Menlo police agree to pay freeze


When the eight Menlo Park police sergeants agreed to a two-year pay freeze, along with other concessions, it seemed to set the tone for negotiations with the union representing the city's 36 line officers.

The new contract that goes before the City Council on July 26 contains almost identical terms. It freezes pay for two years; reduces the work schedule 100 hours per year, equivalent to a 4.8 percent salary cut for patrol officers; removes automatic health benefit increases; cuts sick leave from 10 to eight hours a month; and eliminates a bonus for using less than three shifts of sick leave per year. The officers would also contribute 3 percent more toward the state pension fund, yielding approximately $148,500 in savings for Menlo Park.

Tuition, child care, and recreation reimbursement will be cut in half, from $1,000 per officer to $500, which the city estimates will save an additional $18,000.

Review the proposed terms here. As with newly hired sergeants, line officers hired after July 1 would have a "3 percent at 55" pension structure if the council approves the contract.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


Like this comment
Posted by wap
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jul 26, 2011 at 3:05 pm

How in the world did we agree to pay for child care for any employee? No doubt it is a tax free benefit. How many other benefits are undisclosed to the public? Is it true city employee children may attend our public schools without any form of contribution through residency?

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 26, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Perhaps the citizens of Menlo Park might wish to ask the City Council to adopt a Compensation Philosophy similar to that of the Fire District:

The Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (“District”)
hereby adopts this policy concerning the compensation of its employees. The District’s
Board of Directors shall observe this policy when adopting compensation plans and
contracts covering District employees.
Core Principles
Principle No. 1 – Recruitment and Retention: Compensation should, when
economically feasible, be set at a level sufficient to recruit and retain employees who are qualified and committed to provide high quality services to the community. One critical measure of whether compensation meets this criterion is whether there are a sufficient
number of qualified applicants for advertised job openings.
Principle No. 2 – Fairness: The Board shall strive to ensure its compensation program is fair and equitable from all legitimate perspectives, including the perspectives of the community, labor and management. The District may choose to survey public and private employers to evaluate the appropriateness and fairness of its compensation program. The Board is directly accountable to the District’s constituents, and the Board accordingly retains the discretion to determine the fairness of all compensation
Principle No. 3 – Transparency: Compensation for all District employees should be 100% transparent – i.e., the public should be able to see all pay elements, including the cost of all health, pension and welfare benefits, applicable to each employee. District pay packages should be simple and easily understood. Safeguards must be in place to prevent abuses such as pension spiking and maximizing overtime through manipulation.
Principle No. 4 – Fiscal Sustainability: All compensation commitments must be made consistent with principles of fiscal sustainability and to ensure the District’s long term success in achieving its mission. Compensation adjustments must not compromise the District’s ability to successfully meet its ongoing and future financial commitments.
The Board shall observe its Labor Relations Policy and Plan.
Principle No. 5 – Accountability: All compensation commitments must be expressly delineated and are subject to formal approval by the Board of Directors. The Board will not abide “implied” or unwritten contracts, or unspecified “past practices,” that purport to require employee compensation.
Principle No. 6 – Performance Based Pay: Whenever reasonably possible,
compensation shall be tied to merit and performance. The District shall not permit pay increases based merely on the length of employment.
Principle No. 7 – Economic Climate: The District shall consider the overall economic climate and condition affecting the District and its constituents when setting compensation levels, including regional economic indicators such as the rate of unemployment, inflation, current and projected revenues, and the District’s anticipated
ability to pay in the long term.
Principle No. 8 – Legal Compliance: The District will ensure that its pay practices comport with the Fair Labor Standards Act and, to the extent legally applicable, State law. The District renews its commitment to negotiate in good faith with labor pursuant
to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”), and to abide by all requirements of the MMBA.
Principle No. 9 – Flexibility: The District shall strive to remain flexible and innovative in light of changing conditions and improving technologies, and shall continually re-evaluate its pay practices to ensure they are consistent with best practices.

The Fire Board also makes public the full text of any new proposed labor agreements for 15 days before it is allowed to vote on such proposed agreements in order to allow the citizens, who pay the bills, to comment on those agreements.

Like this comment
Posted by Horse Trader
a resident of another community
on Jul 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm

Negotiation is a give and take. Perhaps the Officers gave up something in exchange for child care. It's difficult to know how that came to pass without having been involved in the negotiation.

Though the benefit appears extraordinary on its face, its speculative to suggest the City gave it away because it was nice and for nothing in return.

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 26, 2011 at 8:50 pm

If the full agreement is made public then there would be no need to speculate.

Like this comment
Posted by Heads in the Sand Hill
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:13 am

"reduces the work schedule 100 hours per year"

How does this work? Does the City of Menlo Park only respond to calls when they have Officers on duty?

The answer is probably found in the asking the neighboring agency for help. I'm sure Atherton, EPA, and the Sheriff aren't too thrilled about having a built-in reliance on their willingness to help.

More concerning is what happens if Atherton, EPA, and the Sheriff also reduce hours? Then, there's nobody available ...

So much for Government's primary obligation to provide safety ...

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Couple brings Chinese zongzi to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 5,743 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 6 comments | 1,313 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 1,186 views

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,040 views

Bobby in Naziland: A Tale of Flatbush
By Stuart Soffer | 2 comments | 475 views


Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More