SMC Supervisors placed Sheriff Deputies 3% Raise on Consent Agenda Around Town, posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Apr 29, 2011 at 8:39 am
San Mateo County supervisors approved an agreement with the 352-member Deputy Sheriff's Association without discussion at their April 12 meeting. The agreement was listed on a "consent agenda," which contains items deemed so routine that supervisors approve them in one motion.
I was hoping Don Horsley would have recused himself from this vote. So much for hope.
Posted by gunste, a resident of the Portola Valley: Ladera neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Considering that the County is running a deficit, giving the Sheriff Deputies any raise is irresponsible. The two service requests I have had in 42 years in Ladera have left me with a poor opinion of what to expect. - Deputies are not underpaid and are earning a good living. Obligating the County for more funds without an income to pay for the promises is exactly how most constituencies get into financial trouble.
I doubt that the SM County Sheriffs are better than any other areas law enforcement people, they just seem to be able to lean harder on the Supervisors. Does having the former Sheriff onthe Voard have anything to do with that? Did he make promises for support?
Posted by mickie winkler, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm
not only were raises granted, but the County now guarantees that our deputies will get salaries that are higher than their counterparts. This is exactly the kind of legislation that drives up costs around the Bay Area--at a time when other communities are coming to grips with police costs and when the shortage of policemen is not the issue it was. An irresponsible act that has widespread repurcussions. We need to pay more attention to the County Supervisors we elect.
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Voted today is right. Our votes were mailed today. We do need to pay more attention to our county supervisors. After reading through all of these Almanac blogs we made our decision. 4 votes from us for Dave Pine.
Posted by Elizabeth Lewis, a resident of the Atherton: West Atherton neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 7:59 pm
I have deep appreciation and respect for our law enforcement personnel both in Atherton and San Mateo County who risk their lives every day to keep us safe.
This was an agreement in which significant concessions were made by the sheriff deputies. If we want to attract the best, most capable men and women to protect us, we need to pay competitive compensation.
Gina Papan is experienced enough to understand these realities. It is very easy to turn this issue into talking points for a campaign or as part of vendettas some people have with law enforcement. These are important considerations for your vote.
Posted by peter carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 8:25 pm peter carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Lewis states:"If we want to attract the best, most capable men and women to protect us, we need to pay competitive compensation."
In the current market there is NO justification for increasing the deputies' compensation. There are hundreds of experienced, well trained law enforcement professionals who have been laid off by Oakland, San Jose and elsewhere who would glad step into any open position in San Mateo for less than what the deputies are being paid.
Fiscal responsibility dictates that public agencies not engage in wage escalation as a form of self promotion.
Posted by peter carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 8:34 pm peter carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Lewis states:"If we want to attract the best, most capable men and women to protect us, we need to pay competitive compensation."
Sadly this is the mantra of those public officials who do not understand that local government is out of money and that it is imperative to reduce, not increase, public employee compensation and benefits.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Apr 29, 2011 at 8:57 pm
"I'm glad to see they're making 7 percent more," said Supervisor Don Horsley, the county's former sheriff. "San Mateo County has a much higher cost to live in the county than Alameda, Solano, and Contra Costa counties."
That might apply if the deputies lived in San Mateo County.
From what I understand we have many Deputies who don't live in our County. If they don't live in our County why are we paying them the highest wage? They don't spend their income here. They don't invest here. They just earn their income here.
What was not even considered was the fact that all throughout the State of California there are REDUCTIONS in salaries, cuts to staff. San Mateo County could have reduced the salaries of the deputies and they still would be among the highest paid. Does this 1% clause also get go down if other agencies decrease their salaries. Is it tied to just one other organization or several?
The key issue here is that the public was not part of this process.
Posted by Turning Point, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:24 pm
This is a turning point issue for California. How and why San Mateo County could have done something so blatant just days before an election is a mystery. What is obvious is that unions are buying candidates, who pay them back with unsustainable pensions and salaries, raising our taxes, and California is still broke. Something needs to change. Pine appears to have the right position on this but the amount of money pumped into his campaign troubles me. Stogner is independent and not taking money from anyone. He also seems to have the right positions on these issues.
Posted by Henry Riggs, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:34 pm
You can drop off your ballot Monday at your city hall or directly to the county offices in RC.
If you compare the sheriff's contract to pre-2007 alternative, when fantasy money paid for raise after raise, I guess you're right, deputies made a "concession" taking this latest raise and "allowing" future hires to get less than $122,850 annual pensions they will get starting at 50 years old. But honestly, are you really still living in 2006 and playing with funny money? I notice your town just came within two years from bankruptcy, but you may not have known that either - nor would union funded Gina Papan.
Posted by A. Monk, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Agree w/Turning Point. Liked both candidates and was ready to vote Stogner but read through a large number of comments from him on these forums and have been concerned with the tone towards several posters. Have researched all candidates and my vote is now going to Pine. Will take advice and go to post office early tomorrow am.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 8:56 am
And now the San Jose police are agreeing to a 10% CUT.
Our Supervisors are not paying attention or spending our tax dollars well.
The Supervisors need to adopt a policy like that of the Fire District which requires that any proposed new labor agreement be posted for 15 days before the Supervisors could vote on said proposal:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION
OF PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of promoting prompt public access to government records, the California Public Records Act broadly defines public records (Gov. Code Section 6252, subdivision (3)) and the exceptions to disclosing public records under the California Public Records Act are narrow; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 through 54963, enacted into law in 1953, requires open meetings of local agencies “to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies”; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act “…reflects a legislative determination that ‘public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business,’ and an intent ‘that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly’ (Gov. Code Section 54950); and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act require the District to conduct its business in a transparent manner; and
WHEREAS, the Board, as duly elected representatives of the citizens within the District, in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, is committed to providing the District’s citizens with information considered by the Board in making its decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes due to the importance of proposed collective bargaining agreements with the District employee labor representatives, that these proposed agreements should be made available to the citizens of the District in sufficient time prior to the Board’s adoption of the proposed agreements so as to allow for adequate review and comment by the public prior to final Board action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District does hereby move that any proposed collectively bargained labor agreement between the District and designated District employee representatives shall be made publicly available at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the meeting at which the agreement will be acted on by the Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at the Regular Meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008 by the
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:13 am
"Our Supervisors are not paying attention or spending our tax dollars well."
I say Our Supervisors are paying attention, but not to the Taxpayers, and they are not spending our tax dollars well.
Most people in San Mateo County do not know who the Supervisors are or what they are supposed to do. Currently we have 4 Supervisors with one vacant seat. Two of the 4 (Rose Gibson, and Carole Groom) were appointed, not elected by the voters. Supervisor Don Horsley just invested a reported $400,000 plus a promise to not accept any of the salary and benefits to be Supervisor.......WHY?
Now we have a candidate investing a reported $557,000 for this election.
Posted by Lurker, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:15 am
When the truth comes out about what some of the San Mateo Sheriff's Deputies have been doing on the job- activities that have nothing to do with their official duties- I guarantee you that the community is going to be in an even bigger uproar about this increase in pay.
Posted by Voting, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:19 am
The votes are being counted, and I believe a lot more are coming in for Stogner than anyone ever thought. The unions and their hired officials are running scared. Now instead of laughing about Stogner, the Palo Alto Post is running hit pieces on him for bringing this sheriff's deputy raise to light. No one counted on the public outcry.
Keep it up, Michael. I believe these votes are going to get "counted" in a very creative way by the elections committee, helped out by law enforcement and unions.
Posted by Voted today, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:29 am
I was really high on Stogner and ready to vote for him. However, as I read through some amazingly rude comments he made to some people that commented on the Almanac forums this last week, I changed my vote to Pine. I liked what Stogner said he was going to do to help our county, but if he is going to react as he did here, how would he do if he were elected? Dave Pine becomes the best option.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:32 am
I have given that subject (vote counting) some thought, since I am the ONLY candidate who personally asked Mark Church to resign as Supervisor in order to save the Taxpayers of San Mateo County this $1,100,000 cost for this election.
