How can we have a discussion when the records aren’t accurate? How can we trust a staff that always seems to be working toward their own interests instead of the Public Interest?

20 Dec

On November 27, I mounted my 1956 Raleigh Superbe, aka “Myrtle the Turtle”, and set off through Bidwell Park at about 7:45 am to attend a Finance Committee meeting Downt0wn. By the way, I don’t ride my bike to be annoying, I ride it because it doesn’t cost any money and it pays to stay in shape these days. On a bike you can take the alternate routes that aren’t available to a car, it’s just entirely more logical. 

I don’t mind telling you though, what a pain in the ass it is to attend these meetings. Sure I enjoy the bike ride, but then what? Hours of my life have gone into these stupid meetings, hours I could have been using productively. But I feel somebody has to keep an eye on these people, give Stephanie Taber a little back-up once in a while. Stephanie attends all these dam-ned meetings, but this one she had to miss, and asked if somebody would attend. So I did.

I went to this particular meeting to ask a question that I thought was very important – How much does the city spend a year on the “employee share” of pension premiums?   Sounds simple enough. I didn’t expect to get an immediate answer, I almost expected to be put off – imagine my surprise when Jennifer Hennessy just answered me right off the top of her head: “About $7 million.” Just like that.

I was floored, not only that she’d answered me, but WOW! Seven million dollars!  That’s a lot of dough. I’ve been sitting in on these meetings for about 10 years I’d guess, listening to these reports about the city being in deficit by millions of dollars – but I think the biggest deficit figure I ever heard Hennesy project was $10 million dollars.  And here we find, $7 million of that was  just paying “the employee share” of pension premiums.

Well, as I may have told you in a previous blog, it’s not just $7 million. After being questioned about that answer by committee member Mark Sorensen, Hennessy sent me another figure via e-mail – the $7 million is just the amount that’s taken from one fund.   Remember all those nutshells Jennifer has – 60 different funds?  – well, the total she takes from all funds is more like $10 million.

I wanted to ask this question at a public meeting so there it would be, on record. That’s why I got so irritated when the minutes were made available a couple of weeks ago, and there was not one mention of that conversation. They’d actually recorded another question I’d asked, but not the one about the $7 million on “employee’s share”.  I wrote a note to Debbie Presson about it, and she told me she’d check into it. A week later, I checked the minutes again, and there was no change. So I e-mailed her again:

Hi again Debbie,

 I wonder if you’d like me to forward you the e-mail discussion I had with Mark Sorensen and Jennifer Hennessy regarding the question I asked that was omitted from the minutes of the meeting? I’m sure Scott Gruendl and Mary Flynn also heard my question and Hennessy’s answer. 
 
My question and Ms. Hennessy’s answer (answers?) need to be part of the public record. I’m just wondering, why do the minutes mention the one question I asked, but not the other?  The record needs to be complete. This is another reason people don’t participate. I rode my bike through the park to that meeting, at 7:45 in the morning, just to ask that question, and it’s important to me that the question and the answer are part of the official record. Is it a waste of my time to attend these meetings? A waste of time for the public to pay attention? 
 

I’ll be at the next Finance Committee meeting, I’d like some kind of resolution to this problem by then  – thanks, Juanita Sumner

Excuse me for being a little bitchy, but I don’t like the way they record these meetings – the entire council voted to restrict the minutes to “action only” – but still, the clerk picks and chooses which remarks she records? It’s either all or nothing, as far as I’m concerned. “Action only” would mean, the agenda item, the motion(s), and a count of the vote(s).  “Verbatim” means, every word.  But in Chico they seem to be somewhere in between. They need to make up their mind on that. As it stands, committee members and staffers can ask that remarks be stricken from the record, and that seems a little weird to me.   It’s not a  true record, it’s written the way they want it to appear. 

Here’s the response I got from Presson:

Hello Juanita.

 I have researched your questions regarding the discussions that occurred at the 11/27/12 Finance Committee Report (minutes) and found that the report does not reflect all of your comments regarding employee share of pension and benefit costs and subsequent responses by staff.  That report is currently under review and once the report is amended, we will provide the Council with the report, with a copy to you as well.  Please note, it is always our intent to provide a thorough report from these meetings.  The reports however, are typically in summary format.  Council’s formal action in 2001 was to direct staff to provide “action only” minutes, with some summary when needed.  That motion carried 7-0. 

 On a side note, but still related to this topic…. City Manager Nakamura sent you an email following that November Finance Committee meeting which included two attachments pertaining to safety and miscellaneous costs as well as an overview of the range of healthcare benefits that employees can chose from and for which they pay a share of the costs.  Would you mind confirming if you did or didn’t receive this information?  We would like to make sure he has your correct email address.

 As I had mentioned in my 12/12/12 email, your email will be included on the January 2, 2013 agenda under Reports and Communications.  At that time, I will be able to address regulations regarding the types of minutes required.  Hope that helps. 

 I wish for you and your family a wonderful holiday and will see you on January 2, 2013.

 Sincerely,

 Debbie

First question: why does it take so long to amend the report? They have a tape recording. And she could have asked Jennifer, or any of the committee members. 

Second question: I never received anything from Brian Nakamura – did he send or not? Can he use cut and paste? I’ve been in contact with several staffers, using the same e-mail address, for YEARS. I don’t know why Nakamura would have trouble contacting me. 

Third question: what is their excuse for not taking verbatim minutes? The Police Advisory Board has verbatim minutes of their casual conversations. The Willows School Board even takes verbatim minutes, and that’s in Glenn County! Why don’t we have  verbatim minutes? Why is Scott Gruendl constantly allowed to strike his comments from the minutes of meetings? 

Fourth question: who asked for my question and Hennessy’s answer to be stricken? 

