By Kathleen Flynn
Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.
The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.
Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.
Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.
Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.
Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Community Budget Participation: Educate Yourself
Part two of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Early Release
By Kathleen Flynn
I have grave concerns about media reports on the possibility of early prison releases and reducing criminal charges to save money. Our economy and jobless rate are resulting in increased crime and some questionable proposed budgetary fixes by both State and local governments. In a recent Mercury News editorial by District Attorney Dolores Carr and Dennis Graham, they express serious concerns about a proposal to reduce criminal charges from misdemeanors to felonies so that criminals can be sent to county jails instead of state prisons, thus saving the state millions of dollars. The results of this proposal would have devastating affects not only on public safety but on our already understaffed public safety and enforcement departments.
The San Jose Police Department currently has 1,352 officers to serve over a million citizens. In the year 2010, an estimated 40-50 officers will be retiring, taking with them approximately 2,000 combined years of experience, and will reduce our Police Department to a grim 1,312-1,302 officers. With budget constraints at the state level, a proposed raiding of city funds, and a seeming lack of willingness on the part of our City Council to hire the amount of officers we truly need to serve our community, I fear the situation is only going to go from bad to worse.
With the early release of prisoners and reduced criminal charges, we will be creating a monster of enormous proportions. Not only will the safety of our neighborhoods and police officers be jeopardized, but we also will be forced to contend with more highly-sophisticated criminals who will be using more efficient technologies to commit crimes in our community. Getting a job once you’re a felon is difficult, and this tends to lead them back to the profession they know best: crime, and the victimization of others.
Our parole, and probation departments are already understaffed, over-worked, and carrying huge caseloads. If these proposals go forth, keeping track of perpetrators will be nearly impossible. Our judges and courts will be even more overloaded with cases, and justice for victims will fall by the way side even more drastically than it does now.
According to Amy Cornell, Public Information Officer for the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, “With the poor economy already resulting in cutbacks in positions, the number of cases we see come through our office could increase at an overwhelming rate. Prisoners who are considered ‘low risk’ will be the ones released, but with the reduction and elimination of parole supervision, we could be seeing a massive spike in re-offenses. In essence, we are minimizing the severity of certain crimes by allowing criminals to go free. Criminals are being allowed to escape accountability and proper punishment for their crimes. This is a disservice to our community, and a serious threat to public safety.
“In addition, it is proposed that parolees would only be sent back to prison as a result of being convicted of a new offense, not for being in violation of parole conditions. Before, we might not file a new criminal case if the parolee was being sent back to prison anyway. Also, early releases to the county of commitment, i.e. Santa Clara County, will include more rehabilitation programs. The problem is that local governments are not getting any additional money to either provide those rehabilitation programs or to prosecute parolees for new offenses. The bottom line is that the proposals will balance the state budget on the backs of local government.”
If that isn’t enough to concern us all, a recent article by April Dembosky in the Mercury News discusses the seriousness of communicable diseases that will be brought into our communities by prisoners released into our communities. Health care provided in prisons is insufficient; so many prisoners will carry HIV, Hepatitis C, and Tuberculosis into our communities. With people going without health care, and many struggling to get or keep health care for themselves and their children, the added possibility of being exposed to highly contagious diseases being brought into our communities by criminals just to cut state costs is very alarming to me.
In writing this article, I urge readers to call or write the Governor, members of the State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council, even Senators and Congressmembers, asking them not to allow this travesty of justice. Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
I have grave concerns about media reports on the possibility of early prison releases and reducing criminal charges to save money. Our economy and jobless rate are resulting in increased crime and some questionable proposed budgetary fixes by both State and local governments. In a recent Mercury News editorial by District Attorney Dolores Carr and Dennis Graham, they express serious concerns about a proposal to reduce criminal charges from misdemeanors to felonies so that criminals can be sent to county jails instead of state prisons, thus saving the state millions of dollars. The results of this proposal would have devastating affects not only on public safety but on our already understaffed public safety and enforcement departments.
The San Jose Police Department currently has 1,352 officers to serve over a million citizens. In the year 2010, an estimated 40-50 officers will be retiring, taking with them approximately 2,000 combined years of experience, and will reduce our Police Department to a grim 1,312-1,302 officers. With budget constraints at the state level, a proposed raiding of city funds, and a seeming lack of willingness on the part of our City Council to hire the amount of officers we truly need to serve our community, I fear the situation is only going to go from bad to worse.
With the early release of prisoners and reduced criminal charges, we will be creating a monster of enormous proportions. Not only will the safety of our neighborhoods and police officers be jeopardized, but we also will be forced to contend with more highly-sophisticated criminals who will be using more efficient technologies to commit crimes in our community. Getting a job once you’re a felon is difficult, and this tends to lead them back to the profession they know best: crime, and the victimization of others.
Our parole, and probation departments are already understaffed, over-worked, and carrying huge caseloads. If these proposals go forth, keeping track of perpetrators will be nearly impossible. Our judges and courts will be even more overloaded with cases, and justice for victims will fall by the way side even more drastically than it does now.
According to Amy Cornell, Public Information Officer for the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, “With the poor economy already resulting in cutbacks in positions, the number of cases we see come through our office could increase at an overwhelming rate. Prisoners who are considered ‘low risk’ will be the ones released, but with the reduction and elimination of parole supervision, we could be seeing a massive spike in re-offenses. In essence, we are minimizing the severity of certain crimes by allowing criminals to go free. Criminals are being allowed to escape accountability and proper punishment for their crimes. This is a disservice to our community, and a serious threat to public safety.