Posted by Voting, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:36 am
Voted today, I'll take someone who shoots straight and has no obligations to anyone (from taking their money) over a polished politco who always has a smooth thing to say, any day of the week. Besides, Stogner's frank comments are actually appreciated by many of us since he's right.
Peter Carpenter said it best: Stogner is the best choice because he is not a politician.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:39 am
Just love these anonymous hit piece postings criticizing those few who have the courage to post in their own name.
PS. Stogner has never had a posting removed because it was offensive, his were usually because they were off the particular topic being discussed. How much better it is to have someone who speaks out than someone who either doesn't say a word (in which case your postings would not be there to be either read or removed) or someone who hides behind a bucketful of different anonymous names.
Posted by Voted today, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 9:58 am
Voting, Go back and read through the articles and posts. The remarks were not "frank," they were rude. And they certainly look like they were removed because they were very inappropriate. While I appreciate and applaud "frank," I don't want someone in office who so critically judges those he represents.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 10:59 am
Voted today ("I don't want someone in office who so critically judges..") has perfectly identified where his/her and my preferences differ - I WANT elected officials who judge both issues and people critically.
It is a sad day when it is politically incorrect to exercise critical judgement or when criticism is unacceptable.
Posted by Voted today, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 11:31 am
As usual Peter twists the words of others. per POGO, no comment.
For Stogner to attack posters online to the point of having posts removed is not someone I want representing me. He could have taken the high road, but did not, which gives me an indication of what his stint in office might be like.
Stogner states: "I'm glad to see they're making 7 percent more," said Supervisor Don Horsley, the county's former sheriff. "San Mateo County has a much higher cost to live in the county than Alameda, Solano, and Contra Costa counties."
That might apply if the deputies lived in San Mateo County.
Actually, Mr. Stogner, they do live in our county.
Posted by A. Monk, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:42 pm
It appears that Peter Carpenter has veered way off topic once again. In regards to the subject of this article I agree that Mr. Horsily probably should have recused himself. Let us hope that new leadership will bring change. Make sure you encourage all of your friends to get out and vote!
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm
From Elizabeth Lewis:
I never said anything about concessions. I only answered Diana's question about voting timeframes and said my family voted for Dave Pine."
From your previous post: "This was an agreement in which significant concessions were made by the sheriff deputies. If we want to attract the best, most capable men and women to protect us, we need to pay competitive compensation."
Posted by Look closely, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Menlo Voter, I think you have "Elizabeth" of Lloyden Park/Atherton confused with "Elizabeth Lewis" of West Atherton. Also, I would caution all of you against assuming that "Elizabeth Lewis" is the council person. Anyone can use anyone else's name on this blog, unfortunately.
Posted by Eureka!, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Look closely, I think you've hit on something that will work both for politicians and the Almanac. These blogs should be used for all political commentary. If public reaction isn't good, the politician can always say someone else wrote it. Haha. But more seriously, I have to believe that was a politician. Most of them do think that way, otherwise these raises wouldn't have been voted in.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Apr 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm
"An egregious mistake that the residents of San Mateo County will be paying for, for YEARS to come.......
These supervisors must be living in a parallel universe."
This was no mistake, the 4 Supervisors could not care less about what you and I think or know. They know it takes about 40,000 signatures to recall them. Tell me how many newspapers have covered this story since April 12, 2011. How many citizens in the County even know about this vote? Very few.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on May 1, 2011 at 11:10 am
"The Supervisors cannot give raises now or promise to grant them in the future," said candidate Dave Pine
The problem with this statement is that it just did happen. The 4 Supervisors just approved this raise.
This is part of a letter to the editor I sent to all newspapers in San Mateo County last week. It never got published but the Daily Post took a small part of it to attack me.
County Supervisors Approved 3% raise to Sheriff Deputies.
