|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, November 29, 2012, 11:54 AM
Updated: Thursday, November 29, 2012, 6:51 PM
Atherton: Staff compensation cuts OKd, but council likely to reconsider next month
|
|
by Renee Batti
Almanac Staff
This is an expanded version of an earlier story.
The vote may have been unanimous, but the outcome of the Atherton City Council's Nov. 28 approval of compensation changes for 10 unrepresented town employees is far from certain.
In voting yes on the compensation resolution, council members Jerry Carlson and Elizabeth Lewis stated they were unhappy with some of its terms, and promised to call for reconsideration of the matter next month, when council member-elect Cary Wiest replaces Kathy McKeithen on the council.
(Only a council member who has voted in favor of a measure can call for its reconsideration, according to City Attorney Bill Conners.)
Mr. Wiest, who attended the meeting, did not return phone calls seeking comment for this story.
The resolution would affect only the town's unrepresented employees, including the town manager, police chief and lieutenant, city clerk, and finance director; it would require the employees to pay for more of their retirement costs, and cap vacation and sick-leave accrual and the town's contribution to health-care premiums. It would also create a two-tier retirement system for new hires, and eliminate post-retirement health benefits for new hires.
The resolution would also furlough most of the employees, those considered "nonessential," during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day.
Most of the police department staff will not be affected by the resolution, but that hasn't stopped the police union from entering the debate with guns blazing.
David Metzger, president of the Atherton Police Officers' Association (APOA), urged the council to reject the resolution, calling it bad policy. In late November, the APOA issued a scathing statement criticizing the "lame duck" council for considering the compensation changes.
"Widmer, Dobbie, and McKeithen will use their last majority vote to exact revenge for their political loss upon Atherton's residents and its employees," the statement said the "political loss" a reference to the perceived shift in political leanings on the council resulting from the Nov. 6 ballot victory of Councilwoman Lewis and newcomer Wiest, both of whom were endorsed by the APOA.
Some observers, including Councilwoman McKeithen, see the APOA's involvement in the issue as a preemptive move to protect its members' benefits when contract talks open next year for police officers. Calling the future police negotiations the "elephant in the room" no one wants to talk about, Ms. McKeithen said, "This is a policy issue. ... That is why we have the APOA here."
Noting that 55 to 60 percent of the town's budget goes to the police department, she added, "That's what this is all about, ladies and gentlemen."
Changing position
Although they voted for the compensation resolution in closed session prior to the Nov. 28 action, council members Carlson and Lewis expressed concerns about some of the terms during the public meeting.
Ms. Lewis noted that the speed with which some of the measures would be put in place made the changes "too aggressive," and would create too much of a financial burden on employees before they had time to adjust to them.
As an example of how the pace could be slowed to ease the burden, she suggested that the resolution be amended to expand the 18-month period for incremental increases in employee retirement-cost contributions to three years.
Councilman Carlson said early on in the discussion that he supported the changes as means to improve the town's financial viability. "But whatever we do, we should strive to be fair to our employees, and we should also listen to residents' concerns."
After the public comment period, during which a number of residents spoke against acting on the measure before next month, when Mr. Wiest is seated, Mr. Carlson said he would rather put the vote off.
"My colleagues and I are very close if not in complete agreement about the policy" driving the resolution, Mr. Carlson said. But after hearing from the public and from an employee who will be affected by the change, he said, he questions whether the resolution reflects "the road map" that should be followed to achieve the town's policy goals.
The town might instead want to "sit down with the employees and consider more flexibility in how we approach" achieving the goals, he said.
Ms. McKeithen, Mayor Bill Widmer and Councilman Jim Dobbie pushed for acting on the resolution that night, saying that the council had been discussing the proposal in closed session for more than six months before unanimously accepting it.
If the issue were postponed, they said, it would take months for the new council member to get up to speed before the council could take the matter up again. The council's goal is to put the changes into effect by January.
The affected employees have participated in the discussions along the way, so the claim that the proposal was sprung on them is inaccurate, they insisted.
Unexpected timing
Steve Tyler, the town's public works supervisor, told the Almanac that the town had kept employees informed about possible changes in their compensation, and the employees did participate in discussions.
But there was no indication that a proposal was going to be acted on so quickly, and employees were surprised to learn that the resolution was on the Nov. 28 council agenda, he said.
The employees "are all for getting things right and making concessions. But (the speed of the changes) will put some serious pain on some of us," he said.