Here’s the minutes of the Measure J discussion, which is where I asked my question and Hennessy answered it. It’s an interesting read alright, but it’s not complete.  As you’ll read below, they are still crying spilt milk over that $900,000 “lost” on Measure J (not to mention the election cost, of course), but not a word about the $7 – 10 million spent on the “employee’s share”.  

Discussion of Chico Measure J
Chair Gruendl began the discussion regarding the failure of Measure J, the Utility Users Tax, by asking
what this means for the City and when does the revenue loss hit the City’s budget.
City Attorney Barker stated that she will be bringing this matter forward to the full Council in December.
The City will experience some revenue loss this fiscal year. Staff will need to look at the projections, at
possible refund requests, whether to notify the carriers, and whether the tax should have been imposed
in the first place.
Chair Gruendl asked if the City may have to pay back the tax prior to the failure of Measure J if its
determined the tax shouldn’t have been imposed.
City Attorney Barker stated yes, but the City would only have to go back for one year.
Finance Director Hennessy stated the funds received from cell phone companies are being held in a fund
for possible future refunds. The funds received from companies that provide both land and cell service
aren’t segregated to show how much of the tax is from a land use or cell use.
Chair Gruendl stated that the revenue decrease is expected to be around $900,000 and the number is
expected to increase over the years due to more people dropping land lines.
City Manager Nakamura said this discussion blends in with the unfunded liabilities discussion. The City’s
budget reduction measures have included decreasing payments into certain funds, such as facilities
maintenance. The question becomes how do we continue to do that with a potential $900,000 decrease
in revenues. To put $900,000 in context, that could mean 7-8 police officers or two-thirds of operations
for the fire stations. There are significant impacts. The matter of reducing payments to other funds, such
as maintenance on facilities or Bidwell Park, has to be addressed. The City absorbed a significant amount
of the costs with the loss of the redevelopment agency. Staff is looking at renegotiating the sales tax
sharing agreement with the County and also the Cost Allocation Plan. There will be significant budget
discussions in January to address all of these concerns.

More questions for Ken Campbell – every answer is just another can of worms!

16 Dec

As I was saying in a previous blog, I recently been struggling through the city firefighters’ contracts, and I don’t mind saying, it’s all Greek to me. “Legalese,” I think it’s called. The worst thing is, they treat you like a moranus because you don’t understand the gobble-ty-gook they spin up just to make sure you don’t understand.

Here’s how they explain the pay rate in the current IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters, the union) contract:

Regular Hourly Rate

 1.2.5. Regular Hourly Rate. Regular Hourly Rate shall mean an hourly rate calculated by summing all non-overtime and non-out of class pay for the bi-weekly pay period, with the specific exception of Holiday Pay as defined in Section 2, Subsection 5.3.1, and dividing the total by 112 for Employees assigned to a fifty-six (56) hour work week, and by 80 for those employees assigned to a forty (40) hour work week.

As my friend Stephanie Taber said recently about the firefighters’ contract, “confused???? so am I!”   Stephanie is way more patient than I am, when she doesn’t understand these documents, she e-mails the appropriate department and asks the questions, then sticks around long enough to get an answer. 

In the letter I wrote to the editor, I asked about the 56 hour week – did that mean 16 hours of guaranteed overtime? Is that how some of these employees almost DOUBLE their salaries?   One person I saw on the salary charts had added $80,000 in OT to his $90,000 salary – and he’s not the only one who does that.  As I pointed out in my letter, the fire department alone bills for over a million dollars a year in overtime. I wonder, how do they do that? 

When Stephanie asked the human resources department about overtime, here was the response: “Under the terms of the IAFF MOU City firefighters get paid overtime for any hours they work in excess of 56 in a seven day period.”

Okay, now I’m confused. You can schedule people for 56 hours without paying them overtime? News to me. And, I still don’t understand, how do they rack up the overtime pay when they have to work over 56 hours a week to get  it? I mean, there’s not a house burning down or an accident every freaking minute. In fact, hours and hours go by, every day, when nothing justifying the use of gasoline even happens around here. 

I got a new question. Are we paying people to sleep? To watch tv? To take the hook and ladder to the grocery store? 

Human Resources offered more explanation: “In addition, under the terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they get paid overtime for any hours they work in excess of 182 in a 24 day period.  For the City of Chico this equates to an additional 5 hours of pay for each person every 24 day period.”

I keep seeing that word, “work”, and I keep wondering, “what do they mean by ‘work‘?” 

So I will keep asking my questions.

Get ready for your cell phone tax refund!

14 Dec

Well, just when I was getting the posse together to write a letter to the city attorney, giving her a little prod to write letters to the cell phone carriers and tell them to stop collecting that cell phone tax, she’s already on the ball! Here’s an item from next Tuesday’s council agenda:

ITEM 4.2   ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING SECTION

3.56.150 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REFUNDS FOR OVERPAYMENTS
AND ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS OF UTILITY USERS’ TAXES – Introduction

From the staff report:  “Because the measure (J) did not pass, City staff will be taking action to notify companies currently providing non-land line telephone services that the city will no longer collect the tax for those services. Additionally, amounts received will be placed in a holding account to be available for refund requests that may be received. The statute of limitations to request a refund is one year. Any amounts remaining after one year will be deposited in the  city’s general fund. “

Well, isn’t  that interesting – there’s a time limit on collecting something that was stolen from you – how charming! 

And, the staff report goes on to say that there’s a stipulation that you prove you tried to get the money back from your cell phone provider first – but they’re going to talk about dropping that requirement, apparently. Well, that’s mighty big of them!

So, it is now up to those of you who have been RIPPED OFF to get down there and get your money. When they took it out of my bill, I went down every year and got my Utility Tax rebate, so they don’t owe me anything. Well, aside from the hours taken from my life, but that’s another blog, for another day.

