Almanac

Viewpoint - January 28, 2009

Editorial: Big pay hike a symptom of failed policy

Menlo Park's recent approval of a major pay increase for police sergeants has been roundly criticized by many residents, but the real driver of this and a raise for rank-and-file police approved earlier last year is the use of pay rates of nearby cities to set salary levels in Menlo Park.

Of course there is a need to offer competitive salary packages, but at some point, the wage escalation must stop or we will have our police force being paid more than the governor — and retiring at age 50 with 90 percent of their pay for life.

This is not to say that our police men and women (and our firefighters, who work for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District and are eligible for similar benefits) do not deserve good wages for the very dangerous jobs that they do. But the spiraling cost of these wage contracts for Menlo Park and other Peninsula cities could soon reach crisis proportions.

The most recent dustup in Menlo Park was the City Council's decision, made in executive session as are all wage agreements, to crank up the base pay for eight sergeant positions (one is unfilled) from $107,086 a year to $131,452 by 2011 — a 30 percent increase in just two and a half years. The deal was made public Thursday, Jan. 8, but the council approved it at its Jan. 13 meeting before the public had adequate time to comment.

Except for Councilman John Boyle, who was opposed, the council strongly defended the pay raise, which boosts the sergeants' salaries considerably higher than the average benchmark of 14 similar-sized Peninsula cities. City Manager Glen Rojas said the sergeants' deal was based in large part on the 36-month contract signed last year with the rank-and-file officers for a 25.7 percent increase by 2011, which the council approved on a 5-0 vote. Sergeants have traditionally enjoyed a 20 percent differential over line officers — and were due the 30 percent raise, Mr. Rojas and other city officials said.

Besides the quick turnaround of the sergeants' contract, the public was upset at giving a 30 percent increase over 30 months, when so many local residents are losing their jobs or working for reduced wages or hours. Even though the council felt obligated to push through this increase, the city should at least have delayed approval long enough to explain its side of the story, and to give the public more opportunity to comment.

And we find Mayor Heyward Robinson's initial reaction to a suggestion by fire district board member Peter Carpenter that the city post proposed pay increases for 15 days prior to a final vote totally inappropriate.

"If you just announced it two weeks earlier, that gives people two weeks to send nasty e-mails, get a hot and heavy debate going, et cetera, et cetera," the mayor said. "If we throw it out a couple of weeks early, we'd create a huge amount of excitement over it."

If Mayor Robinson is saying that he does not want to give residents — his constituents and local taxpayers — an opportunity to review and comment on a major expenditure of city funds, is he truly supportive of open and transparent government?

Rather than rush final approval of this contract, the mayor could have used an additional two weeks to educate residents about the issue and brainstorm ways to get the city off this merry-go-round of bidding up the cost of police services.

In prior years, The Almanac has reported on the high cost to cities and special districts when police and fire personnel retire with 90 percent of pay for life at age 50, after 30 years service. As more and more officers qualify for these pensions, the city will be paying out more and more in retirement benefits, especially in years when PERS, the state retirement system, is struggling — as it is now.

In the case of the both police contracts, the city settled on an increase substantially above the average of the cities in the comparison group. By doing so, the city continues to escalate these pay hikes, often beyond normal cost of living increases.

Clearly, Menlo Park alone cannot stop the tendency on the Peninsula and elsewhere to keep pay raises high to simply retain police officers and stop them from defecting to nearby cities. But we believe that all the cities in the comparison group should search for a way, perhaps through a county-wide joint powers agency or in the Legislature, to stop the bidding war for police services.

Comments

Posted by Hank lawrence, a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jan 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Tom Gibboney is spot on. There is nothing more to say.


Posted by Paul Collacchi, a resident of another community
on Feb 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I see the escalation Gibboney and others talk about, but cities may not "collude" to "stop the bidding war." Its just as illegal for buyers to fix the price they'll pay as it is for sellers to fix the prices they charge.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think anti-trust laws are Federal, so even a State or County legislative act would not work.

BTW, below this post at the moment I'm typing is a banner ad from Edu.PoliceLink.com. It advertises education services to qualify to become a law enforcement officer.

For those who really believe in free markets, and hope for solutions other than destroying them, what capitalism is supposed to do is to respond to the demand for police by adjusting supply (not fixing prices.) Maybe some of those laid off car workers will become nurses and police who are willing to accept a new career at the lower starting salary and work hard to provide near equivalent service levels.

The banner ad suggests just that.





Posted by Fair Witness, a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Feb 2, 2009 at 8:45 am

Here's what Gibboney said in a 2007 editorial: "Menlo Park cops need help"

"Given the tough recruiting environment — California faces a shortage of up to 13,000 police officers by 2010 — it is time to abandon the city's position of setting its wage standard in the mid-range of what is offered in the surrounding area. That strategy obviously is not working, and if the city is to catch up, it will have to ante up more dollars."

Web Link


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields