatever thingie...I thought it was doomed from the start. I opted out my land line (which I maintain for lousy DSL support from ATT..why I don't know) and use my cell for most everything else. Why one, and not the other? Making a statement I guess.... and looking to see if it made a difference...which, if it did, I didn't notice. Hell, I can afford it either way really.

I'm glad the city did away with it. I'd be supportive, though cautious about a general sales tax change..given that all jurisdictions are looking at this as a way to "enhance revenue.

Ahh..but the thing about screen vs "Real Names"....

I'm not sure that using my real name makes me more credible...increasingly "credibility" is really in the eyes of the beholder....which sort of moves it from what you (the poster) actually says, vs what the reader thinks...before and after reading your post.

I think the real bad effect of "psuedonyms" on these boards (rooted in the "Net" as they are) is not an issue of credibiity, it is more the freedom such anonymity brings that cause some to feel emboldened to say just about any stupid, hate and/or fear-mongering, lunatic, and frequently foolish things here.

Maybe if real names were attached there would be less "colorful" posts, but discussion might be more serious and focused I think.

I like that Rick Cole explains issues on this blog and on his own blog. Unlike Scott Blough, I do think he has explained himself rather carefully and has provided facts for all of us to try to better understand the issues.

It would be great if more city managers interacted with the public using their own blogs.

My friends, Rick Cole gave us the straight talk we deserve.

Comment re. Cole's blog:

Rick Cole cherrypicks who and what comments are printed on his blog - real gutsy - democracy in action !!! So nothing except " I think Rick Cole is brilliant or at least is trying to be brilliant " stuff gets printed.

Hey, did they ever find that former Iraqi Information Minister yet? The one saying "all is great, no Americans are anywhere on Iraqi soil!". Maybe he had surgery and is now Rick Cole in disguise??

Juan, There are quite few comments on his blog which are critical of the city. Go look.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1854627540208052784&postID=4055286367343400974&pli=1

And there are comments on there which have misinformation, such as two bloggers who believe the per-call fee is $50 if you opt out. It is 17.88.

A lot of the information put out on cyberspace by random anonymous bloggers is highly inaccurate and I think that is mostly what he was responding to above along with a complaint about the tone of the comments.

That bothers me as well. I've worked really hard to put accurate information here and I do attempt to keep our tone civil.

You can disagree with my opinions. But my facts are accurate.

Marie:

I believe you wrote earlier that you didn't opt out of the fee. Correct? Does this mean generally you'd volunteer to pay for higher taxes to let's say the state of California or the city of Ventura or your school district?

In a few states there are "tax me more" accounts.

If the state of California or the city of Ventura offered individuals to opt in to pay higher taxes, would you do it?

I did campaign work for and voted for our local school bond measure which caused our property tax bill to rise slightly. I voted for P6 which would've raised our sales tax here by 1/4 cent to pay for public safety.

If I know exactly where my money is going and see a great need, such as restoring our SRO program, then yes.

Marie,

I have written a number of serious comments to Mr. Cole's blog which have never seen the light of day.

Maybe Simi Valley could do that to restore the police positions they just had to cut back on including sobriety check points and DARE.

Would you support that Mr. Blough? Higher taxes to stop Simi Valley from cutting back police services?

Rigby:

I appreciate your question. In an effort to encourage honest discussion, I encourage you to post the same question under your real name.

Most of us would agree if we received a crank call, we'd probably hang up the phone. If we received letters that were anonymous or from fake people, we'd probably dispose of them.

I think most would agree that we can't start a conversation with you being less than forthright about who you are and anticipate that it will lead to a positive and honest discussion about our collective challenges.

This is the equivalent of having an open debate where one side places a bag over his head and doesn't have their reputation on the line, while the other person is fully out there discussing the issues for everyone to see, flaws and all.

Last, if I were to answer your question, it would only encourage more questions from fake posters. While I have answered fake people in the past, my goal at this point would be to have honest people step forward and have positive discussion on topics of concern to our respective communities.

Do our communities deserve any less?

I look forward to getting to know who you really are and having a positive discussion on local government challenges.

Have a great Saturday.

Rigby, retired service personnel can be recruited to take over DARE. Volunteer work is a big part of making schools and communities successful. No new taxes are necessary.

And I definitely like the idea of "tax me more" accounts. It helps mitigate the highly unfair nature of the numerous regressive taxes in place such as sales tax.

Scott, amen and amen!

Ah, Scott, welcome to my world. I sit out here online with my picture and my opinions hanging out for all to see. I've had plenty of darts thrown my way. I've been accused of being both pro growth and anti growth. Both sides of the Wal-Mart issue have snarled at me. One blogger likes to post off-topic personal comments designed to harass me; another told me I couldn't understand certain things because I am a woman.

