Tag Archives: Scott Gruendl Chico Ca

Scott Gruendl calls defeat of Measure J a threat to the constitution – where did we get this guy?

6 Apr

I have to say, I did not support Toby Schindelbeck’s request for the city to make a resolution supporting the Second Amendment because I get sick and freaking tired of these resolutions and proclamations. But I have to hand it to Toby, he sure got a conversation out of it. The most interesting part for me was Scott Gruendl’s assertion that the defeat of the cell phone tax was “a threat to the constitution.” 

“but I believe there are threats to our constitution that go far beyond the second amendment.  I think they’re constant, I think they’re regular, and I think our affirmation of our oath of office is something we are confronted  with on a regular basis, and the Second Amendment is part of that, but it’s not the only part of it. One simple example  – we had a defeat of measure J that results in about  $25 in tax savings for the average public member, but for me, I have a tax rate that’s about 150 times that that’s imposed on me by the federal government because of a constitutional interpretation (his voice starts breaking here, as if he’s going to cry).  I don’t see the Chico Taxpayer’s Association standing up for my tax injustice and that’s just one example of what we’re confronted with on a regular basis…”

When I heard that on the video, I was shocked. I had to listen to it over and over to get it down, but that’s pretty much it. I punctuated the natural pauses in Scott’s voice, but I’m pretty sure I got it word for word. Let’s just take this thing apart, piece by piece, and try to make nonsense of it.

First of all, I just had a e-mail chat with Frank Fields over in the city finance office on this past Thursday. I asked him again, how many refund applications had been received as of that day, and what’s the average refund amount. Scott keeps using that $25 figure, the same figure he and Ann Schwab put in their “argument in favor” of Measure J. From Frank Fields:

“Ms. Sumner:

 

To date, the City has issued 157 refunds at an average of $50.81.  However, please note that six of those refunds were to business which obviously end up with larger refunds.  Excluding the six businesses, the average refund is $38.50.

 

Please let me know if you have further questions.

 

Frank”

That’s an interesting point Frank makes, but it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to worry about how these people  ran up their phone bills – they may have a business, or they may have family in Germany, I don’t care whether they use their phone for business or pleasure or to save a life.  It doesn’t matter how they run up the bill on which their tax is based, it only matters that 157 cell phone customers have applied for and received an average refund of $50.81, not the $25 Gruendl keeps claiming. In fact, we’re talking “average” here people – those businesses were taken for a lot more than $50 a year. When my family had AT&T, for three phones, our yearly UT was about $87.

And then Gruendl goes completely off the deep end with his walk through the dog park regarding threats to the constitution. The rest of his little peeve is just, well, crazy.  He says a group of citizens working to defeat a tax measure brought forth by government officials is “a threat to the constitution”? Whose constitution is he talking about?

“I have a tax rate 150 time that…”  Again, what is he talking about? 150 times…what? $25?

“that’s imposed on me by the federal government because of a constitutional interpretation…”  Is he talking about the gay marriage discussion? I thought the feds were going his way the last time I heard. Is he complaining that he is not allowed to write his partner off on his taxes? I have no idea of the law there, but I know “domestic partnership” has been accepted for some time – it’s in the cop contracts, and it’s on the paper work my kids bring home from Butte College. And, he complains that the CTA has never “stood up” for his “tax injustice” – well, Scott, we’ve never been asked. I’m not even sure what your “tax injustice”  is.

Here’s my “tax injustice” – I have to pay a salary and benefits for this ass Gruendl, I buy him a $21,000 a year health insurance policy, for which he pays $156 a year.  My cousins in Glenn County pay him about $103,000 a year and also give him a health benefits and pension package, for which he pays little or nothing. And now, he stands up before the citizens of this town and complains that he pays more taxes than the rest of us? This guy is a piece of work.

Maybe what he really means is, he gets more taxes than the rest of us – the 150 times figure might actually work there!

