 |
 |
By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sonoma County supervisors are set to resume budget hearings Monday and decide how many of 58 high-priority jobs and programs they can save from their own budget cuts.
To what extent supervisors can make those restorations — totalling about $7.5 million — depends largely on the outcome of talks this weekend with employee groups over a proposed set of furloughs, mandatory days off without pay.
The county estimates that up to $6 million could be saved through 12 days of furloughs in the next fiscal year, starting July 1.
Mike Kerns
Four supervisors last week expressed support for the furloughs as a way to avoid the full complement of deep program cuts, including 95 layoffs and elimination of 156 vacant positions, the board has tentatively approved to partially close a $61.6 million deficit in the county’s $395 million general fund.
“The mandatory time off is critical for us,” said Supervisor Mike Kerns. “Without it, we’re just not going to have the funding to restore jobs and services.”
County Administrator Veronica Ferguson said Friday that the furlough proposal was “a humane approach” that would allow officials to scale down government over the course of several years instead of what she called a one-year “fire sale.”
Supervisor Paul Kelley, meanwhile, has been alone on the board in criticizing the furlough proposal, saying it’s a short-term fix that doesn’t help the county deal with what could be a long-term structural deficit.
By the county’s own estimates, property tax revenue, the main source of local money, will be flat or anemic in growth over the next couple years while government costs will continue to rise. In 2011, the trend could lead to a general fund deficit of $17 million, growing to $31 million by 2014.
Paul Kelley
“If we’re going to make structural changes to county operations, that means reducing our workforce,” Kelley said in an interview advocating for layoffs and job cuts. “Delaying the inevitable doesn’t help anyone.”
With the exception of three unions and three non-union employee groups, including management, supervisors and some human resources staff, county workers have not been quick to agree to the furloughs.
Sonoma County prosecutors, in particular, were singled out last week by several supervisors for what they said was the group’s failure to come to the bargaining table on the furloughs.
The Sonoma County Prosecutors’ Association fired back in a letter to supervisors and the county administrator on Thursday, calling any characterization of a supposed impasse with the group “inaccurate and misleading.”
The group, which represents deputy district attorneys, said they were committed to negotiations with the county.
But they also complained that “specialized considerations” — the legal demands of prosecutors’ jobs, large personal debts from law school and the money they say prosecutors must pay for their own job training because of a freeze in staff development funds — made the county’s furlough deal a concern for their members.
“We do not have an option to ‘do less with less’,” the letter stated.
The association was alone among 11 bargaining units in not agreeing to a five-day furlough package for the current fiscal year, according to county officials.
The prosecutors’ association, the Deputy Sheriff’s Association and and the roughly 2,000-member SEIU Local 1021, the county’s largest union, all have been involved in closed-door talks with county negotiators since Friday.
At that time, the one-year savings from employees who have agreed to the furloughs amounted to more than $2.8 million. In the sum available to supervisors for the job restorations, another $1.6 million could come from funds the board awards to projects and groups throughout the year.
The consenting unions included the 540-member Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association, the roughly 200-member Engineers and Scientists of California Local 20 IFPTE and the Western Council of Engineers, which represents about 40 county workers.
Whether or not more groups sign on before a deadline Monday — one day before supervisors will vote on the $1.18 billion budget — could depend on several factors, union officials said.
Chief among them is employees’ opinion of the effective pay cut that results from the furloughs. Among unions already on board, for the 12 days, it amounts to about 4.6 percent of annual pay.
“That gets to be the kind of money you notice in your check,” said Lisa Maldonado, executive director of the North Bay Labor Council, which includes two of the consenting unions and SEIU Local 1021.
Some groups that stand to lose unfilled positions but not actual workers in the budget cuts could hold off on the furloughs for that exact reason, Maldonado said.
“As painful as it is to lose positions, it’s generally much worse to have people working not being able to pay their rent or medical bills,” she said.
For its part, the prosecutors association stands to lose four vacant deputy district attorney positions in the budget cuts.