“In addition, it is proposed that parolees would only be sent back to prison as a result of being convicted of a new offense, not for being in violation of parole conditions. Before, we might not file a new criminal case if the parolee was being sent back to prison anyway. Also, early releases to the county of commitment, i.e. Santa Clara County, will include more rehabilitation programs. The problem is that local governments are not getting any additional money to either provide those rehabilitation programs or to prosecute parolees for new offenses. The bottom line is that the proposals will balance the state budget on the backs of local government.”
If that isn’t enough to concern us all, a recent article by April Dembosky in the Mercury News discusses the seriousness of communicable diseases that will be brought into our communities by prisoners released into our communities. Health care provided in prisons is insufficient; so many prisoners will carry HIV, Hepatitis C, and Tuberculosis into our communities. With people going without health care, and many struggling to get or keep health care for themselves and their children, the added possibility of being exposed to highly contagious diseases being brought into our communities by criminals just to cut state costs is very alarming to me.
In writing this article, I urge readers to call or write the Governor, members of the State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council, even Senators and Congressmembers, asking them not to allow this travesty of justice. Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Return On Investment
By Ed Rast
Do you know what your taxes are being spent on and what city services or public benefits San Jose residents and businesses receive from them?
As we have discussed in “Just the Taxes Ma’am”, San Jose receives General Fund revenue of $663 per resident which is better than the average among 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th as well). Yet we continue to under-staff and under-fund essential city services including police, fire, and emergency medical services.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. We frequently hear about city government spending in newspaper, television, or radio news, mostly as a result of a controversy, non-profit emergency funding, or critical City Auditor reports and Civil Grand Jury reports.
Most residents and businesses have little idea what their taxes are being spent on. But it’s not for lack of curiosity.
The lack of readily available and detailed city service spending and tax subsidy reporting makes it difficult for residents — not to mention the City Council — to understand where our taxes are being spent. This is particularly true for: 1) spending for services from non-profit, community-based organizations, school districts, or another government organization, or 2) corporations, developers and property owners receiving grants, economic development incentives or tax subsidies.
Here is a list of organizations receiving over $200,000 from the City of San Jose to provide a service in Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is an incomplete list. We do not know how much support they received above $200,000, and we don’t know what specific service or services some of them provided as a public benefit to San Jose.
Here are two lists of organizations receiving grants from the City of San Jose in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the first sorted alphabetically and the second by city service area and core services.
Now, read the two City Council policies on grants:
Council Policy 9-12 – Emergency Financial Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations
Council Policy 9-13 - Grants to Outside Entities
There are two questions you should be asking about these non-city services paid for with your taxes, and they’re multiple choice:
1. Who is receiving these services?
a) The general public
b) Individuals in need
c) Individuals, groups or companies that should be paying for these services
d) Residents and local businesses who pay city taxes
2. How should we classify these services?
1) Essential city services,
2) Services that the City should provide
3) Services we would like to provide if we did not have a budget deficit
4) Services that the City should not be providing
Do we know the answers? If not, why doesn’t the city administration make this information easily available and obtainable?
How can the Council and public make good policy, budget priorities, and spending decisions if we do not know where are our taxes are being spent, what tax subsidies are being provided and to whom, what services we receive, who is being provided outside services and what is the public benefit for our taxes spent?
Do you know what your taxes are being spent on and what city services or public benefits San Jose residents and businesses receive from them?
As we have discussed in “Just the Taxes Ma’am”, San Jose receives General Fund revenue of $663 per resident which is better than the average among 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th as well). Yet we continue to under-staff and under-fund essential city services including police, fire, and emergency medical services.
Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. We frequently hear about city government spending in newspaper, television, or radio news, mostly as a result of a controversy, non-profit emergency funding, or critical City Auditor reports and Civil Grand Jury reports.
Most residents and businesses have little idea what their taxes are being spent on. But it’s not for lack of curiosity.
The lack of readily available and detailed city service spending and tax subsidy reporting makes it difficult for residents — not to mention the City Council — to understand where our taxes are being spent. This is particularly true for: 1) spending for services from non-profit, community-based organizations, school districts, or another government organization, or 2) corporations, developers and property owners receiving grants, economic development incentives or tax subsidies.
Here is a list of organizations receiving over $200,000 from the City of San Jose to provide a service in Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is an incomplete list. We do not know how much support they received above $200,000, and we don’t know what specific service or services some of them provided as a public benefit to San Jose.
Here are two lists of organizations receiving grants from the City of San Jose in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the first sorted alphabetically and the second by city service area and core services.
Now, read the two City Council policies on grants:
Council Policy 9-12 – Emergency Financial Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations
Council Policy 9-13 - Grants to Outside Entities
There are two questions you should be asking about these non-city services paid for with your taxes, and they’re multiple choice:
1. Who is receiving these services?
a) The general public
b) Individuals in need
c) Individuals, groups or companies that should be paying for these services
d) Residents and local businesses who pay city taxes
2. How should we classify these services?
1) Essential city services,
2) Services that the City should provide
3) Services we would like to provide if we did not have a budget deficit
4) Services that the City should not be providing
Do we know the answers? If not, why doesn’t the city administration make this information easily available and obtainable?
How can the Council and public make good policy, budget priorities, and spending decisions if we do not know where are our taxes are being spent, what tax subsidies are being provided and to whom, what services we receive, who is being provided outside services and what is the public benefit for our taxes spent?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sleeping Giant
By Pete Pomerleau
Admiral Yamamoto could have been speaking for the San Jose City Council when he said: "We have awoken a sleeping giant." Yamamoto’s sleeping giant was the United States, awoken by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The giant in today's terms is the body of active and retired employees of the City of San Jose, and the battle is over our pension plans.