At the meeting, Mr. Tyler urged the council to slow down, saying employees didn't get a chance to see the final draft of the resolution until the day before Thanksgiving. During their brief review, they found errors and confusing language, he said, and they'd like the chance to work with the town to "clean it up."
Employees also would like the changes, which will cut their income through more paycheck deductions -- in some cases by 14 percent or more -- to be put in place more slowly to ease the pain.
"I realize this problem isn't one you created," he told the council. "But we didn't create it either. We're not bad guys ... and we are with you 100 percent in terms of making concessions."
Councilwoman McKeithen's statement that the resolution will create a policy that will set the stage for police negotiations prompted Mr. Tyler to abruptly leave the meeting.
"I thought they were negotiating with us," he said later, adding that the employees affected by the resolution were the very ones who "did our best to right the ship and keep it going" after the town laid off most of its non-police staff last year and outsourced most of its services.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Truthful Report, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm On October 25, 2012 Mayor Widmer sent out a press release with the following paragraph:
"The City Council has not, held any discussions at any Council meeting regarding plans or potential plans to outsource our police department services."
This was misleading, because last night the Mayor admitted that for months discussions were taking place on police salaries.
It could have stated what was being discussed: "The council has been working for months in closed session on a Compensation Reduction plan instead of outsourcing...."
It is hard to believe that during those six months Outsourcing was not mentioned in any discussion. If two or three officers suddenly leave due to the Compensation, will backups be "outsourced" from the Sheriff to cover shifts.
|
|
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2012 at 3:44 pm In 2010 Atherton's unfunded pensions were reported to be $8,000,000 last night it was said to be $12,000,000 and according to the mayor Moody's said its a lot more like $24-30 million.
|
|
Posted by I was there, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2012 at 4:04 pm Truthful Report, I don't remember Widmer saying that for months discussions were taking place on police salaries. He said discussions on the unrepresented employee compensation had been going on for months. Your post is confusing on many levels.
|
|
Posted by Truthful Report, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm I would think the Mayor's recent Press Release would have informed residents of the $12-24 Million debt Atherton has. The council should have been working on this the last two years.
|
|
Posted by Truthful Report, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm TO: "I Was There"
Although The Police Chief and Lt. are unrepresented they still work in the Police Deptartment.
The issue is confusing, and it would be great for council to clear it up. Police officers retire at age 50, but if they are promoted to Lt. or Chief it will now be age 57. Is that what the council is proposing?
When the council was discussing the matter over the last several months did they ever address this scenario?
Are you thinking that during all those council meetings, no one ever asked if the unrepresented employee's plan would have an impact on the APOA contract?
Do you think that regular police officers now are factoring that Atherton retirement is likely to go to age 57?
|
|
Posted by Gimme a break, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm Widmer says two things:
1. Discussions have been taking place about compensation reductions.
2. Discussions have not been taking place about outsourcing.
And the net result is he must be a liar? That's just not logically true. It's not even misleading. For example, companies have implemented salary reductions with no plans to "outsource" their employees. These are simply mutually exclusive concepts.
>>Do you think that regular police officers now are factoring that Atherton retirement is likely to go to age 57?
Why not? And what's so bad about that? The arrogance is astounding...complaining about a retirement age of 57 when everybody else works to well past that?
Anyway, Flint is past 57 at any rate, by my guess.
|
|
Posted by Truthful Report, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2012 at 7:23 am November 2010 Almanac
Residents getting nervous over police outsourcing option
by Renee Batti
"In what could be a sign of things to come if Atherton's elected officials decide to outsource police services, a number of Atherton residents attended an early morning meeting of the City Council and town's Finance Committee on Nov. 18 to hear a presentation on another city's experiences in turning over police operations to the county Sheriff's Office.
In spite of the 8 a.m. start time, about 15 residents attended the session, Councilman Jerry Carlson estimated. A number of them spoke, he said, and to his recollection, they all were against farming out police services.
The council has not actively explored outsourcing police services, but it has been struggling to find ways to fix the town budget's $1 million structural deficit, and had directed the Finance Committee to look at options that include outsourcing a number of town services.
The committee had scheduled a presentation by Jeff Maltbie, interim city manager of San Carlos, who was to talk about his city's outsourcing of police services to the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. When Councilman Carlson learned of the presentation, scheduled for the committee's Nov. 18 meeting, he requested that the meeting be held jointly with the City Council, he said....
Councilman Dobbie said if the council ever decided it wanted to turn over police operations to another agency, he would push for putting the question on the ballot.