But still, I try to provide a forum for community discussion and it works for the most part. It's democracy, only messier.

I like the idea of retired police taking over running DARE. If the idea can work why didn't we do it sooner? If it does work then when the economic conditions gets better we should continue to use retired police to do it so we can have more patrols, like the new scooters that Ventura got.

No, I don't need to use the name on my driver's license to talk in a fair matter about issues. If I was posting unfair comments or negative attacks I understand. But for now the internet does not require us to fill out speaker cards like government meetings do.

If I work for a city or county government agency or department and I post under my legal name I would face consequences at work. I don't need that and I would like to keep my work and politics separate.

If this bothers you Marie feel free to delete my question.

I believe the protest came from Scott, not me. I resigned myself to the vagaries of this anonymous world long ago.

As I mentioned above, I don't mind anonymous, I just like to keep it civil.

"Rigby"

You have the right to express yourself anyway you'd like within reason. I also have the right to ignore your questions and converse with people who are being honest about who they are.

I would hope that many other writers, who take the risk and use their own name, would hold to the same standard. This would hopefully lead to less fakers and more fair play in the discussions.

Marie:

The "tax me more" accounts isn't just a minimum like the 911 fee. It would mean you'd pay over and above for the things you'd like to see funded.

You would be free to pay more. I know a few states have this and was wondering if during these tough times, the option needs to be put out there.

If Mr. Cole is still reading, could a city put tax me more accounts in place or would legislation have to go through state government?

Here's one thing I support whole-heartedly: Public/private partnerships. If you look back at a lot of the things I have written here, much of it touches on this. I'm co-president of the Ventura Education Partnership and co-chair of a group called Save Our Schools. We do lots of private fundraising and awareness events for our school district.

http://www.vep4vusd.org

My work through the Serra Cross Conservancy will help improve Grant Park through private fundraising. I donated to the Aquatics Center to help build that. One year a group of us raised enough money to buy a School Resource Officer back one year for our middle schools. I help with many other civic projects.

I think volunteer efforts and dollars can go a long way toward reaching our shared goals.

I totally agree with you on getting involved on any number of public causes. One of the unintended consequences of our tax system is that many people believe because they pay their fair share of taxes they are off the hook.

I have heard this attitude first hand.

The tax me more accounts would be along these lines.... Let's take, Property taxes. Many often complain that the way our property tax system is designed has hurt schools.

Debate aside on the merits of each side's argument, a tax me more account would enable people to voluntarily raise their own property tax rates to a level they feel is sufficient above the law.

There would have to be a rewrite to the deductibility of property taxes if this would be put in place, for sure, but that's how it would work.

On the 911 fee, the same holds true. Instead of paying the minimum, it would give you the option to pay more for public safety.

This isn't one of my ideas, there are a few states that do it.

Scott,

Do you think they will be very well contributed to or is the point to prove people don't want higher taxes?

The obvious problem is both the free rider issues that naturally develop and the little impact that an individuals contribution would make. Why send in an extra $100 at tax time to widen a freeway if it takes millions and other people will use it without the extra tax.

I agree with Marie that people are more likely to support tax increases when they know where their money is going to or feel it isn't being wasted.

We could stretch the idea more into something that would cause budgeting chaos that reminds me of something I used to see on college campuses involving people putting pennies into jars with labels on them for policy areas.

What about tax me less accounts? If you don't like something you could ask your taxes for that expenditure be returned?.

Of course I don't think that is a wise idea as there are parts of the budget of governments from city hall to the federal program that could be important but little understood.

Scott, would you support cities across Ventura County adding your idea?

Now that Ventura is retracting their 911 fee how exactly are they going to pay for the 50% pension increase they gave to firefighters just a few months ago? What is more troubling is the fact that the city continues to drive up public employee salary and benefit costs during a major economic downturn. The city council argues that they need more tax dollars to hire cops and firefighters, but then they turn around and use those dollars to grant lavish perks to the public employee unions who contribute to their campaigns. Is it really fair for taxpayers to pay more in taxes so firefighters and cops can retire at 90% pay? How exactly does increasing already generous pension benefits improve the safety of the community? All the city has done is make it even more expensive to hire cops and firefighters. You could have added at least half a dozen firefighter positions for the cost of the city's recent pension give-away. And now other unions are also lining up with their own demands for a pension increase. Voters would be crazy to give the City of Ventura more of their hard earned money.

Brian:

The problems you are bringing up, we have now.

You say an "obvious problem" is the free rider issues. This "obvious problem" is happening now. We have numerous citizens in our society that pay next to nothing in taxes, yet use a great deal of the spending and services.