And then there’s the injustice of being limited to three minutes, even one minute!  to state my concerns and then have to listen to this crap-mouth rattle on at will, without any response from the public.  He’s allowed to say whatever he wants!  I’m not the only one who gets sick of these little diatribes. Here’s Bob Speer, from this past Thursdays News and Review –  – ” But it’s true, as critics often charge, that some council members, including Goloff, don’t always apply standards of brevity to themselves. They should take lessons from Councilmen Mark Sorensen and Sean Morgan, who quickly say their pieces and shut up. It’s a sign of respect, and those of us in the audience appreciate it.“

I’ll say further, they don’t stay on topic, they use the podium to abuse members of the public who don’t agree with their agenda,  and they spread misinformation, all of which I’d say about Scott’s little rant.

And here’s the creepiest thing about that meeting Tuesday night: Gruendl and Goloff requested and got a list of the folks who spoke on the Second Amendment resolution request. Why would they need that?

UPDATE:

Today, at the First Sunday meeting, we were talking about the rules for council discussions. During this past Tuesday’s city council meeting, we found that the mayor is allowed to re-open the public hearing. When this was suggested by Sean Morgan during the eminent domain discussion, there was a moment of confusion. Mary Goloff said she was not able to reopen the public hearing, but Lori Barker interrupted that it certainly was allowed. That’s something to remember in future. 

Also, there was mention of a rule that limited the council members to three minutes – this I will have to check into, but it would certainly be worth it. 

Tags: , , ,

They can’t fix our streets because they’ve taken up all the money for their salaries

25 Mar

The city of Chico is currently perpetrating a sewer scam on residents all over town. They’re telling people septic tanks are causing a nitrate problem in our groundwater, but that was proven false about 20 years ago.  Ask Jane Dolan – back in the 90’s, when the city tried to force all kinds of people onto sewer, she and others asserted correctly that the nitrates in our drinking water were coming from cattle ranching above town and fertilizer use along Chico Creek.  The project was dropped.

But, I sat in on a meeting years back with Colleen Jarvis, Dan Nguyen-tan, and current city councilor Scott Gruendl, during which they expressed the need not only to raise the monthly fee for sewer, but the need to get more people on sewer  in order to pay for the expansion of the sewer plant out by the river. 

There is so much to this story, I hate to tell it. I just heard more at another meeting Downtown recently. See, if you’re on sewer, your poop goes to this plant out in the orchards west of town, you can smell it for miles when you drive out there toward Scotty’s or head for Willows. There it is “treated” – read up on that yourself – basically, the sewer treatment plant has nothing on septic tanks, it IS just a big septic tank. 

The difference being, after your poop goes through your septic tank, it is leached into your yard. When it goes to the sewer plant, it is sent to the Sacramento River.   The pipe leads to leach lines buried under the river bed. 

One problem here being, the leach lines lay just about exactly where M&T Ranch pumps water for their huge agricultural and animal preserve operation.  Also, the river naturally “meanders,” and this has left Chico’s sewer leach lines “high and dry” several times, resulting in millions of our city dollars being spent on re-doing the lines. This seems to happen about every 10 years. The manager from M&T recently came to a meeting Downtown, where he described a plan to stabilize the river banks by building these enormous rock “jetties,” but he didn’t say who was going to PAY FOR IT. He did say the Sacramento River Conservancy is dead against this project and they’ll fight in court – more $$$$$$$!

I’ll tell you another problem I made them admit at the meeting – the sewer plant has “accidents” – funny word, huh? Cause “accident” means, during a big rainstorm, raw sewage can be and often is discharged into the river. Ask any River Rat, they’ll tell you their turd cloud story. It seems to stick together, as it floats in the river, like a brown cloud. What is that? you ask yourself – yes, I’ve seen human turds floating in the river, and too many to have been just some old fisherman crapping off the side of his boat. 