If Terrible and Egregious aren’t enough, Illegal action should be.
When everyone else on the planet is cutting salaries and positions, Supervisors Adrienne, Carole, Don, and Rose went a different direction, and they might have to unwind this one in the near future. Turns out that this was an ILLEGAL action by the Board of Supervisors. CalPERS requires that such a vote NOT be done as a consent item, as this was April 12, 2011 Consent Item 41
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 11:35 am
My name is Elizabeth--what is anonymous about that???!!! And I'm telling you the neighborhood I live in.
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish."
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 11:44 am
I have one more comment. There is something very wrong with this Town Forum and some of the people that take every opportunity to malign other posters. I wrote a couple of times here: first to say that I agreed that we need to pay closer attention to our supervisors. I mentioned who I was voting for. Many others here did the same. I then gave a response to Diana as to when the last day to vote was.
I was next reprimanded by Menlo Voter, who had obviously made a mistake. I can not be responsible for another person named Elizabeth Lewis posting here. But our "neighborhoods" are different. I made that correction only to be attacked by Peter Carpenter for being "anonymous."
I listed my name and neighborhood per the terms of posting here. I was respectful and just supported a comment, expressed a view about who I was voting for, and gave some voting timeframe information to someone who asked a question.
Why can't this forum and those who write here focus on the issues instead of attacks on people who follow the rules??
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I did use my real name. It is Elizabeth and I live in Lloyden Park. It's not my fault if there are two people here with the same name, any more than you can help it if there are multiple people with the name Peter. The confusion lies in the inability of readers like yourself to note that, for example, I am Elizabeth from Lloyden Park, and there is an Elizabeth Lewis from West Atherton --two entirely different names and neighborhoods.
To say: "Your choice and your confusion." is not a necessary comment.
I can say that Pogo, Menlo Voter, etc. don't use their names--do you attack them as well.
It is very discouraging to have people make these types of comments, Peter, when all I did was make a few, respectful remarks here. Why do you try to turn everything into a confrontation? Apology???
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on May 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Elizabeth, asks "Why can't this forum and those who write here focus on the issues instead of attacks on people who follow the rules??"
This thread is about 4 Supervisors Approving a 3% Raise to the Sheriff Deputies on April 12, 2011....It was Consent Item 41
You might want to start a different thread re: your subject.
I have alway written under my full name, including middle int. I know of at least one time when someone else pretended to be me. That will always be a challenge. We are all learning how to use this media.
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Please read my posts and remarks. I stated my name and neighborhood, per terms listed here. I made a comment supporting your statement that we needed to pay close attention to our county supervisors. I expressed who I was voting for. I responded to Diana's question about last day to vote. I was polite and respectful. Menlo Voter sent a reply to me about something that I did not say, but Elizabeth Lewis of West Atherton did. I corrected this statement--again respectfully.
I was then attacked by Peter Carpenter. Please read through his remarks. Yes, we are learning to use this "media," but the comments he made were totally unnecessary. Unfortunately I have no further desire to either read Town Square or contribute. It should not be the playground of one person, but a vehicle for many to contribute.
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 1:49 pm
And please note Mr. Sogner that all I did was make a correction to someone addressong my comment as Elizabeth Lewis'. Then Peter Carpenter decided to tell me that I was anonymous and causing conflict. It was HE at that time who should have started a separate thread. My response was only to reiterate that I was, in fact, using, y own name.
Posted by Peter Capenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on May 2, 2011 at 1:07 am
Elizabeth from Lloyden -
I stated "Not a problem for me but clearly a problem for the multiple posters who use the same name.
Your choice and your confusion."
I was not "attacking you" or anybody, I was just stating the obvious fact that when multiple posters use the same single name there is often, as you have seen, the potential for confusion. That is part of learning to using this media and, since you have chosen to post anonymously, there is no other way to give you constructive advice than to post that advice in this thread. It is your choice but the rules do state that the Town Square Forum prefers that posters use their real names...