Are you against progressive taxation and the welfare state? This in large part is a "free rider" system.

You wrote, "We could stretch the idea more into something that would cause budgeting chaos that reminds me of something I used to see on college campuses involving people putting pennies into jars with labels on them for policy areas."

Then, you go on to talk about the problem with your own idea. Let's not invent straw men as I never really argued for pennies in a jar for each policy prescription.

Please see my examples above where an individual can opt to raise his/her own property taxes or raise above the minimum 911 fee.

"Tax me less accounts?" I haven't seen this anywhere. Please provide examples.

"Would I support this across cities in Ventura?"

Of course not. Citizens of their respective communities should decide how fees and taxes should work.

Bubba,

The pension upgrade was from 2 percent at 50 to 3 percent at 55. It is 3 percent of the firefighter's last year of pay multiplied by his or her years of service. So unless they served 30 years, it would not all be 90 percent.

If you want to know why they did this, I suggest you read Bill Fulton's blog:

http://fulton4ventura.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-were-giving-firefighters-raise.html

It was a very split decision by the council. It will add $1.2 million per year to the public safety budget and was paid for with the increased property tax revenues from last year. The 911 fee was not supposed to pay for that.

The rationale as I understand it is that we are so far behind in pay and benefits compared to other adjacent communities that we spend the money to train these folks (around $100,000 each) and then they jump to other agencies who pay better.

I agree we should not be giving any more raises from here on in. They are estimating 20-30 positions will be lost in the next round of cuts.

Marie,

Any way you look at it this is a 50% increase in pension benefits regardless of how many years they serve. But I have yet to have anybody provide a rational explanation why any public employees should be entitled to up to 90% pay at retirement. That is outrageous, especially when average Americans are losing their jobs and homes, paying higher taxes, and working longer for their own retirements. And paying bloated benefits just because other departments are doing the same thing is just stupidity. As I said before, the city could have added at least 6 firefighter for the cost of the pension giveaway.

I've read Fulton's explanation for the vote and he is full of hot air. It also doesn't explain why this increase would take place during an extremely challenging economic climate where the city council is already saying they need more taxes in order to hire additional police and firefighters. Why on earth would you increase the cost of hiring when you can't afford to fully staff? He also says that the benefit is being paid with property tax dollars, but everybody knows that property tax revenues are FALLING due to the real estate market. So what happens next year when they receive less property taxes than the year before?

Another excuse we keep hearing is that it is necessary to recruit and retain public safety employees. But there are no statistics that back that up. In fact, only one Ventura firefighter has left for a higher paying department in the past two years, which hardly constitutes a turnover problem. Whenever a position is available there are literally hundreds of applicants. The recruitment and retention issue is a farce invented by public safety unions as rationale to justify their excessive pay and benefit hikes.

It is morally wrong for the city to jack up the pensions of one group of employees while giving pink slips to another group of employees. It is also wrong for them to be giving out lavish pay and benefit increases during an economic downturn while simultaneously asking taxpayers to cough up more of their hard earned money. It is irresponsible for them to make unnecessary, long-term financial obligations with taxpayer money when the city's finances are already shaky. And I also don't see why firefighters who have already served 20, 25 or even 30 years should get a gift of public funds by enjoying a retroactive increase in their pension benefits. What did taxpayers get in exchange for this? How does any of this improve public safety?

Scott,

I said across Ventura County because you brought it up in relation to the city of Ventura doing it.

Would you support the city of Simi Valley doing it?

I would already think people could donate money directly to the general fund.

You make valid points, Bubba. But I do think our firefighters deserve to be well compensated. You are asking people to willingly risk their lives to protect the citizenry. I'm not sure I would advocate for second-tier wages for these folks.

The prison guard retirement benefits are the most egregious, in my mind. This union is also one of the most powerful in California. (So odd that that endorsed Tony Strickland, too.)

Marie, are you saying that firefighters were not well compensated before the recent pension increase? With the prior 2% at 55 pension plan a 30 year employee could retire at the age of 55 with 60% of their final year salary. Why is that amount not sufficient? I can't think of a single private sector employer that offers that kind of benefit.

If the argument is that they deserve this money simply on the basis that they put their lives at risk, then what about the men and women who serve in the U.S. military? While both can be dangerous jobs, soldiers in the armed forces often face far greater risks than firefigters. Yet soldiers work for far less pay, and even after 30 years of service a soldier will only receive 62.5% of final pay, with a pension check equivalent to just a small fraction of what a Ventura firefighter would receive.

By comparison, firefighters are very highly paid, and with overtime it is common for firefighters to earn well into six figures. Generations of firefighters retired on the old 2% at 55 formula, so why is that amount suddenly insufficient?