But the city of Chico has managed to perpetrate the sewer scam on the unwitting – in fact, a friend of mine over in Chapmantown was “allowed”, along with many neighbors, to hook up free of charge! No hook up fees, that’s how desperate they are to get people on the system. Cause once your house is hooked up, it’s a guaranteed fee every month, a fee they can raise at will. The meeting I sat in on with Gruendl, Nguyen-tan and Jarvis was about just that – raising sewer fees to cover the cost of expanding the sewer system so the state would allow us to build more housing. Jarvis argued they should raise the fee immediately, some $15 a month – “let’s be honest with people,” she said –  but Nguyen-tan and Gruendl, cagey bastards – they didn’t want to piss people off, they wanted to raise it incrementally. They won. 

I’ll tell you what Jarvis wasn’t being honest about, was the reason. She would have let people go on thinking this move to sewer was for public health when it was really about revenues for the city. She was a pretty cagey old broad herself. And if you disagree, you didn’t know her, so shut the hell up.  

And now they’re winning the silent battle to get more people on sewer, even when there’s absolutely nothing wrong with their septic tanks. A well-maintained septic tank should cost you less than $100 a year, while sewer will cost you some $40 a month.  And you’re not paying for service, you’re paying salaries Downtown.

Yes, they need the money badly Downtown. They aren’t even paying for the sewer upgrade, they’re paying their own salaries. This is another problem Downtown – they were paying many salaries and benefits and pension premiums out of the recently disbanded RDA. The RDA had a credit card, and they spent wildly on whatever they wanted – one year they gave developer Tom DiGiovanni $7 million in RDA money, that’s how wild.  The new successor agency is limited to about a million and a half a year.

Would you believe, they were even paying the city council salaries out of the RDA?  

So, now, $106,000 a year engineer Bob Greenlaw says they don’t have any money to repair the streets. That’s the same song I’ve been hearing Downtown for years. At one meeting, Jennifer Hennessy said, point blank, the gas tax receipts, which we were told were legally supposed to be spent on road maintenance, are spent instead on salaries Downtown.

This city council and $taff are handing us nothing but bullshit.  If you people reelect Gruendl and Goloff  in 2014, you’re saying, “Yes Mother, may I have another!” 

Here’s the story from the Enterprise Record:

By ASHLEY GEBB-Staff Writer
Posted:   03/24/2013 01:30:12 AM PDT
CHICO — While Chico residents lament residential road conditions, officials say the damage was not caused by the nitrate compliance project, and is not fixable anytime soon, thanks to limited funding.Residents on Pillsbury Road reached out to the city this week with complaints about potholes and broken pavement they say is the result of a state-mandated project to convert residents from septic to city sewer.

But, those roads — like many others throughout Chico — were in disrepair long before the project, said senior civil engineer Bob Greenlaw.

Construction does exacerbate conditions, but funding restrictions limit the cash-strapped city from making better improvements, he said.

“It’s not that we are not paying attention to this, but right now the funds are there for the most part to patch things up and keep them safe,” he said. “Those are our priorities — is the road safe, is it stable? Does it look good? No. Does it ride good? Ehh, maybe not the best.”

The nitrate project is funded by a state revolving fund loan that limits fund uses, Greenlaw said. Repairing or overlaying the entire roadway after sewer lines are laid is not an eligible use.

That’s little consolation for some residents.

“I don’t see how it makes sense to leave us with streets in such horrible condition,” said Jane Evraets, a 33-year-resident of Pillsbury Road. “Maybe it’s not a good idea to tear up something if you can’t put it back together to where it’s decent.”Now that contractors are mostly finished, main trunk and laterals are filled with fresh asphalt but the surrounding road is pocked with cracks and holes.

“Our roads have been destroyed,” said Sylvia Brock, who has lived in the neighborhood for 28 years. “They weren’t perfect but they were a heck of a lot better than they are now.”

She attended every public meeting about the project and said the city has not upheld its promises.

“They were supposed to restore the roads to pre-existing conditions,” she said.

Brock and Evraets would like to think attention to the problem will change it, but they have their doubts.

“We’ve been given no hope. No one has said, ‘In X amount of time,’ or ‘We are working on it,'” Evraets said. “It’s, ‘We hear you, but there is no money.'”

Residents near Enloe Medical Center addressed the City Council in January with similar complaints and were given a similar answer.