For those not up to speed, the City is in full-on attack mode. City administration hired an outside agency from Canada called Cortex to look at making our pension plan "better." We were assured during meetings with these consultants that we as stakeholders would have a say in any re-organization. I can tell you for a fact that we will, because this is a clear meet-and-confer issue under our contracts, as noted by Bobby Lopez and Randy Sekany in their blog last week on Protect San Jose.
I spent two nights last week listening to and addressing some of the changes proposed by Cortex that the City is planning to ram down our throats. Beyond the damage these changes would do to officer morale as well as our recruitment and retention efforts, the proposed plan is just plain flawed.
The best people to manage a pension fund are the employees who pay into it. City staff has been trying to figure out ways to cut into our well-managed plans for years to subsidize the many financial quagmires they’ve gotten themselves into. We have to scale back on our new Southern Substation because of poor business decisions and practices made by supposed experts. We couldn't even get our new City Hall completed without numerous problems, and we hired the best architects in the country. Now the city wants us to hire more experts to manage our pensions. Well, I’ve got news for you: You could hire Warren Buffet to manage our funds, but he wouldn’t be able to guarantee higher returns.
I want to share some other ideas that were presented to us by Cortex and some of our responses. For reference, you should click here to open their report, which City Manager Figone brought before the City Council on June 23rd.
On page 27 of the report (p. 33 of the pdf), Cortex cites “good” examples of companies that changed their retirement boards in similar ways. Funny, but the numbers I have tell quite a different story:
• Canada Pension Plan: lost 18.6%
• National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust: lost 19%
• Yale Corporation Investment Fund: lost 25% this year
On the other hand, during 2008, the San Jose Police and Fire pension plan lost 5.1% and the Federated plan lost 3.1%. The question begs to be asked: What are we getting by putting our future in the hands of the “experts”?
As members, we contribute a chunk of our salaries every payday to the future of our plan. We also contribute our tax money into the plan along with every other resident. This is a well-developed plan that has generated tens of millions of dollars in returns to the City. We never asked for a bigger cut while the City reaped the rewards in the bullish years. But they have seen it fit to attack and demonize us in the court of public opinion in the lean years.
Maybe in the future the City should think about putting some revenue away for a rainy day, rather than spending it on non-essential services. Wouldn’t that be a sound business idea?
Before I sign off, you should know that Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Rose Herrera sat through both community outreach meetings last week. They listened as City employees described their frustrations. Rose even walked through the crowds and spoke one-on-one with us. This is a fine example of the dialogue we so desperately need to have with our Councilmembers. I’d like to thank Ash and Rose for leading the way.
Admiral Yamamoto could have been speaking for the San Jose City Council when he said: "We have awoken a sleeping giant." Yamamoto’s sleeping giant was the United States, awoken by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The giant in today's terms is the body of active and retired employees of the City of San Jose, and the battle is over our pension plans.
For those not up to speed, the City is in full-on attack mode. City administration hired an outside agency from Canada called Cortex to look at making our pension plan "better." We were assured during meetings with these consultants that we as stakeholders would have a say in any re-organization. I can tell you for a fact that we will, because this is a clear meet-and-confer issue under our contracts, as noted by Bobby Lopez and Randy Sekany in their blog last week on Protect San Jose.
I spent two nights last week listening to and addressing some of the changes proposed by Cortex that the City is planning to ram down our throats. Beyond the damage these changes would do to officer morale as well as our recruitment and retention efforts, the proposed plan is just plain flawed.
The best people to manage a pension fund are the employees who pay into it. City staff has been trying to figure out ways to cut into our well-managed plans for years to subsidize the many financial quagmires they’ve gotten themselves into. We have to scale back on our new Southern Substation because of poor business decisions and practices made by supposed experts. We couldn't even get our new City Hall completed without numerous problems, and we hired the best architects in the country. Now the city wants us to hire more experts to manage our pensions. Well, I’ve got news for you: You could hire Warren Buffet to manage our funds, but he wouldn’t be able to guarantee higher returns.
I want to share some other ideas that were presented to us by Cortex and some of our responses. For reference, you should click here to open their report, which City Manager Figone brought before the City Council on June 23rd.
On page 27 of the report (p. 33 of the pdf), Cortex cites “good” examples of companies that changed their retirement boards in similar ways. Funny, but the numbers I have tell quite a different story:
• Canada Pension Plan: lost 18.6%
• National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust: lost 19%
• Yale Corporation Investment Fund: lost 25% this year
On the other hand, during 2008, the San Jose Police and Fire pension plan lost 5.1% and the Federated plan lost 3.1%. The question begs to be asked: What are we getting by putting our future in the hands of the “experts”?
As members, we contribute a chunk of our salaries every payday to the future of our plan. We also contribute our tax money into the plan along with every other resident. This is a well-developed plan that has generated tens of millions of dollars in returns to the City. We never asked for a bigger cut while the City reaped the rewards in the bullish years. But they have seen it fit to attack and demonize us in the court of public opinion in the lean years.
Maybe in the future the City should think about putting some revenue away for a rainy day, rather than spending it on non-essential services. Wouldn’t that be a sound business idea?
Before I sign off, you should know that Councilmembers Ash Kalra and Rose Herrera sat through both community outreach meetings last week. They listened as City employees described their frustrations. Rose even walked through the crowds and spoke one-on-one with us. This is a fine example of the dialogue we so desperately need to have with our Councilmembers. I’d like to thank Ash and Rose for leading the way.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Priorities and Objectives
By Ed Rast
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Did you know that 4376 criminal cases in San Jose were not investigated in FY 2007-2008 due to a lack of police officers and resources, up 70% from 2,574 uninvestigated cases the previous fiscal year?