The other item on the agenda that gets my attention is committee and board appointments. Notice  Ann Schwab’s request to start ANOTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE, this time, “focusing on the homelessness issue.” Oh, come on! Nakamura has already said that we need to get rid of  these ad hoc committees, because “they take on a life of their own,” meaning staffers who get salaries and benefits to do nothing but forward e-mails. Look at the Sustainability Task Force page on the city website – they haven’t even posted the cancellation for the meeting they had announced for December. Please!  Schwab doesn’t want people at these meetings.  These ad hoc committees are just a way to keep the public out of the discussion. They don’t even have to post the schedules for the meetings, and they don’t. 

Meanwhile, they can’t seem to get anybody on the airport commission, which I would say is probably the most important committee they have. To think, this is how  they run the airport – the city manager puts on a different “hat”, and sits down at an empty table with a couple of people handpicked by council because they gave good campaign donations.  The airport needs a professional manager and a board of “stakeholders” – meaning, the people who run their businesses out of the airport. There are a lot of disgruntled business owners and plane owners out there, pissed off over the sloppy management and downright nepotism going on at Chico airport. Chris and Maria Rock are being allowed to monopolize fueling at the airport and they’re not even doing a good job of it. According to the budget, the city is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on maintenance, but still the airport is unusable because the runways are inadequate for modern aircraft and the fueling station is being run like the gas station in Mayberry RFD. 

I think I will attend next Tuesday’s meeting, just to give a rebel yell when they read Item 4.2. 

 

Time to write to the city council about these pension payments – Scott Gruendl thinks “pension reform” means making US pay MORE!

12 Dec

Hi Debbie, Council members, 

 
I was just going over the minutes for  the Finance Committee meeting I attended earlier this month. I see that one question I asked, about the cost of certain consultant reports, was included in the minutes, but not the question I asked regarding what the city pays toward the “employee share” of pension premiums. Jennifer Hennessy stated at that time, “about $7 million.” Later she sent me an e-mail correction – the actual figure was closer to $10.1 million.
 
I wonder why my question and Hennessy’s answer are not included in the minutes? I asked this question during the discussion regarding the loss of Measure J. I was trying to point out, that while the city is complaining about losing $900,000 on a failed tax measure, they spend millions paying THE EMPLOYEE SHARE of pension costs, in addition to the employer share. Our city’s financial problems would be solved if the contracts were rewritten so that the employee pays their own share. Why isn’t this option coming up in the discussion? 
 
I also notice, the police advisory board gets verbatim minutes. I wonder, why aren’t all the committee meetings, including the ad hoc meetings, recorded verbatim? 
 
I’d like this letter to be attached to the next city council agenda as a “communication.” 
 
I’d also like to thank Fritz McKinley for answering my flood notice question. 
 
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, Juanita Sumner

I got a few questions for Ken Campbell

8 Dec

NOTE: a person recently tried to contact me through the ER editor – if you want to discuss this post look for the “comment” button at the bottom of the page. If you want to be anonymous let me know or use an acronym.

A week or so ago, firefighter and fire department political action committee chairman Ken Campbell wrote a pretty condescending letter to the Enterprise Record, insinuating that anybody who criticized the fire department would change their mind if they just came down for a tour of a fire station.

He says, “In the last month there have been a few letters to the editor criticizing the response of the emergency services within the city of Chico, particularly the Fire Department.” But I looked, I never found any letters to that effect. What I did find were comments regarding the fire department budget, the contracts and the excessive amounts the city is paying for the “employee’s share” of the benefits.

Stephanie Taber brought up these points in her response to Campbell.

Reference Ken Campbell’s (Chico Fire Dept.) letter of December 1 which invites the public to visit a Fire Station and talk with any department member so we the public can better understand their mission.

I think the public knows fairly well what the department’s mission is; what we don’t understand is why it costs us so much.  Of the $13 million dollar Fire Department budget $11.5 million is spent on salaries, holiday pay, overtime, gym fees, wellness physicals, and “other” benefits.  That “other” category includes Fire personnel’s share of their pension retirement benefits.  Why are we paying that 7% when we already pay the employer (taxpayer) share?  Why are we paying the employer AND employee share of FICA from the date of hire till retirement?  Why are we paying $350 each month, tax free, for every Fire Department employee toward their retirement medical from the time of hire till retirement at 50?  Do you know how many more firemen we could hire if just that one part of the department’s benefit package were eliminated?  Then add to that the Fire Department employee’s 7% share of their pension benefit and I’ll bet we’re talking about being able to fully staff the Fire Department and the elimination of all that overtime.

The City Manager should invite Chief Berry to discuss Fire personnel’s job responsibilities.  And I’d like to invite the IAFF to explain why the 47% (low income earners) should continue to pay the top 1% (Fire Dept. personnel) incredibly generous benefit package.”

To which local liberal shoofly Ron Sherman responded, “I guess you have a rather selective memory. The current contracts are successors to those approved by the conservative Chico City Councils dominated by Rick Keene and Larry Wahl, so that they could secure the endorsement of the fire department.”  Sorry, Ron, again you are confused – Larry was the only one who voted NO on that contract. It’s up for renewal right now, and our “liberal-dominated” council is about to give it the old rubber stamp, three of them having already approved the same contract, two others sure to follow their mentors on to Perdition. That’s five to two – SWOOSH! And, I’m betting Morgan will also sign the contract, he’s already made it clear he’s up there to represent “the public safety ‘workers'”.

I couldn’t find the contract now up for consideration – I think it’s buried somewhere on the city website – if anybody can send me a link, I’d appreciate it. But, here’s the current contract:

http://ebookbrowse.com/iaff-mou-pdf-d33663777

You might have to cut-and-paste that link, but it’s worth it.  It’s a confusing yet interesting read, just stick with it. For example, I have finally  figured out how they manage to rack up so much overtime – some of them as much as double their agreed-upon salary with overtime. For one thing, they are guaranteed a 56 hour week. That’s 16 hours of overtime, given for starters. And get aload of this – every week the captain is supposed to determine whether or not he’s going to need a firefighter to work his overtime. Or, get ” Compensated Time Off in Lieu of Overtime“. That means, instead of working and getting paid for an hour of overtime, the firefighter can take time off, at a rate of an hour and a half off for each hour of overtime.  And, at the end of the year, the firefighter can exchange his unused CTO for pay, again, at a rate of one and a half hours pay for every hour of CTO accrued.