Near Enloe, the $500,000 to $1 million cost to resurface and make other improvements to a 12-block area was to be funded by the Redevelopment Agency. When that funding source dissolved, the project came to a halt.

It and other projects throughout the city, such as streets that needed resurfacing before the nitrate project, remain on a to-do list.

“The public always saw some roads being paved before through different sources of funds but those are now really limited,” Greenlaw said. “Now, it’s down to either the grant funds … or gas tax, and that’s not been available.

Some roads might have been slated for resurfacing back when funding was available but it was postponed because of the nitrate project. The city didn’t want to invest in resurfacing only to tear up the roads again. “The city definitely has a desire to freshen up the roadway surfaces and not just in the nitrate areas but in all roadways within its jurisdiction,” Greenlaw said, noting the city has 300 miles of streets, 187 of which are residential.

He expects staff soon will present the council with road infrastructure conditions, funding needs and a ranking of necessary projects. The city can then develop a multi-year plan for improvements.

“These are not the conditions we would like to keep the roads in,” Greenlaw said. “We will get out there and get back to it, but it’s going to take a little while.”

Tags: , , , ,

The figures are in – Schwab, Gruendl and Goloff just flat LIED about Measure J

12 Mar

As most of you probably remember, Measure J, the cell phone tax measure, was promoted by Ann Schwab, Scott Gruendl, and Mary Goloff. I really have to hand it to them – they were the only ones with the balls of brass to put their names on this obvious money grab.  That doesn’t mean I have anything but contempt for this group, I’m just saying, I’d hand “it” to them, “it” being a big turd.

In the argument they posted in favor of the cell phone tax, Ann, Scott and Mary claimed, ” A loss of $900,000 a year would result in reduced police and fire services, road maintenance and park funds.’

Where’d they get that figure? In the same argument, they cited “the average cell phone bill of $50 per month…”. I remember doing the math, and asking, “how could that add up to $900,000 a year?” My husband said it was possible, but I had to remind him – only AT&T and Metro PCS – the two cheapest cell phone providers out there – collected the tax. How many people in Chico use those providers? We don’t know, but it’s hard to figure how these two providers, who cater to welfare recipients and other low-income customers, could possibly come up with $900,000 a year in tax.

Well, they couldn’t. In subsequent discussions, finance department employee Frank Fields estimated a truer figure of $600,000/year, and, at a December council meeting, Finance Director Jennifer Hennessy reported the actual figure at $500,000. Yes, exactly $500,000, no odd dollars or cents. Go figure.

This whole discussion has been highly questionable. So you know Stephanie Taber, she did the asking. She stood up at the end of the meeting and asked very pointed questions about the figuring for Measure J. Crickets chirped.  Mayor Mary Goloff thanked Stephanie but neither offered answers of her own nor questioned $taff. So, Stephanie had to e-mail her questions to Brian Nakamura, Jennifer Hennessy, and the council.  The first two deal with Measure J, I didn’t include the others because I want to focus here on Measure J. I’ll  get back to the others.

Stephanie’s letter begins, “Perhaps you were unable to jot down the questions that I asked so here they are again:

1) What/who is the source of information that is now being used to verify the $500 loss (or whatever the current figure is) in revenue due to the defeat of Measure J?  At the offset of the proposal there was no definitive way of separating how much revenue was received based solely of cell phone calls and texting and how much on land line costs.  At least that was my understanding.

2) Are telephone tax collections a separate revenue line item that can be compared month-to-month and year to date?

(Questions 3 and 4 left out)

Stephanie Taber

On Sunday evening Silly Manager Brian Nakamura e-mailed back, saying, “I wanted to share that Ms. Hennessy has provided draft answers for me to review and share and its my delay that is slowing down the response to your questions.”  And he said he’d get back to Stephanie, which I assume Stephanie will clue us in there when she has something.