It is estimated that 5,800 cases — or almost 10% of all cases received — were not investigated in FY 2008-2009. This would mean an increase of over 125% in uninvestigated crimes in just two years.
Estimates predict that 4,500 criminal cases will not be investigated in FY 2009-2010... even if the eight new police officers approved in 2008-2009 budget for Investigative Services are hired to improve case investigations and clearances in burglary and auto thief.
The 2009-2010 proposed operating budget (p. VII 282) states that these eight investigative officers could instead be assigned to “service demand increases related to annexation of County pockets within San Jose, normal population growth and the impact of proposed reductions to other police services.”
The State of California plans to take $75 million from San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency and borrow $20 million of San Jose's property and sales tax revenues to balance the state’s $24.1 billion budget deficit, which means that previously eliminated public safety staff and budget cuts are back on the table.
So how can San Jose city administration year after year propose cuts to police staffing and funding if public safety is the No.1 budget priority of residents, neighborhood leaders, and most of the City Council?
Because our city administration:
1. Does not have a clear definition of “essential city services” — which always includes police, fire and emergency medical services — to be used to prioritize budget cuts;
2. Does not link city budget items to clear performance service objectives* (see below);
3. Does very few city service and cost comparisons to other large California cities or local cites using national performance measures; and
4. Does not link staff compensation to the achievement of department-specific service objectives in the budget, which are linked to long-term city goals.
We will continue to see police staff and budget cuts until our city administration defines their budget priorities and expenditures are linked to clear performance objectives and measurable standards.
* A performance service objective is defined in a budget document from nearby Sunnyvale as “generally a two-part sentence, describing both the service to be provided and the measurable standard with which it’s results will be compared.” For example, here’s the police service objective from Sunnyvale’s budget: “a) Provide quality investigations to aid the District Attorney in the prosecution of criminal cases in order that criminal charges are files on 90% of the cases submitted for review; b) promote the safety of the community and an atmosphere of security, primarily through the deterrence and prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders in order that the city remains within the lowest 25% of Part 1 crimes for cities of comparable size at a cost of $103.82 per capita.” Now that's specific!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Where's the Accountability?
By Pete Constant
How many times have you read an article online or in a newspaper that questions whether the San José Police Department holds its officers fully accountable for their actions? To be honest, I’ve lost count.
In 1993, the City of San José opened the office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA). This newly created position was designed specifically to ensure that police officers were held accountable for their actions and to ensure that the police Internal Affairs Unit did not whitewash investigations of misconduct.
Approximately 4 years ago the San José City Council appointed Barbara Attard to be the IPA for a four year term. Since Attard lived in San Francisco, the city council provided her relocation assistance and a $250,000 executive home loan so that she could live in the community she served. When her term of office ended at the end of 2008 the city council decided to not re-appoint her. Attard continued to make her payments on her executive home loan for 3 months, and then abruptly stopped paying – even though she continued to make her first mortgage payments to her mortgage company. Months later, she informed the City of San José that she could not sell her home so she offered the city a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, there was still the matter of the first mortgage, so the city would have to pay off that loan in order to take possession of the home. Unfortunately, the city council agreed with this, voting to approve the settlement (9-2, with Councilmember Campos and myself voting against).
So she walked away from her obligations, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag – nearly $350,000 in loan forgiveness, and now the residents of San José own a downtown condo that might be worth $240,000 - if you could even sell it in today’s market.
So I ask, where did the concept of accountability go?
Four and a half years ago the city council approved this home loan, even though it appears to fail to meet the spirit or even the letter of the Executive Home Loan Program. After all, the intent of the loan program was to help new executive relocate to San José, an area long known for its high housing prices. But Attard was coming from San Francisco, an area with even higher housing costs.
Can anyone really argue that accepting a job 40 miles or so from your home requires relocation? Many hardworking city employees and taxpayers commute farther than that every day to their jobs.
The Executive Home Loan Program also specifically states that these loans are for the executive’s “principal residence.” While it was well known that Attard maintained her San Francisco residence during her employment, it is less known that Attard maintained her voter registration in San Francisco County and continued to vote in elections there while she was employed as the IPA. Remember, if you move, you are required to re-register to vote when you move to a new residence. Additionally, Attard never filed for a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption in Santa Clara County, but did keep the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption on file for her San Francisco residence. You can see that to claim this exemption, you must certify, under penalty of perjury, that you occupy your home as your “principal residence”.
So did Attard qualify for an Executive Home Loan to purchase her principal residence? I don’t think so, it’s clear to me she didn’t think it was her principal residence.
So where’s the accountability? Is the city council not responsible for approving this loan? Most of that council is no longer in office, so I guess not. Is Attard responsible for leaving the taxpayers holding the bag? I guess not, since the city attorney has informed the council that we have no other recourse. In fact, the city’s Finance Department doesn’t even think we are able to report the default to the credit reporting agencies.
With the city unable to provide essential services, can we really afford to buy a condo?
I, for one, am not willing to sit by and just let this go. I have asked the city manager to not offer this Executive Home Loan to any new hires until the Council can conduct a full review of the program, and I have asked for an investigation into the facts of the case.
Pete Constant is serving his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
How many times have you read an article online or in a newspaper that questions whether the San José Police Department holds its officers fully accountable for their actions? To be honest, I’ve lost count.
In 1993, the City of San José opened the office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA). This newly created position was designed specifically to ensure that police officers were held accountable for their actions and to ensure that the police Internal Affairs Unit did not whitewash investigations of misconduct.