Marie, you need to offer a better justification other than they put their lives at risk. Using that logic why not pay them $1 million per year with 200% retirement? Besides, when we increase the cost of public safety it drains resources from other important programs. It also results in understaffing because communities can no longer afford to hire enough cops and firefighters because of excessive costs. I would argue that jacking up their pension benefits serves no public safety purpose and actually reduces the effectiveness of public safety departments because it leads to understaffing.

Since the City of Ventura has increased these pension benefits while simultaneously facing budget cuts, which public employees do you recommend that we lay off so that we can fund the additional $1.2 million per year for this pension increase? What other cuts do you propose to public services to pay for this? Should we continue to understaff the fire department so that existing firefighters can enjoy a richer retirement? Or are you suggesting that taxpayers, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a tough economy, should just suck it up and pay more in taxes so that firefighters can increase their pension benefits from 60% of pay to 90% of pay?

If you are saying that firefighters "deserve" this benefit, I think it is only fair for you to outline the cuts or additional taxes that you recommend to provide the necessary $1.2 million in annual funding.

Hey, here's an idea... how about allowing Walmart to open a store in Ventura and using the additional tax revenues to fund the pension increase?

Brian:

It would help me in our conversation if you had a point or position of some sort.

I don't really understand what you are getting at.

You weren't content with tax me more acocunts because of the free rider effect. Then a question was posed to you that if you didn't like free rider effects in government what about the current free rider system?

Instead of answering the question you just moved on to ask me more questions. Usually, conversations work better if one person poses questions and the other answers them. Then, the other person asks questions back and to the other person that posed them.

Then, you developed a dissimilar position from the tax me more accounts, then refuted it. I thought this was pretty odd move on your part.

You wrote in your recent post, "I said across Ventura County because you brought it up in relation to the city of Ventura doing it."

How would I know why you wrote that?

Would I support something like that in Simi Valley?

Not really sure. There never has been specific fees that the city has put directly on the population like the 911 fee that had an opt out mechanism. It's my understanding that most of the taxes go through other state entities and filter back to the city.

Brian: Do you support being charged a 911 fee in Simi Valley?

Would you voluntarily pay a higher rate on your property taxes in order to fund education?

Bubba, did you not read the part of my response in which I said you indeed made valid arguments? You seem determined that we will not agree on anything.

My point was that I do not see the value in Ventura taking the lead in creating a second-tier wage system when they are surrounded by agencies who pay more.

One thing they did look into was merging with County Fire, but this would cost the city a great deal more than they can afford right now.

Are you advocating that all unions go back to the table now and agree to cut benefits and wages? Do you feel this is a practical idea?

You might be gladdened to know that our police management deferred scheduled wage increases to save positions that would be cut:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/mlakin/archives/2008/06/much-has-been-made-recently.html

"Deserving-ness" is not a good standard by which to set pay and benefits; supply and demand of available labor is. If hundreds of qualified applicants are available for each job opening, there is room to adjust pay and benefits downward. Obviously, this is not a politically popular approach.

The claim of inter-city wage wars is no-win for the taxpayer, as it creates a vicious circle of ever-increasing expense.

Let supply of labor dictate compensation.

Wendy, I'll ask you the same thing:

Are you advocating that all unions go back to the table now and agree to cut benefits and wages? Do you feel this is a practical idea?

Do you think it is a good idea for Ventura to serve as an island of restraint surrounded by a sea of excess? Do you want a second-tier public safety structure?

Instead of complaining about how we got here, I'd like to see real, practical solutions about how we get out.

Scott,

As you know I am a teacher since you brought it up. Therefore raising my property taxes to pay my own paycheck doesn't make sense.

You brought up tax me more accounts, not me.

I think they sound like a gimmick to show people don't like being taxed. If hat is the purpose I think we already know the answer to that question. As a political stunt it seems successful when Mike Huckabee proposed it but I didn't find any news articles that said it solved any budget shortfalls.

In a way we already do have tax me more accounts. We have Education Foundations, PTSA's, band and athletic booster clubs, and a variety of other school fun raisers. If you want to create tax forms where people can check a box to send more money to their local school I would say that is an interesting idea. I don't know the legal ramifications because of laws that try to make sure all schools have a basic level of funding.

Marie, I agree that practical solutions are needed immediately. It’s important to look at how we got “here� if indeed we want to get “out.�

Re: “Second-tier public safety structure�... With all due respect this is not a fair question to ask. Anyone who cares about this communty does not WANT a “second-tier� anything. This creates a false dilemma and implies we must choose between fiscal responsibility and a quality public safety program. It just isn’t so.

The problem is this and it’s always the same: We have unlimited wants but limited resources. The ongoing challenge is how to allocate limited resources wisely. Taxpayers are not a limitless ATM.

If city leaders and unions want to allocate their resources to retirees instead of new hires, that is their call to make. But then they must be OK with the appearance of prioritizing economic rewards for existing workers over the general safety of the public, if indeed they are short-staffed. As Bubba Kidd stated, “Why on earth would you increase the cost of hiring when you can't afford to fully staff?� IMO, if public safety is truly the top priority, full staffing comes BEFORE pension increases.

As I previously stated, let the supply of labor drive compensation. If employees want to leave for other cities, let them. There are plenty of people more than happy to take their place. (Plus, vesting programs, if not already in place, effectively reduce attrition costs.)

Is it cost effective to spend $100,000 training a new firefighter to have him leave for better compensation elsewhere?

Do you think all public employee unions should go back to the table now and vote to slash their wages and benefits? Do you think this will happen?

I am not arguing that increasing pension benefits was a good idea. I am forcing you to go back and look at all sides and come up with a workable solution that will involve market-rate compensation for our public employees, no tax increases and no reductions in workforce.

Marie,

Didn't your mother ever say to you, "If your friends jumped off a bridge would you do the same?" Just because other cities are engaged in reckless spending doesn't mean that every city has to do the same. We should be learning from examples like the recent bankruptcy of the City of Vallejo in Northern California, which has been attributed to excessive public safety contracts (check out the link). I don't agree with your assertion that there is a second-tier wage system for Ventura firefighters. If that were true then the existing workforce would simply leave for higher paying jobs. There were already well compensated and there is no documented evidence of turnover or recruiting problems within the fire department. On the contrary, there are literally hundreds of applicants any time a position is available. I see no need to continue hiking compensation unless you are having actual problems recruiting and retaining employees. Besides, the public would be better served by filling vacant positions rather than giving away lavish perks to existing employees.

The practice of public safety departments continually outbidding each other is what is causing the problem with rapidly escalating employee costs. Every time one department gets a pay raise or benefit increase every other department then claims that they are compelled to match or exceed that amount in order to remain competitive. The result is a never ending escalation of salaries and benefits. Case in point is the recent 7% increase in salaries given to SVPD, which was due to a clause in their contract that requires salary surveys with other highly compensated departments and guarantees that their salaries match that average PLUS 4 PERCENT. The 7% pay raise is on top of a 3% increase in 2005, a 5% increase in 2006, and a 5.5% increase in 2007. In the past 4 years that translates to a 20.5% pay increase! I have no doubt that those other departments are now pointing back to SVPD to justify their own pay hikes in order to remain "competitive".

In the meantime, the Simi Valley city revenues for 2008 are coming in 18% lower than expected and the city is announcing program and job cuts at the same time that they are boosting pay to existing public safety personnel. It is madness for the city to guarantee unknown pay increases based on salary surveys, regardless of whether there are revenues to pay for them. And these public safety contracts are typical. All it takes is for one department to get a generous pay hike and everybody else then follows suit. And so the game continues.

Because of this, we can no longer have rational conversations about reasonable compensation since everything is benchmarked against what other departments are paying, regardless of how outrageous the pay and benefits. Going back to the original discussion, I have yet to hear a rational explanation why public safety employees should be entitled to 90% pay at retirement. It is justified solely on the argument that it is necessary to remain "competitive" with other departments. But on that some history is in order. About nine years during a booming economy and a windfall of .com tax revenues, Governor Gray Davis signed off on a 50% increase in CHP pension benefits, which set off a statewide frenzy among all other public safety departments to match these benefits in order to remain competitive. All it will take in the future is for one department to boost their pension benefit to 100% of pay and the process will repeat itself.

To answer your question about whether unions should go back to the bargaining table, in a tough economic environment I don't see why not. But better yet, how about calling their bluff and saying no every once in a while.

Marie, I suggested some solutions in my previous post. Vesting and payback programs reduce attrition losses including training costs. And training programs can be privatized just like any other vocational training. Job hopefuls can acquire skills first, then apply. No need for taxpayers to pick up the initial training tab.

There are plenty of other solutions that don't require tax increases. What actually gets done is up to the "deciders." But taxpayer money must always be allocated wisely and with full accountability.

Ventura is not even close to Vallejo's situation. Vallejo's public safety budget was 80 percent of its general fund; here it's only 50 percent.

It is not true that there are hundreds of applicants for our fire academy here. According to our city manager, they went several months before they could find six recruits to put through the intense fire academy. Only five graduated and four remain.