In the meantime, she answered Nakamura, ” As to the comparison one year against another to verify the $900K lost as a result of the defeat of Measure J, it would be of value to have that specific item as part of the quarterly report since a lot of taxpayers are skeptical of the figure. “

Yes, a lot of taxpayers are skeptical of that $900,000  figure – we’re damned sick of hearing it repeated. The News and Review used it in a February editorial, even after they’d printed Frank Field’s estimate back in November. I asked Robert Speer about it when I sent in a letter last week, he printed my letter and thanked me for it, but did not respond to my remark about the $900,000 figure.

What is this – the Big Lie? They think if they just keep repeating that figure, we’ll buy it hook, line and sinker? Well, that probably works when they’ve got both newspapers and the tv station to go along with them.  We need to get some folks writing letters, demanding answers to the “creative bookkeeping” they’re using Downtown. Ask questions people!

I did some asking – last week I dropped another note to Frank Fields over in Finance. I asked him, again, how many people have applied for and received cell phone tax refunds, and what’s the average refund amount? Frank is a sport, he got right back to me:

Ms. Sumner,
 
To date, we’ve processed 91 refund applications averaging $52.65 each.  In addition, I have another 10 or so applications waiting to be processed.
 
Finally, we’ll be posting the “UUT refund application” for the annual UUT refund program in the next couple of weeks.
 

Frank

Vielen Dank Frankster, that is just what I suspected above.  If the average refund is $52.65, that works out to $4.38 a month in tax – almost twice the figure Schwab, Gruendl and Goloff stated in their “argument for.” That would also make the average bill about $87 – again, almost twice the figure stated in the “argument for.” 

From the voter’s manual: “This rate, if applied to the average cell phone bill of $50 per month, would equate to a monthly charge of $2.25 as opposed to the current charge of $2.50.”

Boy, there it is – as Al Franken would put it, “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” 

And here’s the link to that refund application:

http://www.chico.ca.us/documents/CellPhoneRefundApplication_011713.pdf

Tags: , , , , , ,

CTA meeting rescheduled – no First Sunday meeting this month – Second Sunday meeting instead!

4 Jan

I’m sorry to be a flake, Folks, but I will not be able to make the regularly scheduled Chico Taxpayer’s meeting, so the gang has agreed to meet Sunday after next – that’s January 13 – same time, 9am.

I’ve been wanting to talk over the unfunded pension liabilities, and our campaign to get city employees to pay their own “employee share”. We need to discuss the whole notion of who pays what regarding benefits/pensions. I believe the employees should get ready to pay more, a lot more, or get ready to give up this notion of 70-90 percent of their highest year’s salary at 50 – 55 years of age. 

A decent person would not expect others to pay these salaries and benefits, it’s just greed people. 

So, I hope to see hear some productive ideas on January 13, get a letter writing campaign going, try to get council to listen to reason. 

Plan B? There’s another election coming up in two years, and now’s the time to look for suitable replacements for Scott Gruendl and Mary Goloff. 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Juanita Q. Public

2 Jan

Today, glutton for punishment that I am, I got on old Myrt my 3-speed and headed out for another meeting Downtown.  At least this meeting was at 9am instead of 8am. I won’t lie – the park is not pleasant before 9am these days, it’s brain-freezing  cold on a bike, and the trails are slicker than (my dad would say ‘shit’) banana pudding. Old Myrt has skinny little tires, and her brakes are sketchy. She’s a fine lady, unsuited to the wilderness trails, but she does alright, I’ll say. 

This meeting was the oversight board for the Successor Agency to the Chico Redevelopment Agency. You might remember, the RDA was dismembered by the state last year, cause they were spending too much money, on stuff that wasn’t appropriate. The city of Chico had  been pilfering the RDA fund for all kinds of  stuff – essentially, they were using the RDA like a credit card to pay for stuff like those GD “spirit flags” that sit in that median over on Forest Avenue.  In the end, we found out, they were paying salaries and benefits with money that is supposed to be limited to egregious cases of blight and other “emergencies.” 

Today I found out, this money, collected out of our property taxes, is being used to pay salaries Downtown.  According to one report titled “Amended Enforceable Obligation Payment Schedule”, $445,166 was spent on “RDA Housing Admin Staffing Costs,” “various employees.”   