Yeah, you better read that again. I’m not sure, but it almost looks like they’re  getting an hour and a half for an hour, and then getting an hour and a half for every hour of that.  For example, 4 hours of overtime becomes six hours of CTO, and then each hour of that CTO is worth an hour and a half of pay? What? 

What I understand loud and clear is, they get paid for overtime they don’t even work, overtime that is scheduled in UNNECESSARILY. Simply to guarantee a fat salary.

In his insulting little letter to the ER, Campbell suggests “The department would welcome the opportunity to answer all questions and explain what citizens receive for .41 cents a day. If you are unsatisfied with the answers you receive, then write a letter to the editor and state your opinions with credibility because you actually did some homework and tried to gain complete understanding.” 

Well, I did my homework, Ken, and now you got some explaining to do alright.

UPDATE:

Well, just when I got around to complaining about that section of the fire contracts, it has already been changed.

(I can’t post the link, for some bizarre reason, you have to go to the city website, hit the bar at the top of the home page that says, “How do I…” and then choose “Get city salary/benefits information”, then choose “Labor Agreements” from the menu at the left. And you thought you’d never find a needle in a haystack!)

The section I”m referring to above is almost cut out of the new contracts – they’ve completely eliminated the section that says “exchange his unused CTO for pay at a rate of one and a half hours pay for every hour of CTO accrued.”  They don’t call it “compensated time off” anymore, they call it “compensating time off,” which means, they get the time off but don’t get paid? I’m still wondering there.

But, they still get 16 hours of scheduled overtime, and can exchange it, for whatever reason, for an hour and a half of (paid?) time off for every hour of overtime they actually work.  They are certainly getting paid for time they aren’t even at the station (grocery shopping with the hook and ladder?!), much less “working”.  And then, if there’s a need while they’re on CTO, another firefighter is called in, probably on overtime him/herself.

This is left to the discretion of the chief. Yeah, Chief Beery, the guy who closed Station 5 because he was pissed at the city for cutting his budget $90,000.

This is the scam through which some of these people as much as DOUBLE their agreed upon salary with overtime, still crying for more hires.  I’m still asking  Ken Campbell – why does the fire department get guaranteed overtime, even when it’s not needed? Why can’t  the fire department be staffed just like any other 24 hour business?

To the victor go the spoils.

5 Dec

President Obama Pardons Thanksgiving Turkey At White House

PHOTO:  President Bronco Bama congratulates Mary Goloff on her recent appointment as Mayor of Chico.  

Today I woke up to another gorgeous rainstorm – that’s the water that’s going to give me a wonderful crop of maters next summer. But then my husband had to go and ruin my morning by reading to me from the Enterprise Record – stuck inside on a rainy day, you know.   “Oh, Jesus!” he exclaimed, and I think, he was literally calling out to Jesus. “Mary Flynn (he can’t get used to her new name) is our MAYOR!” And then, the cherry on top, “and Gruendl’s our vice mayor!”

At this point, I had to say, putting “vice” in front of Scott’s name is appropriate whatever you’re talking about.

We had certainly discussed this possibility at our recent Chico Taxpayer’s Association. We knew Sorensen, although he’s the proper candidate for at least vice mayor, didn’t have a rat’s ass of a chance. And let’s face it, his plate is full of Biggs right now, we’re lucky he can manage to make the committee meetings. And glad to have him. There’s only so much one man can do, we don’t want Mark half-assing anything.

Besides, I don’t know if Sorensen wants to be in the Mayor’s chair – Ann Schwab certainly let it slide – not at this particular junction in the Road to Perdition. Like Amy Winehouse said, “Noo, nooo, NO!”

The only other members who would be considered “qualified” – meaning, didn’t just get elected – were Schwab, Goloff and Gruendl. So, there you go. Gruendl had already been mayor, and that would be pretty greedy of him.  Goloff was previously vice mayor, so I guess you’d say, she was “in line for the throne”.

Funny to think, just eight months ago, the council had to vote to pardon Goloff from excessive absences. According to the city charter, any member who misses more than two consecutive meetings without getting a permission slip from the rest of council will be dismissed! Flynn missed meetings on March 20 and April 3 and 17. The council granted her leave through April 18, that I know of, and agendized a discussion about letting her off into May. Her excuse was “unspecified medical reasons.”

Let me specify here. I know, I accused her of getting plastic surgery on our public dime – she has a $17,000 benefits package through her council position.   But, there is also talk around town that she was in rehab.

Now, I would not have been shocked if I’d heard this back in 2008, when she tried to create a drive-up entrance over at the Great Harvest on Forest Ave, and was found by the police to have a pile of prescription drugs  in her car. In fact, I never remember hearing anything about her being directed to a program at that time, and that  bothered me. Everybody, including then-chief of police Bruce Hagerty, acted as though driving under the influence of drugs was no big deal. “‘I just think she made a mistake in mixing several different medications,” Hagerty said, referring to a recent medical procedure Flynn had undergone. He said she had medications with her in the car.”

Wow, just imagine, if the Chico PD found me with so much as Ibuprofen in my car! They’d probably haul me to Oroville and tear my car to pieces!  Hagerty said in an interview at the time, it’s really a matter of the arresting officers’ and the chief’s discretion as to whether somebody is charged with a “DUI” for prescription drugs. “It’s not illegal to drive a motor vehicle with prescription drugs in your system provided that they don’t interfere with your ability to drive that vehicle safely. That’s what will have to be determined regarding the charge of guilt or innocence regarding driving under the influence.”  This from the man who came in off duty, with a back injury for which he is still collecting compensation, to personally escort then-Flynn through the arrest process and then stand by her while she confronted the press. Can you imagine anybody else getting that kind of treatment from the police chief over a DUI? And this is one of the two people who decides if she gets charged or not.