Posted by Look closely, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 2, 2011 at 8:15 am
What's it going to take for residents in this county to recognize the damage its political machine is doing to us? Is anyone really paying attention? I'm hoping that Stogner or Pine, both of whom supported letting voters decide how to elect their supervisors, take a seat on the board, but I'm not optimistic. This system is so broken and residents so apathetic it's hard to have hope.
Elizabeth of Lloyden Park, thanks for your civility on this forum. Menlo Voter, good of you to apologize, though I have to wonder what the editor had to remove.
Stogner, thanks for your diligence and integrity. If you don't win the race, I hope you stay in the fight. We need you.
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of the Atherton: Lloyden Park neighborhood, on May 2, 2011 at 11:33 am
Good summary recap and I agree. Hoping to hear some good news on elections, but like you, not sure. Do you know when results will be announced?
To both Menlo Voter and Look closely,
Please keep up all of your posting and comments. You are giving readers excellent insight into issues. Do know that it is appreciated by many.
To Peter Carpenter,
You said "since you have chosen to post anonymously" and "the Town Square Forum prefers that posters use their real names..." Please note that I am not posting anonymously. My real name is Elizabeth and I live in Lloyden Park, Atherton.
Posted by JohnWoodell, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on May 3, 2011 at 1:51 pm JohnWoodell is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Today is the last day to get those ballot in, and it's too late to mail them. Please drop your ballots off at the nearest city hall.
I voted for Dave Pine, who has been endorsed by Jackie Speier, Rich Gordon, and many other local leaders. Dave Pine is the only candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club, the San Mateo Daily Journal and the San Mateo County Times.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on May 4, 2011 at 6:52 am
What a sad commentary on our democracy -"Of the 341,303 registered voters, only 24 percent -- or 81,806 -- cast votes in this all-mail special election. " Even walking to their malbox with a postage paid envelope was too hard for over 75% of the voters.
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardina, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on May 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
I hear you. I love what Australia does, they FINE you for NOT voting.
Then again there are the statistics that show Republicans have a much higher voting average in mail-in election and it makes it a little easier to note that we may win an election based on the apathy of Democrats...there is always a silver lining.
The sadest part is that when these "elected" officials try to do their jobs and make cuts, the 74% of non-voters will all cry foul
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on May 4, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Contra Costa County County is cutting Jobs.
Those public safety departments are losing 82 positions under the new budget that calls for the elimination of 138 county jobs in all. Not every position is filled, however, so the number of layoffs will be fewer.
The Sheriff's Office is poised to lose 40 deputies
Posted by R.Gordon, a resident of another community, on May 5, 2011 at 11:43 am
It's taken three years for all of you to come to my way of thinking but the only difference is that corruption is no longer a thing to worry about unless someone develops a plan that actually involves the people and not the select few who love to play smart.
Age seems like the likely enemy since almost everything there is to read is repetition and forgetting that SMC has now joined the list as "losers".
The younger politicians have nothing on which to base their qualifications because of the crappy way the COUNTY has been totally crushed by GREED and old fashioned ideas.
To hear one of the foggies mention Parallel Universe just about knocked me out of my private jet plane seat.
It would not surprise me if people began wanting TRUMP demands from the officials running.In THAT case, I would have loved to have seen a thorough investigation of every elected official in SMC for the past 20 years.
The only people who do not complain, but, instead, donate huge amounts to improve life for millions from their profits, are the younger entrepreneurs, whose wealth intimidates those not in the billion dollar categories. In those cases, it is a blessing to have an online meeting place to show a myriad of old fashioned thinking.
Begin by questioning issues a bit larger that problems which only affect your personal comforts. Those days are over.
You will NEVER see Wagstaffe do this. Instead he defends prosecutors like Al Giannini, who has already been found by the California Bar to have withheld evidence from THREE cases and has been sanctioned. Wagstaffe ALWAYS defends his prosecutors, deputies and sheriffs - even when it's clear they've committed criminal misconduct t.
While other counties are wising up, San Mateo is entrenched in its corrupt ways. Something has to change.