The package they settled on included no raises and they remain 10 percent below average in salary compared to other agencies. They were the last agency in the state their size to have the 2 percent at 50 formula and they do not have lifetime medical benefits. T.O. and Oxnard do.

So was it a good idea to upgrade their pensions right now? That point is certainly debatable and our council split on it.

Wendy, I am not sure it is possible to outsource our fire and police academies.

Any idea which increases net revenues without raising taxes is worth looking into. And, wow, there is quite a discrepancy in "facts." Hundreds of firefighter applicants or six...which is it?

What exactly is the fire academy? What is its purpose? What are the requirements to enroll in it?

I pulled the "six" right from our city manager's blog on the subject:
http://www.cityofventura.net/cmblog/2008_08_01_archive.html

Bubba lives in Simi, I think. He (or she) is just guessing on this.

I am not a fire academy expert. Somebody else will have to post on this. But I do know they receive very specialized training: Hazardous Materials handling, Urban Search and Rescue, Trench Rescue, Rescue Systems I and II, Vehicle Extrication, Ocean Rescue, Structure Firefighting, and Brush Firefighting.

I could be wrong, but I think "six" is the number that were already hired and put through the Ventura County Fire Department's regional Fire Training Academy. This is not the number of applicants who originally applied for the positions.

According to a 11-23-2008 Star article by John Scheibe, "Firefighter leaves forests for city," a municipal firefighter "knew that the competition for these jobs was fierce."

Straight from Rick Cole's blog:

"...Contrary to outdated stereotypes, these college-educated, experienced professionals are not sleeping overnight to line up to qualify for these jobs. In fact, last year we went several months before we could find six recruits to put through the intense fire academy. Only five graduated, only four remain with us. Our standards are tough. ..."

Sorry to keep nitpicking, but this quote does not say that there were only six applicants for the city's firefighter positions.

Brian:

There is a lot of good debate here on a different topic, but I will write a response and hopefully not detract from the flow.

First, I never brought up that you were a teacher. I try to stay away from that kind of stuff.

Property taxes do not typically correlate with your professional career. The asset you own is what is being taxed, not your career choice or source of payment.

I don't think it sounds like a "gimmick" and I don't share your pessimism about human nature. There are plenty of people willing to argue we aren't taxed enough. I read this complaint in the papers, on the blogs, and so on. This mechanism provides them the opportunity to fund government to the level they feel is necessary above and beyond the legal minimum.

Are you really saying these vocal proponents of higher taxes, if given the opportunity, won't pay more?

Your argument that it hasn't solved the deficit establishes another straw man to knock over. I never posted that it would be some sort of silver bullet to all budget problems.

Would it make sense to write, "income taxes haven't solved the budget deficit, so let's get rid of them?" Somehow, I think you'd disagree with this statement.

The only danger from this idea is people may pay more voluntarily to the government above what they already have to pay by law.

I'm still very interested in your concern over the free rider effect in government. What specific free rider problems in government are you unhappy about?

Do you support a 911 fee in Simi Valley?

I actually want to compliment the pay/pension discussion. It appears to be a very healthy discussion. One that I would hope would happen more often. I'm by no means an expert.

I do share Bubba's concern with the studies driving up the fiscal costs to a community. It's worth looking at closer.

A particular concern of mine is always risk management. I believe higher pay is a direct result of the legal environment communities are operating in and an inability to calculate an appropriate time value of money analysis to ensure future availability of future employees. In a sense, this forces government to over invest in the future to ensure future employees are available to them.

Even private employers are often paying employees for future performance that has not been realized in an effort to stave off tomorrow's competitors and ensure future availability for profitable activities.

Ask yourself not what it costs for a police officer today. Ask yourself, what is the price of a police officer 3 years from now to ensure there is one available to your city?

And in this above thought process lays the challenge for public servants. How do we calculate salary levels 3 years from now to ensure quality police availability at that point in time?

Also, Police men and women operate in a very legally contentious environment where decisions are made in a blink of an eye and long term consequences of those decisions can make or break a community's financial position and reputation.

There is a premium there.

Police often are put in very tempting positions such as a criminal bust with a lot of cash lying around or organized criminal syndicates that want to control certain illegal black markets. Stable pay acts in some ways as a deterrent against those types of risks.

This by no means is fool proof, but would we really trust anyone making 14 bucks an hour and little retirement to handle a drug bust with tons of cash?

I have no doubt the pool of applicants is growing, but I believe that those that actually get through the battery of tests, psychological exams, lie detector tests, and background investigations might be very small.

This again, forces tomorrow's investment to be even higher to ensure future labor availability.

How many unemployed able bodied Police officers are we seeing in the market? This to me, would be an indication of oversupply and I may have not seen it.

