Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Oakland Police Shoot Themselves in the Foot
Politics / Law Enforcement & Crime Robert Gammon — Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM
The Oakland police union’s demand of no layoffs for three years in exchange for pension contributions ended up costing the jobs of eighty cops last night. In addition, the union’s hard-line stance has now jeopardized the jobs of at least 120 more Oakland police officers who may be out of work on January 1. Plus, the city may be forced to lay off even more cops next summer. In short, the union’s no-layoffs demand has completely backfired and is now threatening the livelihoods of more than 200 police officers — not to mention the safety of Oakland residents.
Police union officials and their supporters are trying to blame the city council for the layoffs and for the city’s financial woes. And the council does deserve blame — for agreeing over the years to incredibly generous wage and benefit packages for public employees that are now bankrupting the city. Police officers were the biggest recipient of those overly generous packages and so it’s absurd to now blame the council when it’s finally showing some fiscal discipline.
The council also deserves credit for rejecting the unreasonable no-layoffs demand. In reality, it was a poison pill. The reason is that if tax measures planned for the November ballot fail (a definite possibility even if the union had given up the no-layoffs demand), the city will have to lay off 120 cops — or request even more concessions from the police union. Both options would have been impossible if the city agreed to the no-layoffs plan. As a result, the council would have been forced to decimate other city services — including closing parks and libraries.
The no-layoffs demand, coupled with the loss of the November ballot measures, also would have put the city on a path to bankruptcy. Without the ability to lay off more police officers, or to get the cops’ union to agree to more concessions, it might have become impossible to balance the city’s budget — short of declaring bankruptcy. And if that were to happen, the cops’ no-layoffs agreement would be thrown out the window anyway, along with their expensive wages and benefits.
Most importantly, the no-layoffs demand has now seriously threatened any hope of tax measures passing this November. Getting voters to agree to tax themselves more, especially in the current economic climate, would have been a tough sell anyway. At the least, it would have required a united front among city officials and the police union. And although union officials say they will help the measures get approved, their no-layoffs demand has already cost them the support of one influential councilmember.
“There’s no way I’m going to support a ballot measure,” Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, who represents the Fruitvale and Glenview districts, told the Express. “It’s probably impossible to get it approved now. And they have no one to blame but themselves.”
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
Sorry for the misunderstanding, he wrote "EBX needs to part ways with Bob Gammon" -- I thought he said "needs to pay"
like
dislike
It seems Ca. or NY the local government's and state government's all want to blame the Unions for not being able to balance a budget. Now unfourtunately Police officer's are being laid off and this writer has the nerve to blame the them for the benefits they receive. First off these benefits were negotiated for and were not just hand delivered. Secondly try working as a public servant. Yes this is the job career they chose , to be shot at, spit at ,called names, called upon to discipline your child and break up the domestic fight at your house during the Holidays. Yes Policing is a 24hr day 7 days a week career. I believe most Public Servants are under paid for what they do and deserve every benefit they have now and can obtain in the future. God Bless all our Public servants. It's a dangerous ,unrewarding job!
Eastbay Jose,
Don't worry, the Express is still paying me and I'm doing just fine...
I actually LIKE that the journalists spend the time in the comments. It happens on other sites too, just not some of the more mainstream newspapers. Is the Express not paying Gannon??? Wow.
EBX is the only "news" publication where the reporting is so $h!t, that the author repeatedly has to post comments under his articles defending his garbage. EBX needs to part ways with Bob Gammon if it is to retain any credibility.
I want to know what Don Perata's roll was in the police negotiations.
He's got the endorsement of the police officers union, and he's been saying that the cops shouldn't have to take a pay cut or a pension cut. Does that mean he's FOR the layoffs? Because the only other way that the police could not take a pension or pay cut would be for the City of Oakland to file for bankruptcy.
Don Perata should chime in on this. Does he think the cops should compromise so we can undo the layoffs and have a full police force? Or does he think that it's right that 80 cops just got sacked?
Gammon- The Measure Y issue actually militates AGAINST laying off officers. In order to save a dollar, the City Council has to lay off enough officers to offset $13 million. Keep in mind that there are 357 civilian employees at OPD. Any of them could be laid off without affecting Measure Y revenues, all the while getting SEIU's attention and providing an impetus to reopen their closed contract. The City Council's decision to lay off only sworn officers (without touching any civilians), despite the added expense, speaks to something other than mere budget balancing.