Approximately 4 years ago the San José City Council appointed Barbara Attard to be the IPA for a four year term. Since Attard lived in San Francisco, the city council provided her relocation assistance and a $250,000 executive home loan so that she could live in the community she served. When her term of office ended at the end of 2008 the city council decided to not re-appoint her. Attard continued to make her payments on her executive home loan for 3 months, and then abruptly stopped paying – even though she continued to make her first mortgage payments to her mortgage company. Months later, she informed the City of San José that she could not sell her home so she offered the city a deed to the property in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, there was still the matter of the first mortgage, so the city would have to pay off that loan in order to take possession of the home. Unfortunately, the city council agreed with this, voting to approve the settlement (9-2, with Councilmember Campos and myself voting against).
So she walked away from her obligations, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag – nearly $350,000 in loan forgiveness, and now the residents of San José own a downtown condo that might be worth $240,000 - if you could even sell it in today’s market.
So I ask, where did the concept of accountability go?
Four and a half years ago the city council approved this home loan, even though it appears to fail to meet the spirit or even the letter of the Executive Home Loan Program. After all, the intent of the loan program was to help new executive relocate to San José, an area long known for its high housing prices. But Attard was coming from San Francisco, an area with even higher housing costs.
Can anyone really argue that accepting a job 40 miles or so from your home requires relocation? Many hardworking city employees and taxpayers commute farther than that every day to their jobs.
The Executive Home Loan Program also specifically states that these loans are for the executive’s “principal residence.” While it was well known that Attard maintained her San Francisco residence during her employment, it is less known that Attard maintained her voter registration in San Francisco County and continued to vote in elections there while she was employed as the IPA. Remember, if you move, you are required to re-register to vote when you move to a new residence. Additionally, Attard never filed for a Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption in Santa Clara County, but did keep the Homeowner’s Property Tax Exemption on file for her San Francisco residence. You can see that to claim this exemption, you must certify, under penalty of perjury, that you occupy your home as your “principal residence”.
So did Attard qualify for an Executive Home Loan to purchase her principal residence? I don’t think so, it’s clear to me she didn’t think it was her principal residence.
So where’s the accountability? Is the city council not responsible for approving this loan? Most of that council is no longer in office, so I guess not. Is Attard responsible for leaving the taxpayers holding the bag? I guess not, since the city attorney has informed the council that we have no other recourse. In fact, the city’s Finance Department doesn’t even think we are able to report the default to the credit reporting agencies.
With the city unable to provide essential services, can we really afford to buy a condo?
I, for one, am not willing to sit by and just let this go. I have asked the city manager to not offer this Executive Home Loan to any new hires until the Council can conduct a full review of the program, and I have asked for an investigation into the facts of the case.
Pete Constant is serving his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
Friday, July 31, 2009
Rushing to Judgment
By Bobby Lopez
I think President Obama got it right, just not right away.
Last week, he made some negative comments about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates by Cambridge Police. This week, Mr. Obama corrected himself, and he deserves credit for that.
Unless you’ve been on a desert island, you know Prof. Gates was apprehended at his home after Sgt. James Crowley and others responded to a reported break-in there. Prof. Gates refused to provide his identification, which is all the cops needed to see it was actually his house.
If Prof. Gates had simply shown the officers his driver’s license, he could have avoided this mess. Instead, he got angry and accused the cops of racial bias. (I can speak from personal experience this happens a lot – even when a Latino officer, like myself, questions a Latino citizen).
Mr. Obama got caught up in the moment and rushed to judgment without knowing all the facts. At a press conference, he said the officers “acted stupidly."
When I heard Mr. Obama’s statement, it was like deja vu. It reminded me of the reaction of our city leaders to recent news reports of arrest data.
Without waiting for a complete analysis of the facts, some city leaders looked at one set of numbers and decided we have a problem. In general, the City Council allowed itself to be intimidated by vocal activists pounding the podium.
They created a task force to examine the “problem” and had numerous council discussions on the topic. Finally, they brought in an independent group of academics to study the numbers.
As I’ve said before, we welcome any fair and unbiased study of our work. If the academics come back in a year’s time and clearly prove that we do have a problem, then I’ll be the first to admit it, right here on this blog.
But what if they don’t? What if the study finds that the men and women of SJPD acted professionally and fairly? Will our city leaders follow President Obama’s lead and admit a rush to judgment?
And will I get a beer out of it?
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
I think President Obama got it right, just not right away.
Last week, he made some negative comments about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates by Cambridge Police. This week, Mr. Obama corrected himself, and he deserves credit for that.
Unless you’ve been on a desert island, you know Prof. Gates was apprehended at his home after Sgt. James Crowley and others responded to a reported break-in there. Prof. Gates refused to provide his identification, which is all the cops needed to see it was actually his house.
If Prof. Gates had simply shown the officers his driver’s license, he could have avoided this mess. Instead, he got angry and accused the cops of racial bias. (I can speak from personal experience this happens a lot – even when a Latino officer, like myself, questions a Latino citizen).
Mr. Obama got caught up in the moment and rushed to judgment without knowing all the facts. At a press conference, he said the officers “acted stupidly."
When I heard Mr. Obama’s statement, it was like deja vu. It reminded me of the reaction of our city leaders to recent news reports of arrest data.
Without waiting for a complete analysis of the facts, some city leaders looked at one set of numbers and decided we have a problem. In general, the City Council allowed itself to be intimidated by vocal activists pounding the podium.
They created a task force to examine the “problem” and had numerous council discussions on the topic. Finally, they brought in an independent group of academics to study the numbers.
As I’ve said before, we welcome any fair and unbiased study of our work. If the academics come back in a year’s time and clearly prove that we do have a problem, then I’ll be the first to admit it, right here on this blog.
But what if they don’t? What if the study finds that the men and women of SJPD acted professionally and fairly? Will our city leaders follow President Obama’s lead and admit a rush to judgment?
And will I get a beer out of it?
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Pledge Recap
One week ago on this blog, San Jose Police Officers' Association President Bobby Lopez posted a challenge he issued to Mayor Reed and the entire City Council. He asked that our city leaders sign a pledge to:
• Return San Jose to the rank of “Safest Big City in America” within the next five years;
• Support our officers by refraining from knee-jerk reactions to activist complaints, particularly from those who lack expertise; and
• Involve more neighborhood leaders on committees and task forces regarding public safety.
We noted that not every member of the Council had signed or committed to sign the pledge. In the comments that followed Sgt. Lopez's post, our readers asked that we reveal the names of councilmembers who had not signed on. In the interest of sunshine and open government, we feel it's only fair to do so:
Signed pledge
Mayor Chuck Reed
Vice Mayor Judy Chirco
Councilmember Pete Constant
Councilmember Ash Kalra
Councilmember Kansen Chu
Councilmember Nora Campos
Councilmember Madison Nguyen
Councilmember Nancy Pyle
No response
Councilmember Sam Liccardo
Councilmember Rose Hererra
Other
Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio responded to our request to say that he does not sign pledges as a matter of principle.
NOTE: The Mayor and Council were contacted multiple times regarding the pledge after Sgt. Lopez hand delivered it at a City Council meeting.
• Return San Jose to the rank of “Safest Big City in America” within the next five years;
• Support our officers by refraining from knee-jerk reactions to activist complaints, particularly from those who lack expertise; and
• Involve more neighborhood leaders on committees and task forces regarding public safety.
We noted that not every member of the Council had signed or committed to sign the pledge. In the comments that followed Sgt. Lopez's post, our readers asked that we reveal the names of councilmembers who had not signed on. In the interest of sunshine and open government, we feel it's only fair to do so:
Signed pledge
Mayor Chuck Reed
Vice Mayor Judy Chirco
Councilmember Pete Constant
Councilmember Ash Kalra
Councilmember Kansen Chu
Councilmember Nora Campos
Councilmember Madison Nguyen
Councilmember Nancy Pyle
No response
Councilmember Sam Liccardo
Councilmember Rose Hererra
Other
Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio responded to our request to say that he does not sign pledges as a matter of principle.
NOTE: The Mayor and Council were contacted multiple times regarding the pledge after Sgt. Lopez hand delivered it at a City Council meeting.
Monday, July 13, 2009
A Pledge for Public Safety
By Bobby Lopez
For decades, San Jose has had a top-notch police department and avoided the controversy over policing that is a routine occurrence in major American cities. But recently, San Jose has seen a seemingly endless string of negative stories regarding its police department. What’s different here is that the source of the controversy is not a bad cop on the beat or a rogue group of officers. Rather, the problem stems directly from weak administrative and political leadership at City Hall.
For example, the number of arrests made downtown, which some believe is excessive, is a result of administrative policy. The feuds between city leaders and the Task Force on Public Intoxication is a turf battle. The fiasco over the hiring of a new Independent Police Auditor is a political fight between the Mayor and Council.
These stories don’t accurately reflect the outstanding work of our cops on the street. Our officers are highly educated, well-trained, and reflect the communities we serve. We are respected by the vast majority of San Jose’s citizens, as is demonstrated in numerous City surveys, for the tremendous job we do with limited resources.
But negative stories caused by poor leadership have hurt officer morale and distracted us from our real goal: keeping San Jose’s streets and neighborhoods safe. So, in an effort to return our focus to what’s really important to the people of San Jose, I’ve asked our city leaders to pledge the following:
1. Return San Jose to the rank of “Safest Big City in America” within the next five years. We once enjoyed and bragged about this achievement. This goal can be met not just with more cops on the streets but also fully-funded libraries, more homework centers, and cleaner parks. All of these contribute to public safety by keeping our kids off the streets and out of gangs, thereby reducing violent crime, which was the major culprit in our recent drop from the top spot on the FBI list of Safest Big Cities.
2. Support our officers by refraining from knee-jerk reactions to activist complaints, particularly from those who lack expertise. If the experts from the Consortium on Police Leadership in Equity, who were hired by the City Council to review downtown arrests, are hesitant to pass judgment on one set of arrest data without further research to back it up, our elected officials should refrain from doing so as well. Yet we’ve consistently heard prejudicial statements about downtown arrests from the Mayor and City Council when vocal critics of our police force are in front of them.
3. Involve more neighborhood leaders on committees and task forces regarding public safety in addition to the regular cast of activists, who have many complaints when it comes to our police department. San Jose neighborhood leaders know best what the entire city wants from their police force, and should be heard as well.
In December, Mayor Reed was quoted in the Mercury News saying, “We like the bragging rights of being one of the safest big cities, and we're committed to getting back to No. 1.” Now, on behalf of the dedicated men and women of the San Jose Police Department, I’ve challenged the Mayor and City Council to re-commit to putting us back on top by signing this pledge.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
EDITOR’S UPDATE:
As of this posting, Mayor Reed and all but two Councilmembers have committed to this pledge. One Councilmember refuses to sign pledges as a matter of principle, and another has yet to respond.
For decades, San Jose has had a top-notch police department and avoided the controversy over policing that is a routine occurrence in major American cities. But recently, San Jose has seen a seemingly endless string of negative stories regarding its police department. What’s different here is that the source of the controversy is not a bad cop on the beat or a rogue group of officers. Rather, the problem stems directly from weak administrative and political leadership at City Hall.
For example, the number of arrests made downtown, which some believe is excessive, is a result of administrative policy. The feuds between city leaders and the Task Force on Public Intoxication is a turf battle. The fiasco over the hiring of a new Independent Police Auditor is a political fight between the Mayor and Council.
These stories don’t accurately reflect the outstanding work of our cops on the street. Our officers are highly educated, well-trained, and reflect the communities we serve. We are respected by the vast majority of San Jose’s citizens, as is demonstrated in numerous City surveys, for the tremendous job we do with limited resources.
But negative stories caused by poor leadership have hurt officer morale and distracted us from our real goal: keeping San Jose’s streets and neighborhoods safe. So, in an effort to return our focus to what’s really important to the people of San Jose, I’ve asked our city leaders to pledge the following:
1. Return San Jose to the rank of “Safest Big City in America” within the next five years. We once enjoyed and bragged about this achievement. This goal can be met not just with more cops on the streets but also fully-funded libraries, more homework centers, and cleaner parks. All of these contribute to public safety by keeping our kids off the streets and out of gangs, thereby reducing violent crime, which was the major culprit in our recent drop from the top spot on the FBI list of Safest Big Cities.
2. Support our officers by refraining from knee-jerk reactions to activist complaints, particularly from those who lack expertise. If the experts from the Consortium on Police Leadership in Equity, who were hired by the City Council to review downtown arrests, are hesitant to pass judgment on one set of arrest data without further research to back it up, our elected officials should refrain from doing so as well. Yet we’ve consistently heard prejudicial statements about downtown arrests from the Mayor and City Council when vocal critics of our police force are in front of them.
3. Involve more neighborhood leaders on committees and task forces regarding public safety in addition to the regular cast of activists, who have many complaints when it comes to our police department. San Jose neighborhood leaders know best what the entire city wants from their police force, and should be heard as well.
In December, Mayor Reed was quoted in the Mercury News saying, “We like the bragging rights of being one of the safest big cities, and we're committed to getting back to No. 1.” Now, on behalf of the dedicated men and women of the San Jose Police Department, I’ve challenged the Mayor and City Council to re-commit to putting us back on top by signing this pledge.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
EDITOR’S UPDATE:
As of this posting, Mayor Reed and all but two Councilmembers have committed to this pledge. One Councilmember refuses to sign pledges as a matter of principle, and another has yet to respond.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
San Jose’s Budget: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
By Pete Constant
The City of San Jose’s budget has been the center of conversation for quite some time now. Worry and frustration has turned to happiness and accomplishment. But before we break our arms patting ourselves on the back, I think we ought to evaluate the good in the context of the bad — and the ugly.
The Good
We have a balanced budget, on time.
This represents a significant accomplishment given that the San Jose, like most governments, faces some serious financial issues.
Most importantly, this budget preserves critical public safety services by restoring the Park Rangers, the Horse Mounted Unit, a Traffic Enforcement Team, police patrol staffing, the Crime Prevention Unit, and staffing for two fire stations that were slated for closure. These are all essential city services that the public relies on and deserves.
The Bad
This year’s $85 million deficit comes on the heels of seven years of deficits, bringing the cumulative shortfall to $425 million. Deferred infrastructure repairs and improvements have an estimated value of over $800 million – not counting the needs of our city and regional parks. Then there are the other long-term liabilities like City Hall debt service, unfunded retirement, and health care liabilities.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to the bad news. Sales tax revenues have fallen far below estimates. Property tax revenues continue to fall. The state is looking to take and borrow money from cities in an attempt to balance their budget. There is no way to predict if all of this will wreak havoc our newly-balanced budget. Surely, we will be back to the balancing act in just a few short months.
The Ugly
We have a budget system that is "broke" — and there doesn’t seem to be a will to fix it.
San Jose’s budget process is clearly in conflict with the needs of the general public. Time after time, survey after survey, email after email, the residents of San Jose have made it clear: Public safety is their number one priority. Yet our process brought a proposed budget to the council that contained draconian cuts to public safety.
CPR classes were slated for elimination, saving $55,000, while marketing for the Mariachi Festival was added, at a cost of $50,000. This is just one example of bureaucratic priorities out of sync with the priorities of our residents.
In San Jose, it seems, all budget dollars are equal. A dollar for advertising is equal to a dollar for training that can save someone’s life. A dollar for buying refreshments at a community meeting is equal to a dollar for crime prevention.
I think this is wrong! I hope you do, too.
As the council voted to pass the budget, I pleaded with my colleagues to change the process. I urged that we categorize spending into four simple categories: things we must do, things we should do, things we would like to do, and, of course, things we should not do.
Once we do that, we must prioritize spending. Fully fund the things we must do, then fund the things we should do, and then — if the money’s available — start to fund the things we would like to do. And by all means, we need to shy away from things that have nothing to do with the responsibilities of local government.
Only then will we give our residents the essential public safety services they deserve, provide the infrastructure we need, and meet our obligations to our employees.
Pete Constant is in his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
The City of San Jose’s budget has been the center of conversation for quite some time now. Worry and frustration has turned to happiness and accomplishment. But before we break our arms patting ourselves on the back, I think we ought to evaluate the good in the context of the bad — and the ugly.
The Good
We have a balanced budget, on time.
This represents a significant accomplishment given that the San Jose, like most governments, faces some serious financial issues.
Most importantly, this budget preserves critical public safety services by restoring the Park Rangers, the Horse Mounted Unit, a Traffic Enforcement Team, police patrol staffing, the Crime Prevention Unit, and staffing for two fire stations that were slated for closure. These are all essential city services that the public relies on and deserves.
The Bad
This year’s $85 million deficit comes on the heels of seven years of deficits, bringing the cumulative shortfall to $425 million. Deferred infrastructure repairs and improvements have an estimated value of over $800 million – not counting the needs of our city and regional parks. Then there are the other long-term liabilities like City Hall debt service, unfunded retirement, and health care liabilities.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no end to the bad news. Sales tax revenues have fallen far below estimates. Property tax revenues continue to fall. The state is looking to take and borrow money from cities in an attempt to balance their budget. There is no way to predict if all of this will wreak havoc our newly-balanced budget. Surely, we will be back to the balancing act in just a few short months.
The Ugly
We have a budget system that is "broke" — and there doesn’t seem to be a will to fix it.
San Jose’s budget process is clearly in conflict with the needs of the general public. Time after time, survey after survey, email after email, the residents of San Jose have made it clear: Public safety is their number one priority. Yet our process brought a proposed budget to the council that contained draconian cuts to public safety.
CPR classes were slated for elimination, saving $55,000, while marketing for the Mariachi Festival was added, at a cost of $50,000. This is just one example of bureaucratic priorities out of sync with the priorities of our residents.
In San Jose, it seems, all budget dollars are equal. A dollar for advertising is equal to a dollar for training that can save someone’s life. A dollar for buying refreshments at a community meeting is equal to a dollar for crime prevention.
I think this is wrong! I hope you do, too.
As the council voted to pass the budget, I pleaded with my colleagues to change the process. I urged that we categorize spending into four simple categories: things we must do, things we should do, things we would like to do, and, of course, things we should not do.
Once we do that, we must prioritize spending. Fully fund the things we must do, then fund the things we should do, and then — if the money’s available — start to fund the things we would like to do. And by all means, we need to shy away from things that have nothing to do with the responsibilities of local government.
Only then will we give our residents the essential public safety services they deserve, provide the infrastructure we need, and meet our obligations to our employees.
Pete Constant is in his first term on the San Jose City Council representing District 1 (West San Jose).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Why ProtectSanJose.com?
By Bobby Lopez
This past week, I’ve been a pretty popular guy.
I’m getting a lot of calls about a video we put together for this website.
I was in the city council chambers a few weeks ago when a vocal police critic made some really outrageous comments. The Mayor and most Councilmembers just sat on their hands. As you can imagine, I was a little upset. I wanted others to see what I saw... and thought.
Sure enough, supporters of the critic responded to our video with one of their own. In the interest of fairness, I’m including it here. Watch both, judge for yourself, and comment if you want to.
Attacks like this are nothing new to the men and women of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. We’re used to handling criticism and difficult people. It’s what we do every day as part of our jobs.
But in the past, we haven’t had a forum to defend ourselves from half-truths and misrepresentations made by people who know very little about police work. The Mercury News won’t print some letters and opinion pieces we submit to them. While I understand it’s their paper and their right, I can’t say I understand their decisions. Our own Vanguard newsletter appears only once a month. It does a good job of serving our members and their union concerns, but we can’t use it to quickly respond to breaking news or fresh criticism.
That’s why we’re launching ProtectSanJose.com to create an open forum for our members, neighborhood leaders, and all residents who care deeply about public safety in our great city.
We’ll use this site to respond quickly and honestly to any and all attacks on our integrity. This site will also be a forum for neighborhood leaders and community members who will blog regularly. Hell, we’ll even give our critics an opportunity to exercise their freedom of speech.
The video that’s received so much attention is just one part of this exciting project. Visitors will also find up-to-date news and information about their neighborhoods, including recent crimes on an easy-to-use map.
Have a look around ProtectSanJose.com, and keep coming back for regular updates from all the voices in our diverse community.
Most importantly, stay safe.
This past week, I’ve been a pretty popular guy.
I’m getting a lot of calls about a video we put together for this website.
I was in the city council chambers a few weeks ago when a vocal police critic made some really outrageous comments. The Mayor and most Councilmembers just sat on their hands. As you can imagine, I was a little upset. I wanted others to see what I saw... and thought.
Sure enough, supporters of the critic responded to our video with one of their own. In the interest of fairness, I’m including it here. Watch both, judge for yourself, and comment if you want to.
Attacks like this are nothing new to the men and women of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. We’re used to handling criticism and difficult people. It’s what we do every day as part of our jobs.
But in the past, we haven’t had a forum to defend ourselves from half-truths and misrepresentations made by people who know very little about police work. The Mercury News won’t print some letters and opinion pieces we submit to them. While I understand it’s their paper and their right, I can’t say I understand their decisions. Our own Vanguard newsletter appears only once a month. It does a good job of serving our members and their union concerns, but we can’t use it to quickly respond to breaking news or fresh criticism.
That’s why we’re launching ProtectSanJose.com to create an open forum for our members, neighborhood leaders, and all residents who care deeply about public safety in our great city.
We’ll use this site to respond quickly and honestly to any and all attacks on our integrity. This site will also be a forum for neighborhood leaders and community members who will blog regularly. Hell, we’ll even give our critics an opportunity to exercise their freedom of speech.
The video that’s received so much attention is just one part of this exciting project. Visitors will also find up-to-date news and information about their neighborhoods, including recent crimes on an easy-to-use map.
Have a look around ProtectSanJose.com, and keep coming back for regular updates from all the voices in our diverse community.
Most importantly, stay safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