In the short term, I'd like to see reconfiguration of the Brown Act to remove the exemption on closed meeting labor negotiations. I think open meeting laws, if applied to labor negotiation, might be a good start to ensure the community's long term fiscal health. Right now, many members of the labor side do not even know what is up for negotiation by their own team.

In the long term, I'd like to see government develop an employee-centered, independently certified "(BRAC) Base Realignment and Closure-like system for negotiations. I think an agreed upon automatic system would both renew our commitment to hardworking taxpayers while also creating sustainable financial security for our public servants.

Sigh .... Wendy. OK, maybe Rick will come back on here and explain a little better, but I took it to mean that those were the applicants who passed muster, at the very least. I know you have to pass physicals, etc. to be a firefighter.

You certainly are a debater, my friend! But I am guilty of that as well.

Scott and Brian, here is something for you:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/ShareinSolutionLetter0820.pdf

Sorry, Scott, we crossed in cyberspace. I really appreciate your very thoughtful posts. Your Brown Act suggestion has merit.

I am glad you share my concerns about adequate compensation for our public safety personnel. I believe Bubba and Wendy have made good points as well.

I welcome your balanced comments on changing the Brown Act. I've suggested this before and public employee union supporters absolutely oppose this proposal.

Many seem to believe that the public is only entitled to the final agreed upon contract. But, this places the taxpayers at a deep disadvantage as they only get to see the final product.

The BRAC concept is more a method to look long term and change the political incentives.

Face it, public officials have a dilemma. They can approve a raise today and not see the impact of that raise until sometime down the road when they might not even be there. What calculation do you think they would make? By approving the raise, it increases political support.

In addition, there is no guarantee the appropriate labor supply will be available tomorrow.

So, think of it this way. There are five loaves of bread available 3 years from now. You are allowed to bid on them today, but you can't really see what other competitors are going to bid.

What would you do? Overbid or underbid?

The incentive dynamics are problematic here. Public officials are incentivized to approve raises against future public officials. (Called the tomorrow problem). They can also approve these raises under no political pressure in private meetings. And, they have no idea what tomorrow's labor supply for police will look like. This causes overbid.

Certainly, unions also have strong role to play, but I think there is responsibility on all parties on why this challenge is happening.

One thing I do want to write from my perspective. No one here is against public safety or against education, or against fire protection because they have differing views on this question. Too often people play this card and it turns the debate nuclear. This is not my intention.

I welcome more discussion and If I'm misguided or miss something, I'd like to know more about this topic.

Have a great day.

I do have a few bloggers who don't support the concept of public education and who would like to see it go to charters or be privatized entirely.

My feeling about unions is that I am generally supportive but feel the dynamics need to be changed to accommodate competition in a global economy. This is less relevant to public employee unions.

One public employee union which has entirely too much power is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the prison guards union. They supported Tony Strickland in SD-19 and put out the most outright false advertising I have ever seen come to my mailbox. It was simply appalling in its fabrications. I asked Bubba about this union earlier and he/she ignored me.

I agree with Scott's view on the Brown Act. It is unfortunate that the public has no information on labor negotiations until there is a final contract, and then it is too late for the public to even voice an opinion. Local government has to have public review in order to spend even a few thousand dollars on a project, but can obligate millions of dollars in labor contracts behind closed doors. There can often be valid reasons for approving generous contract increases, but the public should be included in the discussion since they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills.

On the hiring and turnover issue, I don't have any specific information about job applicants for the Ventura FD, but the linked article does mention that only four of 68 sworn employees left the Ventura FD in the past 4 years. That represents a turnover rate of just 1.5% annually, which doesn't seem particularly concerning. Even if the 3 at 55 pension benefit could reduce turnover to zero, the $1.2 million annual cost of the enhanced benefit is certainly greater than the training costs to replace one employee per year. Of course that all of this is under the assumption that having zero turnover is even achievable, or desirable. A case could be made that any organization needs a some amount of turnover to bring in new people and avoid stagnation.

The same article also mentioned a recent job posting for the Newport Beach FD that drew 600 applicants, including some who camped overnight. I'd be curious to see the number of responses to the most recent job posting by Ventura FD. I seriously doubt that it is just a handful.

I also want to go on record by saying that I believe that police and fire personnel should be paid well, and receive the best training and equipment possible. But I do not believe that enhanced pension benefits are a wise use of scarce public safety dollars, particularly when it involves tradeoffs that leave needed positions unfilled or requires laying off staff in other departments.