“Hagerty said while determining innocence or guilt is more cut-and-dried for a DUI involving alcohol — a person is guilty of DUI when blood-alcohol content is .08 — there is no presumptive level for medications. Instead, a district attorney will use a combination of the blood work identifying the substance and the officer’s opinion following field-sobriety tests to determine whether to press charges or drop the case.”

According to the article posted at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.netm , “Hagerty said warnings that prescription drugs can cause drowsiness or should not be taken while driving should be heeded. However, he acknowledged drugs can have different effects on different people. ‘It’s an individual’s decision on a person’s part, and people make mistakes. I really think that’s what she made, a mistake,’ he said.”

Well at least we know where the chief stood! 

As you may remember, it wasn’t Mary’s first offense. Goloff-then-Flynn made no bones about a 1990 DUI conviction – this one a “cut-and-dried” conviction for alcohol – when she ran for office in 2006. She said she was afraid somebody would out her, so she was coming clean on her problems. Maybe we should have a form posted down at the city clerk’s office listing which prescriptions our council members might be under the influence of when they are making decisions that influence our lives.  

Well, I’ll also say, she might have wished she’d stayed on the hooch after the next six months – there’s rough sailing ahead for the SS Chico, and as Captain, she’s designated to go down with the ship. 

 

 

Get a convoluted answer.

4 Dec

I won’t pretend to understand what goes on Downtown. Sometimes I am afraid to ask questions, because they just lead to more questions. When I asked Finance Director Jennifer Hennessy how much the city spends on employee pensions a year, I didn’t know what I was getting into.

First there’s the “employer share,” and that’s a gob-stopper – over $9 million a year. And then there’s the “employee share” – and we pay that too. There’s the terminology – “employer paid member contribution.” And there’s never a straight answer to anything.

When I asked, “how much the city spends,” I meant, in total, all of it. But Hennessy “only recalled” the portion that comes out of the General Fund – about $7 million, she says. She forgot about all the other walnut shells she moves to pay these employee costs.

Ms. Sumner~

 
At last week’s Finance Committee, I stated that the cost of the City’s pension was $7M, however I was recalling the approximate General Fund portion only.  The estimated cost across all funds is budgeted at $10.1M for FY12-13.
 
Sorry for the confusion.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.
 
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director

websitewww.ci.chico.ca.us

Across all funds“? See what I mean about the walnut shells? They have over 50 funds now, I can’t remember how many, and I can’t remember where I put the blog where I talked about it before. That’s a lot of confusion, and that’s why they do it that way. They can shift money from one fund to the other to pay for stuff they couldn’t pay out of the first fund. That’s like saying, “now that this money is in my purse instead of my 401K, I can’t spend it without consequences!”

Tonight they are installing a new council. I can only predict a darker picture for Chico. Randall Stone and Tami Ritter are two of the biggest pigs who have ever hit the trough.

When I was a kid I lived in the community of Glenn, where my grandparents belonged to various social organizations. We had “feeds” over at the Glenn Pheasant Hall, where everybody would bring a covered dish. With food in it, you know? Except for this one family of enormous fatties – I won’t say their name, they were nice enough people – but they would walk into a pot luck party carrying empty casserole dishes covered with fresh tin foil. They would walk straight over to the table and load their plates with food, several times, and then when everybody else had their fill, both the man and the woman would totter over to the table with those casserole dishes and load them full of whatever was left. The adults wouldn’t say anything as these pigs chatted their way up and down that table, filling those dishes with whatever they wanted, but we kids couldn’t believe it. We weren’t allowed to make pigs of ourselves that way, seconds were for really good children whose mom had brought a contribution to the table.  We’d follow these two up to the table, wide-eyed and gape-mouthed, marveling aloud at the amounts they were able to stuff into those dishes.  In fact, my sister and I used to bolt our food just so we could go and sit across the table from them to watch them eat! It was a-MAY-zing.  Then we’d file along with the rest, watching them load their take-out containers.  The bolder among us would ask, “whatcha gonna do with all that food?” Some kids thought they might have dogs. But the man would just laugh and say, “Eat it!” As if he had nothing to be ashamed of. The adults would all stand off, some of them would cover their mouths and giggle, and they’d all have something to say later, after this couple made their way out to their enormous station wagon with those piled high dishes of other people’s hard work. But nobody wanted to rock the community boat. No, these people were not particularly good neighbors or hard workers, their house was a disheveled eyesore and they never came around in times of need. But in a small community, you “have to get along,” and we did. 

But Chico is NOT a small friendly community anymore,  so  I’m going to say it. Randall Stone is a worthless, soft-handed leech who should not be allowed on council unless he is willing to divest himself from his development business which bamboozled the city out of millions in RDA money to build clap-trap low-income housing that will never contribute anything to the community but another eyesore. He’s wangled the city out of so much money it’s inappropriate for him to sit at the dais. In past when I’ve criticized this guy, he’s tried to smear me on Topix. He’s a cheap, nasty little pinhead, and having him on the dais, while it might have some entertainment value, is going to be a disaster for the city. 

And then there’s Tami Ritter, who has been in one trough position after another ever since she trolled into Chico, with complaints from everybody involved.   She left the Torres shelter under accusations from homeless people who were complaining she ran the place like her own home, picking and choosing who got to stay based on whim. She got FIRED from Chico Green School when she complained she wasn’t getting a big enough salary. From Chico News and Review, September 2012:

Ritter, a well-known Chico resident who quickly won the support of the teaching staff when she assumed her position in July, described some chaotic weeks that led up to the school’s opening.

Tami Ritter lost her job as the school’s part-time principal during the upheaval.

PHOTO BY LESLIE LAYTON

Ritter, a former director of the Torres Shelter, had been hired in May while she completed work in Philadelphia on a second master’s degree. When she returned to Chico in July, she found that no site had yet been selected for the Green School, creating a lot of “organizational tension.” She said she and a few others worked out of the Chico State teaching office of Sandoe, a computer science professor.

The group decided on the Cohasset Road site, set up the school and recruited the students. But Ritter said she soon found herself working 45 hours a week in a position that paid for 20 hours a week. She took the issue to the board of directors, and the board suggested she limit her unpaid overtime to five to 10 hours a week. She and the board often disagreed on how she could be most effective with so few hours.

Then, Ritter said, she defied board instructions to withhold information—specifically the school’s student roster—from CUSD. The Green School board placed her on administrative leave and asked her to show up for a second mediation session.

She said she refused to go through mediation for a second time without a representative, and she then received e-mail notification that she was fired.

There is so much impropriety about the Chico Green School mess,  I don’t know where to start.  Did you get that part where she told them 20 hours wasn’t enough and they gave her 10? That’s because she’s a bitch to work with.   Is this the kind of performance we’ll get from Ritter on council? When I encountered her at an envelope-stuffing party I got talked into  by Maureen Kirk, she was totally weird. Instead of walking over to the main table and getting a pile of letters and envelopes for herself, she just walked right over to my table and sat down next to me without a word, abruptly snatching up my little piles of letters and envelopes  and placing them in front of herself! Then she let everybody at the table know she was in a bad mood and didn’t want to talk. Silence! How can you possibly be productive with a person like that? I predict she will not get along with Schwab, who is quick to let other women know when she feels they are being “too pushy”.   And to top it all off, at her age,  Ritter’s got a new baby – that will make you bitchy alright.  Let’s see how many meetings she excuses herself from because of the baby. That’s why I feel she ran in the first place – she is currently unemployed, and uninsured, and that’s kind of tough with a new kid.  She’s like a pigeon looking for a roost.

Ritter and Stone are snout-nosed trough dwellers. This is a council we really need to keep an eye on. We need citizens to attend meetings, and ask the right questions. We need to get together to compare notes, because as you’ve seen, they’ll FLAT LIE to get  their way Downtown.

And that’s what I’m looking for in a candidate for 2014. Coolidge is still eager to be on council – he needs to make his presence more known. We haven’t heard a peep out of the guy since he got himself on the local news protesting Measure J. Then he posted that blurb on youtube, and never said another word about it. He raised weird non-issues on his website – “Andrew will oppose any elimination of the leaf pick-up program…” ?  There is not one word about the budget or Measure J – just pseudo problems with no specific solutions. He has shown no real knowledge of city affairs.  I have yet to see him at a meeting aside from a couple of council meetings – standing silently and noticeably at the back of the room, just so he could say he was there. He really should have been at that Finance Committee meeting last week. There’s no excuse for not making meetings if you want to be on council. 

I don’t know if Toby Schindelbeck is interested in running again. I can’t help but admire Toby for being himself, but some people didn’t like him for the same reason they don’t like me – he doesn’t eat shit with a smile, he tends to tell people what he thinks. That won’t make you any friends, but it will get you my respect.  The kind of people who voted for Schwab, Stone and Ritter want to hear lies, they don’t have the courage to hear the truth, and they’re too lazy and stupid to do anything about it anyway.

I won’t forget – Toby actually accomplished something really important at the expense of his council campaign – he forced the Finance Director to give the monthly reports she’s required to give under Section 908 of the city code.  That is huge people. Now it’s time for all of us to pay attention. I think Toby has what it takes to turn this city around, whereas the rest of them seem to be worried more about keeping their butts in the chair than anything else. By going to the mat and risking the election – you realize how many city workers vote, don’t you? – he has actually accomplished a monumental task. Now, if the rest of the citizens would only pay attention, we might be able to get our city turned around, back on track. 

Toby Schindelbeck proved that old saying – “If the people will lead, the leaders will follow…” 

Right now, the candidate I’m looking for is willing to say NO to the police and fire employees, and make them pay their own pensions. Hellllloooo?

Ask a simple question.

3 Dec

We had another great meeting over at the library yesterday, and I was so happy to see, despite the ominous weather, a cheerful group showed up for a lively discussion. 

We crowed momentarily over the defeat of Measure J. Casey Aplanalp pointed out that we should consider it an important victory, and proof that a small group can make a difference.  Sue said we should remind other people, even if our voices are a little drowned out on the national level, we can make a more noticeable difference on the local level – it’s a matter of getting involved. We talked for awhile – what’s the best way to get people to be more involved in their local government? 

We could ask Stephanie Taber what motivates her to be so involved – attending meetings several times a week, writing notes back and forth to staffers, asking questions that get kicked all over the city building for as long as Stephanie is persistent in getting the answers. Stephanie combs over the reports and find the discrepancies, and asks the questions that need to be asked. We need more people willing to go to the meetings, morning, afternoon and evening, and ask the same kind of questions. And, go back time and time again, e-mail again and again, and get the answers. 

I’m just too easy – when I asked Jennifer Hennessy about the annual amount the city pays out in pension premiums, she told me about $7 million, and I swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Stephanie was not able to attend, or she probably would have caught it. Mark Sorensen caught it, and asked Hennessy about it later. He had some other figures that added up to more like $11 million. Hennessy sent me a note today – her figure is $10.1 million

Whoa. And here I was, thinking $7 million was a lot of samolians! What a dupe I am!

$1.9 million of that total is the “employer paid member contributions” – there’s that confusing terminology again – they mean, the “employee’s share” of the premium that is paid by the employer

Stephanie Taber pointed out, that $1.9 million would pay for a lot of police officers. 

Here’s the breakdown of how much the city currently spends annually paying the employee share of pension premiums:

Bargaining Unit  FY10-11 Amount  # of Members FY10-11 EPMC% Current EPMC %
Chico Employees Association  $      128,340.54 79 4% 2%
SEIU – Trades & Craft  $      179,805.62 68 5% 5%
Confidentials  $        12,295.11 10 4% 0%
Management  $      216,952.12 56 4% 4%
Public Safety Management  $      119,193.35 9 9% 9%
CPSA  $      175,646.81 44 8% 8%
CPOA  $      727,452.38 91 9% 9%
IAFF  $      425,517.02 69 7% 7%
 $    1,985,202.95 426

The police and fire employees  complain that safety is at jeopardy due to budget cuts, but read the chart. You see,  if they’d pay the “employee share” of their pension premium, we could save those officers and that 2/3’s of a fire station that Nakamura is threatening because of the failure of Measure J. The police department alone gets well beyond the $900,000 that Nakamura is claiming the city will lose if they can’t tax our cell phones.

Look at their salaries – it would certainly be no skin off their nose to pay their own damned pensions. And, it would leave the city the revenues to hire the extra personnel they’ve been screaming for. And then we could stop paying overtime, and there would be money to hire almost as many more.

I got these figures because I rode my bicycle to an 8am meeting and asked a simple question.  

 

Last minute meeting reminder – Chico Taxpayers Association meets tomorrow at the Chico library, 9 – 10am

1 Dec

I don’t know what the weather will be like tomorrow morning but I will be over at the library at 9 am, trying to get up a discussion regarding the defeat of Measure J.  We should talk about this past Tuesday’s Finance Committee meeting and comments made by city attorney Laurie Barker regarding contacting the cell phone providers and also the possibility of refunds on revenues already collected.

Hopefully, we can get some letters going to Ann Schwab, the council, and the local newspapers, letting people know what’s going on Downtown, and encouraging them to contact Mayor Ann Schwab and tell her they want this matter handled promptly and correctly. By some fluke I’ve had two letters in the ER over the past week – I hope some other people will write. The letters section seems to be wide open these days. 

If we have time tomorrow morning, we might want to discuss Brian Nakamura’s persistent warnings about “unfunded pension liabilities.” At the Finance Committee meeting, Nakamura kept mentioning UPL’s, but never elaborated. He said he was going to talk about them at next Tuesday’s council meeting, but I see there’s nothing specific in the agenda, just “goal setting meetings. set dates”   I’m guessing Nakamura is trying to give us the bitter pill – he’s going to warn us that Brown wants the cities to pay more of their employees’ pensions.   Nakamura and Lando are going to use this as a reason to pass a sales tax increase, just watch them. We need to be mentally ready to run another NO campaign. 

I know the weather is bad, so if I don’t see you at the meeting, don’t worry, I’ll fill everybody in! 

Let’s make Scott Gruendl squeal like a pig

1 Dec

I love living in Northern California and these winter storms are part and parcel. I keep my house maintained and I try to watch the storm drains up and down my street because you can’t depend on the city to do anything until there’s a problem. All along the Manzanita corridor intersections have suffered severe flooding because the city isn’t cleaning the storm drains.  They make a lot of noise about leaf pick-up, allowing landscapers to dump tons of leaves in the street every year, but all it takes is a handful of leaves to plug a storm drain, and that’s what I’ve been seeing around town. 

The city has also allowed an enormous amount of development around town, especially along Big and Little Chico Creeks, without providing any kind of flood mitigation. That’s why you’re all getting notices right now. 

Meanwhile, they are blaming the defeat of Measure J for all their problems and getting ready to mount a campaign to raise your sales tax, starring Ann Schwab and  Scott Gruendl, and produced by Tom Lando and his fist-puppet Brian Nakamura.

Schwab and Gruendl are currently undertaking a scare campaign, with the help of the local media, to convince Chico voters that if they don’t pay more taxes, anarchy will reign in the streets of Chico and we’ll all be home-invasioned and carjacked. Ken Campbell says we complain too much. 

They’re also cutting street maintenance, and watch for the park to start looking pretty bad too. Those bread bags hanging out of those dog doo dispensers are looking like weird trash cans. Wait til we see old crappy bread bags laid alongside trails full of poop, that’s going to look good. 

You probably watched Kojak as a child, if you’re reading my blog. You know what a “protection racket” is, don’t you? 

Nakamura, like a broken record, keeps repeating the same words over and over: “To give you some perspective, $900,000 means seven to eight police officers or potentially two-thirds of an
operation of a fire station…”  
That fucker is threatening us. 

Maybe I need to put this in perspective: at the same meeting referenced  below, Jennifer Hennessy told us, we spend over $7 million a year paying  our employee’s pension premiums. She didn’t have the figure on health benefits.  

Yes, that’s just the “share”. The city only contributes 18 percent of the actual costs of these pensions, including the employee and employer shares.  The rest of the cost is what they called, “the unfunded pension obligation.” 

I’ll save you rereading those epic blogs I wrote about the Pension Bomb – the California Public Employees Retirement System – CalPERS – expected to fund 82 percent of these pensions by loading them into a little cart and sending them off to the stock market with Mr. Toad. Mr. Toad fell out before the got the cart off the runway, and every time the cart comes back around it’s full of nothing but I.O.U.’s – or rather – “we owe them’s”. CalPERS has lost 10’s of millions on the stock market, they’ve never made the returns they’ve promised, and now Governor Moonbeam is starting to talk about making the cities and counties pay their own pension obligations. 

Here’s a little slice of what that’s going to look like – these are just the top management pensions, current as of 2010. Yes, all these people are RETIRED. They do NOTHING but still get this money. 70 – 90 percent of their highest years earnings. The “warrant” amount means, their monthly check.  Right now, they are being paid out of RDA funds and off the premiums of lower level workers who pay more, but soon Jerry Brown will turn on us for this money. And guess what – we don’t have it! 

Name Employer Warrant Amount Annual
ALEXANDER, THOMAS E CHICO $8,947.23 $107,366.76
BAPTISTE, ANTOINE G CHICO $10,409.65 $124,915.80
BEARDSLEY, DENNIS D CHICO $8,510.23 $102,122.76
BROWN, JOHN S CHICO $17,210.38 $206,524.56
CARRILLO, JOHN A CHICO $10,398.98 $124,787.76
DAVIS, FRED CHICO $12,467.78 $149,613.36
DUNLAP, PATRICIA CHICO $10,632.10 $127,585.20
FELL, JOHN G CHICO $9,209.35 $110,512.20
FRANK, DAVID R CHICO $14,830.05 $177,960.60
GARRISON, FRANK W CHICO $8,933.56 $107,202.72
JACK, JAMES F CHICO $9,095.09 $109,141.08
KOCH, ROBERT E CHICO $9,983.23 $119,798.76
LANDO, THOMAS J CHICO $11,236.48 $134,837.76
MCENESPY, BARBARA L CHICO $12,573.40 $150,880.80
PIERCE, CYNTHIA CHICO $9,390.30 $112,683.60
ROSS, EARNEST C CHICO $9,496.60 $113,959.20
SCHOLAR, GARY P CHICO $8,755.69 $105,068.28
SELLERS, CLIFFORD R CHICO $9,511.11 $114,133.32
VONDERHAAR, JOHN F CHICO $8,488.07 $101,856.84
VORIS, TIMOTHY M CHICO $8,433.90 $101,206.80
WEBER, MICHAEL C CHICO $11,321.93 $135,863.16

This is what Gruendl doesn’t want to talk about.

Scott Gruendl is a sneaky little creep. The discussion in the meeting lasted less than five minutes, but after everybody was gone he sidled up to reporter Ashley Gebb and continued his threatening diatribe against the public. “After the meeting, Councilor Scott Gruendl said he was disappointed and a bit confused by the measure’s failure.  ‘The voters have sent a conflicting message,’  he said.  Citizens reportedly say they are concerned about
public safety and want more officers on the streets, yet they knew this revenue was tied to preventing cuts, he said.”

Gruendl has a selective hearing problem –  he is deaf to our concerns about salaries, benefits and pensions. 

When I questioned Jennifer Hennessy about the  shares, she told me what an employee pays toward their perks depends on what “unit” they’re in and what kind of “package” they choose. Most pay less than 5 percent toward their health package and NOTHING toward their pensions.  She also acknowledged that all our city councilors receive benefits packages paid by the taxpayers, for which they pay an amount equal to two percent of their city salaries.  For example, Gruendl receives a $16,935 health benefits package, for which he pays 2 percent of his $7,800 council salary – about $150 a year.  That in addition to his salary and benefits out of Glenn County, two other salaries from Chico State, and his partner’s salary. According to his Form 700, Gruendl takes over $140,000 in public money, not including benefits packages. I’m assuming his partner, who takes “between $10,001 – $100,000” as a supervisor at a local rest home, also gets a benefits package. 

This guy never ceases to amaze me. Ever hear a pig scream when you are late with that bucket? Well, there’s Gruendl for you. 

Here’s the article from the ER below.

More cuts to Chico police on the way?
By ASHLEY GEBB — Staff Writer
Posted: 11/29/2012 01:46:41 PM PST
CHICO — Chico voters’ defeat of a proposed change to the city’s telephone users tax almost inevitably will cause
cuts to public safety, members of the finance committee said this week.
Measure J asked voters whether to amend wording to the city’s phone tax to encompass modern technology such
as cellphones while decreasing the tax rate from 5 percent to 4.5 percent. The measure was voted down Nov. 6,
gaining only 46 percent of the vote.
The telephone users tax, like other utility taxes the city collects, supports the general fund. The city receives about
$1.4 million annually in phone tax revenue, of which $900,000 to $1 million comes from wireless
telecommunications providers and likely now will disappear.
Discussion of the impact was brief at Tuesday’s meeting but City Manager Brian Nakamura said the revenue loss
will be a significant hit to the general fund, which primarily supports public safety.
“To give you some perspective, $900,000 means seven to eight police officers or potentially two-thirds of an
operation of a fire station,” he said.
Cuts to public

safety have a trickle-down effect, he said.
“Public safety, that’s what drives economic development, with businesses wanting to locate here and residents
wanting to locate here,” he said.
Revenue loss is expected to start this year, said City Attorney Lori Barker, who plans to bring the topic to the City
Council in December for discussion.
The issue will be determining the loss’ size and
where to adjust the budget, Barker said. The city will
also need to address how it will deal with any
refund requests and notifying phone providers.
Until specific legalities are ironed out, Finance
Director Jennifer Hennessy said the Finance
Department will hold any revenue from phone
companies in an account.
After the meeting, Councilor Scott Gruendl said he
was disappointed and a bit confused by the
measure’s failure.
“The voters have sent a conflicting message,” he
said.
Citizens reportedly say they are concerned about
public safety and want more officers on the streets,
yet they knew this revenue was tied to preventing
cuts, he said.
“People are going to blame us for taking cops off
the streets,” he said. “I’m OK with being blamed
because I’m an elected official, but I voted yes on Measure J.”
Proponents of Measure J said its passage was critical to protect tax revenue, while opponents argued it was a
regressive tax that unfairly targeted students and economically disadvantaged.
Options to address the revenue loss through negotiations will be limited, Gruendl said.

“Part of where my disappointment is, is the unions who are affected by Measure J did absolutely nothing,” Gruendl
said.
This revenue loss is not the only fiscal challenge the city faces, Nakamura said. Several other issues coming
forward will have to be addressed, and he anticipates a significant budget discussion will take place in January.