One employee who is “100 percent paid” out of the RDA is Senior Planner and Housing and Neighborhood Services employee Shawn Tillman. Tillman is the staffer committed to the RDA Successor Agency oversight board. Because of his assignment to the oversight board, his salary (as of 2010 he was making around $93,000/year) is taken entirely out of the Successor Agency. 

Remember, the Successor Agency, like the RDA, is funded by bonds on your property taxes. That’s borrowed money, and there’s interest – I’ve heard the formula described as, for every dollar spent, we pay $3.   So, to me, this is like paying your rent and your everyday expenses on your credit card, while still spending on things like dining out and partying, giving expensive gifts, buying new clothes all the time, etc.  That’s a doomsday scenario for an individual. If your loved one or friend, even co-worker,  was spending money that way, you’d be thinking “INTERVENTION TIME!”  You certainly would not be wise to loan a person like that money – in fact, you would be “an enabler.” 

So, here we are, enabling city $taff to live high on the hog during a recession, damn the torpedoes – “we NEED these salaries!” I read an article from the city of Hemet, the town from which we stole away our lovely and vivacious $212,000 a year city manager, in which one of their police officers answered demands for a salary freeze, saying, “we have MORTGAGES!” Well, yeah, you sure do. You public employee assholes drove up the price of everybody’s mortgage with your crazy salaries. You didn’t think, “wow, is this good for the public economy?” No, you just went right out and bought that $800,000 crib that is today worth $400,000. Well, really, $250,000. I got a secret for you – it was never worth more than $100,000, you just got yourself shagged. And you screwed the housing market in our town in doing so, thankyouverymuch. You drove up the price of everything from cars to eggs and milk, daycare and other services too. 

So, excuse me Mr./Ms. Public Worker, while I get my little violin out and play a little tune for your financial problems. You created EVERYBODY’S financial problems, so suck it up. 

During the meeting, Larry Wahl asked just how many salaries, and whose, were being paid out of the SA – Tillman got up on his little ratty hindquarters here, and told Wahl that  he wasn’t required to report that!  Well, given that $445,000 a year figure, and the $93,000 figure for Tilman, we have to wonder – is Dani Brinkley, the city clerk assigned to the oversight board – also paid out of the SA? And what about their benefits? 

Today’s meeting was supposed to be a public hearing, required to be held at least five business days prior to an upcoming meeting regarding the acceptance of an audit done of the agency. I noticed I was the only member of the public in attendance, so I asked, how had they noticed this meeting? You’d think, if there’s a requirement for a public hearing, there’d be a requirement for noticing. No, said Shawn Tillman and Dani Brinkley – the SA has none of the requirement for public noticing that most government boards are held to. I’m not sure, but I think Tillman said this was a decision made by the Chico City Council. 

They don’t seem to take this “public hearing” stuff too seriously – Chair Scott Gruendl did not even show up. 

Vice-chair Trevor Stewart, of the Butte-Glenn Community College District, said “this is a regularly scheduled meeting” – so there was no need for public notice. Brinkley added that she posted a copy of the agenda by the front door of the chamber building – wow, that’s some high technology there! She says people can request to be e-mailed the agenda, no charge.  That’s DBrinkle@ci.chico.ca.us. Please e-mail Dani and request an agenda for each monthly meeting. 

They won’t take the public seriously until the public starts taking itself seriously. 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Chico’s very own “fiscal cliff”

26 Dec

Today I attended the monthly Finance Committee meeting to participate in the ongoing bullshit session regarding our very own “fiscal cliff.” 

For months now committee members Scott Gruendl, Mary Goloff, and Mark Sorensen have sat through a monthly presentation regarding our tense financial future.  New City Manager Brian Nakamura has been trying to politely but firmly shove a single concept down their throats – the “unfunded pension liablity.” 

The UPL is the amount of money that we have agreed to pay our city employees in retirement, but we don’t really have it.  Our city leaders, encouraged by $taff, went along with a scheme hatched by the California Public Employees Retirement System, promising public employees 70 – 90% of their highest year’s earnings with little or no investment on their parts.