I would also like to bring up another issue, which is that 90% pensions actually encourage earlier retirement. Under the old plan a 30 year employee at age 55 could retire at 60% pay, or continue their careers to build up their pensions to 75% or even 80% of pay. It wasn't uncommon for some public safety employees to have 35 or even 40 year careers, since they had financial incentives to continue working to increase their pensions. Now employees have no incentive to work beyond 30 years because their pension benefits max out so early. As a result, there is a drain on departments of their most experienced employees. Enhanced pensions actually increase turnover and increase training costs by shortening the working careers of employees. A good example of this was when LAPD adopted a 3 at 50 pension benefit and approximately 400 police officers retired within the following month.

Marie,

I'm no fan of the CCPOA, and I believe that they wield far too much power in this state. IMO it is also a very corrupt organization. That being said, the reason I have not commented on the CCPOA is because I don't see any direct relationship to the convsersation we are having over Ventura FD pensions. I do, however, think that it would be a very interesting topic.

BTW, I also believe that teachers unions wield far too much power in this state as well and are damaging our public education system. We could talk about that one too.

As you are probably aware, I am very supportive of our teachers unions. But I will bite on that one. State your case.

I was checking on your feelings about the CCPOA to make sure all unions were universally reviled by you or if it was only the ones who generally support Democrats.

I don't revile all unions, but I do believe that some of the more powerful ones have abused their influence. I get just as angry when I hear about corporate lobbyists who jet congressmen away on all expense paid golfing excursions, or oil companies doing home remodeling for U.S. Senators.

Before I move on, there is one more point I want to make about public employee pensions. Another significant problem with hiking public employee pension benefits is that the cost is uncertain. I'd rather see pay increases instead of pension increases because you can budget in anticipation of pay raises. But public employee pension plans are set up as defined benefit plans, which means that the benefit is defined but the actual cost of the benefit is unknown. By contrast, a 401(K) is a defined contribution plan, which means that an employer can provide a fixed matching contribution to the plan but the eventual value of the benefit depends on investment returns.

In practical terms for taxpayers it means that the cost of lavish pension benefits for public employee can, and often does, exceed the anticipated cost. Pension funds are typically invested in the market and the eventual benefit is paid for by a combination of contributions and investment returns. When investment returns are lower than expected the taxpayers are obligated to make up the difference. As you know, the stock market fell dramatically this year, recording massive losses. It isn't unusual these days to see investments that have lost half their value. What that means for taxpayers is that they can expect a corresponding increase in cost for public employee pension benefits. That $1.2 million cost of the firefighter pension enhancement could easily end up costing Ventura taxpayers millions more than expected, especially since the cost estimates were put together before the recent market downturn.

There is recent history for this as well. After the dot com bubble and recession of 2001/02 the cost of public employee pensions mushroomed during the following three years because of steep investment losses. Many public entities saw their required annual pension grown to be 3-4 times higher than anticipated. Fortunately, the booming housing market bailed out the state by creating a new flood of tax revenues.

But here we are in 2008 with a market downturn far worse than the one earlier this decade, perhaps the worst since the great depression. There is no housing or market bubble on the horizon to bail out taxpayers. So what do you think is about to happen?

My prediction is that over the next few years the city of Ventura will have no choice but to go after a wide variety of tax and fee increases to make up the difference. Public safety pension costs will mushroom out of control once investment losses are fully realized. Many police and firefighter positions will be left vacant because the city won't have the resources to fill them due to these escalating costs. Other departments and public services will need to be slashed to compensate. We will be laying off librarians and clerks, and cutting programs to the elderly and disabled in order to fund lavish pension benefits for already well compensated employees.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now. Let's check back on this topic in a year or two and see how close my predictions approach reality.

Marie:

I wouldn't say I support "privatization" or solely charters. I support competition and parental choice. If individual parents believe their children get the best education in public schools, then they can have their children attend those schools.

If individual parents want something else. Then, those choices should be available to them.

Competition does amazing things to reinforce customer accountability.

Let's take two blogs as an example.

One blog writes all sorts of things that results in a trash talk debate that is negative and doesn't inform.

Another blog, allows the free exchange of ideas and respectful discourse of the participants.

Both are responding to their respective posters. Neither is wrong nor right in who they appeal to.

But, as one overtakes the other with more posts and active involvement, the other blog changes it's tune to cover more of what people want to post about. People have a natural respect for competition.

I'm a firm believer in consumer sovereignty.

Competition and innovation is at the core of person's natural state. There is a passive acceptance of competition and the results thereof ingrained in us.

Competition brings accountability and innovation to the forefront. This would be good for the school systems.

Imagine how good coca cola would be if it was the only soft drink on the market? Same goes for schools.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Holidays to all.

Happy holidays to you, too, Scott.

FYI: My earlier comments about the educational philosophies of some of my bloggers were not in reference to you. I'll check back in a day or two with further thoughts.