@robert.gannon
"It also could have been that many liberals and progressives in Oakland think we already have enough police, or anti-tax folks who don't want higher taxes. These groups have consistently voted against parcel tax measures to hire more police in the past."
Did you forget Measure Y, which liberals and tea-partiers somehow managed to support? The city was flat-out stealing this money, to criticize residents for voting down a follow-on is laughable.
In addition to the measure-Y ripoffs, there have also been many, many stories in the media about how generous the pay packages have been in the interim. Voters saw cops making $180k in salary and $150k in retirement and said no way, no more.
"As for generous pensions to non-sworn city employees -- you're right they are too generous, and the city council should have never awarded them. Unfortunately, the council planned to go back to those unions and ask for more concessions -- if police had agreed to so."
The administrative workers don't have a leg to stand on. They are paper pushers. They could be let go and people would barely notice, it isn't like crime will increase. If they turn down compensation cuts and are instead laid off there won't be a whole lot of articles about it. Have you ever been to Oakland city hall? Good luck getting ANY service from the workers there.
Eastbay Jose,
There's no way to tell exactly why voters turned down Measure NN. It could be as you claim -- unhappiness about the city's interpretation of Measure Y's ballot language, or how it managed the funds. But it also could have been that many liberals and progressives in Oakland think we already have enough police, or anti-tax folks who don't want higher taxes. These groups have consistently voted against parcel tax measures to hire more police in the past. The question now is will they be against a tax designed to stop the city from losing more cops. If the police union had backed off its no-layoffs demand and agreed to pay 9 percent toward its pensions, then it would have been an easier to make that case to voters. But now, it appears to be dead in the water.
As for generous pensions to non-sworn city employees -- you're right they are too generous, and the city council should have never awarded them. Unfortunately, the council planned to go back to those unions and ask for more concessions -- if police had agreed to so. But now that police are still not paying toward their pensions, the council's chances of getting the other unions to agree to reopen existing contracts and agree to more concessions are almost zero.
@robert.gammon To blame the council for not having a plan to hire more police officers is unfair. Oakland voters made the decision to not tax themselves more to hire more police.
Gammon you miss the point entirely. The council has mismanaged the budget for decades. (Black Muslim Bakery Bailoutm anyone?) Voters are only indirectly to blame for this malfeasance.
The deal with the 2008 initiative was that the city was misdirecting measure Y funds were not actually being spent on officers. The voters were fooled once, and not again.
Here's what the city had to say about Measure Y, which was being sold as a tax that would kick-in only at certain staffing levels, and which would be used to hire more officers (care of http://www.orpn.org/lawsuit.htm )
"The specific language of Measure Y, Section 4 is clear that minimal dollars must be appropriated, not minimal officers 'hired.'"
"The ballot pamphlet confirms that the City need only 'appropriate' in its budget, not hire, 739 officers in order to collect the new tax."
"Measure Y requires only appropriation in order to collect and use the new taxes for violence prevention."
"Use of the word 'may' permits, but does not require, the City to hire the 63 officers with the Measure Y money."
- City should roll back exorbidant pensions for NON-safety workers. We have paper pushers getting 90% retirements at 50 years old.
- City should drop pay for all employees. I can understand why police are paid high -- it's Oakland -- but why should paper pushers?
- City should not have agreed to no-layoffs for firefighters. Of the two organizations, police are much more stretched. Firefighters mostly sit around.
- OPD should reduce overtime and bonus pay to near zero.
- OPD should agree to fund pensions.
- City should have agree to zero layoffs of police for two years. Not because the police demanded it, but because the staffing level is already plenty low.
- Last, city needs to dig into that murky "redevelopment budget". We're giving millions to bankrupt bakeries and who knows how much else to whom. It's a ratsnest of corruption and payoffs and journalists seem to have missed it entirely.
OaklandCCSucks,
Members of the council and Mayor Ron Dellums sponsored a November 2008 parcel tax that would have raised money to hire 105 more cops and 75 police technicians -- but it was defeated handily at the polls. So to blame the council for not having a plan to hire more police officers is unfair. Oakland voters made the decision to not tax themselves more to hire more police.