When asked whether the lack of actual layoffs might influence his group’s stance on furloughs, Craig Brooks, president of Sonoma County Prosecutors’ Association, said “I don’t think that’s a fair question.”
“We’ve already given up positions,” Brooks said, noting the loss of three prosecutors slots in the current budget. “The county already has a balanced budget and we already do the work of (other) vacant positions. This is not a matter of saving positions or people. It’s about sustainable budgets in the future.”
Furloughs, he added, “are a stop-gap fix.”
But Clites, the SCLEA president, said employee groups should be wary of public blow-back if they hold out furloughs and the resulting layoffs end up impacting county services.
“It’s a little naive to say ‘You’ve got a balanced budget and we’re done,’ ” he said. “We would look terrible in the public’s eye if we weren’t willing to give anything up.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
So “it works perfectly in the private sector” huh, Steele. You mean the private sector where big ceos crashed and burned our economy and then got huge bonuses? This is not the time to be holding up private business practices as an example…unless its an example of WHAT NOT TO Do
I can smell Greece burning from my house.
These “fixes” are all deemed temporary until our economy GROWS again. Then we’ll have the tax revenues to support the services we need, supposedly. In the short term, public sector workers are being scapegoated for our financial crisis, which if you were being thoughtful, they did not cause.
Yes, benefits are part of a total pay package. Just because private sector workers have been pillaged to the point of poverty doesn’t mean the right thing to do is bring everyone else down to their economic level. While that would appear to be fair, it is neither smart nor insightful.
While people are losing their jobs, schools are closing and shrinking, parks are being closed, fees are going up, and services are disappearing, some folks are doing quite well. Anything wrong with this picture? Imagine extending these circumstances for a few more years, while things get worse.
It is not necessary to bind an economy to GROWTH, any more than it is to found one on greed (same thing?). How about creating an economy based on fiscal sustainability instead? Using policy to limit the income gap in favor of a thriving public economy would be smart planning. Whenever I hear someone talk about how the problems will be over when the economy grows again, I get afraid. Why, when that system has failed us so badly, so many times, would we continue to perpetuate it?
We may have to lose some jobs and some benefits right now, but doing so with an eye toward returning to our previous system would be fatal for our democracy. We need to have a new goal in mind, and the willingness to bridge divides to get there.
Lay offs, pay cuts, and eliminating unfunded benefit liabilities are the way to go. It works perfectly in the private sector and is taught to business majors on their first day.
The idea that market forces keep private and public compensation in rough proximity reads better on the page than it conforms to reality.
Recent studies have documented what common sense suggests, compensation for public employees has veered far from that offered in most comparable private-sector fields. Once upon a time public employees received lower cash salaries in return for more generous fringe benefits and better job security. No more. The pension and fringe benefit gap has widened significantly, while the cash compensation difference has disappeared in most fields.
This fact is further borne out by the stunning number of people who typically apply for city and county job openings, and then by the low turnover rate of existing employees, at least until they hit the full-pension mark.
1) People like “Umustbkidding” are under the misguided inference that the Price in the labor market is strictly salary and not the total compensation package. If a person making $60K in salary at the county is actually paid $100K a year in total compensation then his counterpart in private industry is likely paid a similar total compensation with a different mix of salary plus fringe.
2) The labor market is no different than any other market (albeit with stickier prices) in that you get what you pay for. This is exactly why it is dangerous and a short term solution to try to balance a budget on pay cuts and furloughs. As demand in the macro labor market increases, the first people to leave the county (or any employer) will be the highest performers, if they perceive more utility (i.e. total compensation, security, etc) with another employer.
3) The biggest problem with furloughs as a solution is that they are administered in an autocratic, top-down manner with no regard for individual department’s needs or funding mechanisms. There are many departments who are not financed by the General Fund (where the deficit exists), yet they are swept up in this “one size fits all” approach that in some cases actually hurts them. Of course a solution that wasn’t one size fits all would take way too much thoughtfulness and would make for a terrible sound bite.