Bill Widmer, who will take a seat on the council in December, also said voters should be the ultimate decision-makers on outsourcing.
Mr. Maltbie's presentation included an overview of San Carlos' move from its own police force to its outsourcing to the Sheriff's Office, a transition that became effective Nov. 1. The process, Mr. Carlson said, included a paring down of services over a number of years in an attempt to reduce costs and retain the department; but after a time, only core services were available and financial problems remained."
Atherton has begun the first step that San Carlos did. Services have been pared down. Furloughs, the SRO is gone, etc...
Outsourcing has been discussed at Council meetings, on this web site, and other places for years.
|
|
Posted by Bill Widmer, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2012 at 7:36 am We did not and I did NOT say Wednesday that for months the Council had been discussing Police salaries. I did say that the discussion on benefit packages for non-safety employees had been discussed for many months.
It would be nice if someone with a handle of Truthful reporting would actually do it.
|
|
Posted by Gimme a break, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2012 at 8:37 am I share your criticism of Widmer. This council NOT discussing outsourcing was a dereliction of duty to the taxpayers. But the presentation by Maltbie doesn't amount to a discussion about outsourcing. The APOA has used outsourcing in its propaganda to residents to intimate the council has been considering and deliberating whether and how to outsource (their use of the word discussions). Unfortunately, and inexplicably, this has not happened.
It is really funny to watch this, though. Atherton is the only community in the Bay Area where cops have been able to put council members on the defensive about doing their jobs when it comes to police compensation. In any community where the council had its act together, cops wild not get away with this. The police chief would not be allowing cops to behave this way. The two long-standing problem officers who are the Pres and VP of the APOA would have been gone by now.
Widmer, man up and start to stand up to these bullies.
|
|
Posted by Truthful Reporting, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2012 at 9:06 am Bill,
Thanks for responding.
Maybe the misunderstanding is that I consider the Police Chief and Lt. part of the Police Dept and part of Public Safety. If Atherton outsources the Police Dept, they are part of that decision. The Almanac Reporter wrote, "Most of the Police Dept" will not be affected.
Do you consider the Police Chief and Lt. part of the Police Dept and involved with Public Safety?
Do you agree with the Almanac Reporter's Statement: "Most of the Police Dept" will not be affected?
Since we have this opportunity would you answer a few more questions and post answer to Don Way's Guess Opinion, regarding your Press Release?
My comments on your Press Release is that it did not mention that Salary Reductions which include the Police Chief and Lt. have been discussed for months and as Council Member McKeithen stated: "set the stage for police negotiations..."
I agree with Council Member McKeithen. Do you?
So for months the council has been discussing the salary of the Police Chief, Lt. and others with the knowledge that it will "set the stage for police negotitations."
Why didn't you make that statement in your two-page Press Release?
Which leads to other questions:
You wrote the "Council has not held meetings on outsourcing"- Yet two years ago there was one public meeting. After that it appears the Council avoided the topic- publicly. Why?
Your statement does not mean that Council Members have not had discussions on Police Salaries and Outsourcing. It just means no meetings have been called, which would allow the public to comment on the topic. Why not?
Have you, the Police Chief, City Manager, or other members of the council considered that the salary reductions could result in officers leaving without enough Atherton officers to fill those spots so the Sheriff might need to supply Atherton with Deputies?
Could the word "Outsourcing" be used to describe this activity?
Quoting from the Almanac:
"Unexpected timing
Steve Tyler, the town's public works supervisor, told the Almanac that the town had kept employees informed about possible changes in their compensation, and the employees did participate in discussions....
"Councilwoman McKeithen's statement that the resolution will create a policy that will set the stage for police negotiations prompted Mr. Tyler to abruptly leave the meeting.
... Calling the future police negotiations the "elephant in the room" no one wants to talk about, Ms. McKeithen said, "This is a policy issue. ... That is why we have the APOA here.....
Ms. McKeithen, Mayor Bill Widmer and Councilman Jim Dobbie pushed for acting on the resolution that night, saying that the council had been discussing the proposal in closed session for more than six months before unanimously accepting it."
From that is reported of how staff and the public have responded; Can you understand the perception is that you, Jim Dobbie, and Kathy McKeithen had a plan to first reduce the Police Chief, City Manager, Lt, Finance Director, and City Clerk's pay and use that to set the stage for Police Negotiations next year?
That is the long version of why I feel your Press Release was misleading.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