Oaktown Resident,
The math is a bit complicated, but you pointed to the problem -- Measure Y. The measure requires that before any cops are laid off, the city must first stop collecting Measure Y funds. That's a $20 million a year loss that forces more layoffs than the city really needs to make.
In fact, the city really only needs to make about 40 cop layoffs right now -- as you point out -- but because it loses the Measure Y money, it has to cut at least 80 this summer. The city will have to cut another 120 police jobs in January if voters refuse to approve the tax measures and "fix" Measure Y -- that is, allow the city to keep collecting the parcel tax without having to worry about maintaining police staffing levels. The fix would then allow the city to only lay off as many cops as it really needs to do (or none at all, if police give up their unreasonable no-layoffs demand and voters approve the tax measures).
Anyone who has ever actually been engaged in local politics in either Oakland and Berkeley know that the one party ruled east bay has constructed governance structures based on manipulation utilizing the politics of divide, marginalize, placard and conquer.
The council is not operating in good faith with the unions or the public.
And reporters like Gammon are too often puppets.
The Police and their Union were more than ready to work with the City Council to come to a middle ground. The Council was the one who seemingly wanted something for nothing like they got last year after the 30 Million dollars in concessions last year. It just goes to show that the old statement, "You give a mouse a cookie and he'll want a glass of milk" is true of the City Council. There has to be some sort of reassurance if the Police are going to agree to take a major pay cut. This City's Mayor, City Manager and Council members make me sick.. I am saving my money and will soon be moving out of Oakland to live in Alameda.
OPD is no longer going to respond to calls about Theft and Burglary, among many other crimes. It will be interesting to live in Oakland once it's common knowledge that Burglary and Theft are not punishble by law. I wonder how many times the CC has had their houses broken into?
I could give a crap if it's the CC's fault or the OPOA, but we are still absurdly understaffed and the CC hasn't done anything to address that issue.
Two years ago the citizen grand jury indicated Oakland needed an additional 400 police officers to provide adequate safety to Oakland residents. The council agreed, but said we couldn't afford it. However, they didn't do anything to put a plan in place to try to get more officers. Instead, they started closing police acadamies. Sheesh!
I bought a $500,000 house in Oakland in 2005. Since then:
1. my copper PLUMBING was stolen while I was on vacation
When the officers took the report, I told them I knew who did
it, and that their fingerprints were all over the place. It was
then that I learned that there are only 3 finger print detectives
in all of OPD, so they only work on capital crimes.
2. my garage has been broken into 3 times
3. Drugs are bought and sold in broad daylight every day within a 1/2 block of my house
4. Drugs were bought and sold everyday right in front of my house. It took 2 years of calling OPD before they were able to do anything about (because they were so understaffed)
5. Tresspassers, drug users, drug dealers, and homeless people have used my yard or my neighbors yard as if it was their own.
6. My locked bike was stolen out of my back yard
I am fed up with Oakland CC - maybe someone should break into their houses and they'll start to appreciate how bad living in Oakland can be.
They aren't concerned with Crime because they live up in the hills, and they don't give a shit about us folks in the flatlands.
Gammon- Do the math. The 9% pension contribution comes to $7.8 million. If you believe the City Council, each officer costs $188K in salary, overtime and benefits. $7.8 million divided by $188K equals 42 jobs. So why did the City Council just lay off 80 officers, and threaten to lay off 122 more, if they only need $7.8 million to balance the budget? That math doesn't make sense. Especially when you realize that the 80 layoffs mean the city can no longer collect the $19 million in Measure Y revenue. Does the City Council think the citizens are incapable of basic mathematics? The layoffs would appear to result from the City Council's commitment to balance the budget by sacrificing the safety of the citizens of Oakland.
Hear hear. We now know exactly what the blue line's commitment to its members is worth. To say nothing of what Protect and Serve means to those we pay so handsomely to do it.
I am truly sorry that it is the dedicated young officers who are losing their jobs instead of many useless if not outright vicious (e.g. the fat-ass Bambi shooter, who undoubtedly remains on the payroll) members of the force who are a true detriment to the city and the citizens. However, huge thanks to the council for not putting up with all this posturing nonsense.
Author Archives
-
Jerry Brown’s Optimism Has Been Costly
- May 18, 2012
-
A’s Planned Move to San Jose Looks Dead
- May 17, 2012
- More»