Eliminate overtime pay? Wouldn’t be needed if staffing was adequate to deliver the services the public has come to expect. You could also eliminate sick leave and vacation time – and there would be no budget problem. Let’s go all the way back to the 1800′s. It would be the conservative thing to do.
You do all realize that this economic downturn was caused by financial and corporate criminals who are NOT IN JAIL? Not even being indicted, as far as I know. Yet they’re getting billions in bonuses for WHAT?
Or let’s just put BP in charge, after we apologize for “shaking them down” for Gulf spill cleanup costs and compensation. Ask them in Alaska about the monetary settlement for the Exxon Valdez “accident.”
You should also realize that many County employees are highly educated professionals who have huge student loans and have to pay out of their own pockets to maintain certifications. Or they could refuse to do this and become unemployed because they’re not certified?
Bankruptcy does not get you out of student loans.
Meanwhile health insurance direct costs to County employees and retirees are up roughly 70% in the last year.
I KNOW lots of private sector people are in worse shape, but it takes special education, skills and attitude about public service to hold most of these County jobs. As it stands, there is every incentive for talented people to relocate to places where the cost of living is less. This is not a long-term solution, either.
Please direct your anger towards the people, politicians and policies that caused these condtions. Not the local employees who try to serve you.
So sick of cliches and hackneyed talking points from Fox news. That’s all we get from people like Kelly. If he seriously believes in “rightsizing” how about starting with him own salary which seems pretty generous given that he’s always watching soccer or playing golf with his rich friends. Everone always wants to cut “somebody elses” salary. It’s always “the other guy” who is making too much money. Kelly was even too lazy to run for his own election! Now he thinks he can just side into another county spot at the water agency making 250 k a year and ride the county gravy train while he complains about county workers and how we need to elimate THEIR jobs.
Wow! Are you all missing the real issue. Public employees do work hard, but the benefit loads on salaries are WAY out of line with the private sector. If someone makes $60k,it costs the taxpayer nearly $100k because of the rich benefit package EXPECTED by the workforce. Asserting that good employees will go elsewhere due to a 5% pay reduction is beyond silly in this economy. It’s time for people to get real…
Kelley is on his way out, and trust me, he’s looking at his salary this year and making sure this doesn’t impact his retirement.
The workforce has been reduced from 4000 down to a little over 3000 over the past couple of years…which is the real impact on service. The ongoing benefit costs are a big part of the problem. Cutting more positions now means less service delivery for the public…and some critical programs like the Sierra Youth Camp are on the block.
These decisions are not easy, but a minimal 5%, when the state and other cities have taken 10-15%, is not asking too much of employees. What productivity happens over Christmas week, or Thanksgiving for that matter? It’s a good solution for very hard economic times.
Kelly is the only member of the Board who is actually doing his job. We need to right-size the county. Now. It makes no sense to reduce the pay of essential county workers. We’ll just lose the good workers if pay cuts are the only “solution” that the BOS can come up with. Get rid of the non-essential county workers. Get rid of overtime pay. Right-size the County. DON’T let special interest groups take the public’s money hostage, BOS. Listen to the sole voice of reason among you – Kelly – and do your job!
Kelly is a tool. Notice he seems to think he’s entitled to the head water agency job at 225K a year-even though he is not an engineer has no advanced degree and his “interest” in water issues is very recent. If he truly wanted to fix a “structural” problem then what was he doing for the last ten years while he was in the majority? (Answer: a lot of golfing like his old buddy Tim Smith) and collecting 175K of taxpayer money!
>>Furloughs do nothing to fix a structural deficit.<<
Would someone communicate that insight to the board of supervisors? Clearly, their foresight extends no farther than the next election and overriding concern is to offend as few special interest groups as possible.
If they lack the leadership to permanently reduce or eliminate county programs to balance the budget, how about seeking approval from voters for the necessary tax increases? Either option is better than current policy.
If they're capable of neither, then it's time to acknowledge the problem exceeds their abilities and, in the interest of public service, step aside.
Furloughs do nothing to fix a structural deficit. Good for Kelley for showing some leadership and doing the right thing.