CalPERS told cities and other public entities all over California that they could pay only 14 – 18 % of the actual cost of these packages, and the rest would come rolling in from clever stock market investments. Many public entities bought onto this stupidity. It looked very good the first year or so, with 22 percent returns. But after returns like that, you can always expect the market to “correct” itself, and CalPERS has since lost millions of dollars. They’ve  been bailed out once by the state, asking the feds for a second bailout a couple of years later (I don’t know how that turned out). 

Now CalPERS is increasing our “contribution”. Over the last few years the city’s “share” of the premium has grown from about 26 % (of the cost of the package) to about 31%. That’s millions of dollars a year. And, our city council has signed contracts guaranteeing we would pay not only the “employer’s share,” but most or all of the “employee share” as well.

Today Jennifer Hennessy told me that the city pays 7% of the “non-safety” employees’ 8% share, and ALL of the “safety” employees’ share – 9%. 

I know, last month I told you, I had asked Jennifer Hennessy for a dollar amount on that “employees’ share” of the pensions. At that meeting she had told me, $7 million. Later she corrected herself via e-mail, and she used the word “pensions,” specifically. She said the actual amount was $10.1 million. 

But, reading the minutes of that meeting recently, I noticed they’d written “pensions and benefits.” I’d asked that question very carefully. I’d written it down on my notebook the day previous, and practiced saying it clearly and correctly. I said “pensions” at the meeting, and Hennessy said “pensions” in her e-mail. These are two different amounts, health insurance is a different plan.  So, I asked for clarification this morning.

I was told Hennessy had meant “pensions and benefits.” “Pensions are a subset of benefits… ” she said. But, they’re paid separately, they’re different plans, I asked specifically about “pensions.”  I start to feel like I’m just getting the runaround at these meetings. What I finally got was, we pay about $10 million toward pension premiums annually – including roughly $2 million toward the “employee share”.

The whole meeting was a runaround. Why Gruendl would schedule a meeting for the day after Christmas is beyond me. Unless of course, he wanted to discourage people from attending? The discussion was worthless, just a rehash of the discussion had at the meeting in October. New city manager, Brian Nakamura, was not even present – neither were Assistant City Manager John Rucker nor City Clerk Debbie Presson. When I attended last month, they had the same agenda, but another non-discussion. 

They’re just spinning their wheels on this. They’ve had to have seen this coming, it’s been predicted by economists since 1999.   An issue is so important, you need to schedule a meeting for 8am the day after Christmas, but it’s not important enough to DO ANYTHING about? 

I asked Gruendl why the city employees weren’t being asked to pay their own shares. He ducked my question, and  tried to tell me that new legislation that would affect future hires would “forbid” public employers from paying “employees’ share,” but Lori Barker cut in to say, this was not a law, merely a suggestion.  SHEESH! 

At one point during the meeting, Gruendl actually suggested it’s a good thing we’re laying off employees – it lowers expenses, that’s for sure! But he doesn’t mention the corresponding drop in service levels. There’s pot holes on my street you could break a leg in.

That’s their only answer – cut services in a chicken match with the public to see who will cave first. Gruendl is counting on us to knuckle under and pay more taxes to support the increases in our employees’  retirement contribution. 

Ironically, all this on the heels of a 10 minute discussion of the loss of Measure J – another rehash from last month, and the month before. Again they lamented the loss of an estimated $900,000 a year – although, Hennessy said this year’s loss would only “actually” be $500,000 – and then turned around and talked about a $63 million liability for these obscene pensions they’ve promised. The $2 million we pay toward the “employee share” would more than cover the “loss” of Measure J, but I was unable to shoehorn this idea into their heads. They have an agenda, and they’re sticking to it. 

If you don’t think this really stinks, if this doesn’t make you really mad, then you need to take your temperature. Or better yet – stick a fork in your ass – you’re done! 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

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?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

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. 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

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.

Tags: , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →