Inside Opinion - PressDemocrat.com

Blogs

Home > Blogs > Inside Opinion

Recent Post

So what I meant to say was ...

Posted September 23, 2008 12:02:48 PM

The Internet has proven to be a valuable but humbling tool for me as a writer. As I read comments left on my editorials and blog posts, I realize that sometimes what I write isn't as clear as I think.

A case in point is Saturday's editorial about volunteer programs and public money. You can link to it, or here's a summary: A change in state law resulted in a regulatory ruling that prohibited volunteer labor on projects involving public money. The example in the editorial was last weekend's coastal cleanup day. There are countless similar efforts, such as creek restoration, graffiti removal, playground repair, etc. An exemption was granted to the state law for these sorts of volunteer efforts. But the exemption expires Dec. 31 unless legislation to extend it for four years is signed by the governor. We urged the governor to sign it and called for a permanent exemption.

It seemed clear enough to me until I saw the questions posted on pressdemocrat.com. This one from 3xsarky, a regular on the site, captures the confusion: "Duh, call me stupid, but why does it take state money for a "volunteer" clean up? Who gets the molah?"

In the case of the coastal cleanup, it is organized by the California Coastal Commission, a state agency. Public money pays the state employees who plan it. So without the exemption, the people who pick up the litter would have to be paid prevailing wage. No volunteer labor. The same rule would apply if a school district buys paint for a playground. Spending public money on the paint would trigger the ban on volunteers painting the playground.

Supporters of that approach say public employees ought to be doing the work on public projects to ensure quality and to protect the jobs of public employees. Critics say that there ought to be room for people to volunteer on public projects in their communities, especially projects like creek restoration and litter removal that get often get squeezed out of lean budgets.

-- Jim Sweeney

Recent Post

Of CEOs and public pay

Posted September 19, 2008 9:04:36 AM

You can't cover a political campaign - or even pay much attention to one - without hearing someone say that government needs to run more like a business.

Well, there's at least one way where government seems to be doing that. But it may make you wonder about the wisdom of the advice.

On our Editorial Page today, we've got a column by Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, who used Lehman Bros. chairman Richard Fuld as a poster child for what's wrong with CEO compensation packages. Fuld, by Kristof's estimate, was paid about $17,000 an hour while a company founded before the Civil War collapsed in bankruptcy underneath him. As Kristof points out, pay for a corporate CEO is negotiated with people without much incentive to be tough at the bargaining table, and it's often based on what the CEO in the high-rise across the street gets.

So what's that got to do with government?

More and more labor contracts are based on what the public employee in a "comparable" agency gets. CHP gets a raise; prison guards tag along. San Rafael PD gets a raise. Santa Rosa needs one, too. A city manager or county executive somewhere gets a $200,000 salary. It sets a new bar for everyone else. Elected officials like the endorsements and campaign contributions and the volunteer help provided by happy employee groups, so they don't have much more incentive to bargain hard than a hand-picked corporate board. That's how we end up with 28 percent of Sonoma city employees making $100,000 a year. It's 23 percent in Rohnert Park and Petaluma and 21 percent in Santa Rosa, according to figures released this year. That's in a county where the median household income (often reflecting two-wage earners) is $53,645 in 2004, according to the latest U.S. Census data.

I think public employees are honorable people, who work hard, provide important services and are often criticized unfairly. I was raised by one. But it's clear we're in an era of tight finances when it's tough to find more revenue. And the expense side of the public ledger is mostly pay and benefits. So from top management to rank-and-file, it's time to take a close look.

That's been a primary topic of conversation in our Editorial Board's recent visits with candidates for local office, though it's been less predictable ideologically than you might imagine. It's the labor/progressive candidates for county supervisor who are upset about benefit cuts imposed and sought by the board. But in Rohnert Park, where the progressives hold a council majority, it's the business/conservative candidates who are critical of last year's cutbacks to retirement benefits for public employees. In each instance, critics point more to the process than the outcome. However, it seems unlikely that any amount of process will leave people feeling good about getting less.

-- Jim Sweeney

Recent Post

File this one under 'Too little, too late, too obvious'

Posted September 18, 2008 11:48:39 AM

Our reactionary government at work . . .

Recent Post

The economy and other strange happenings

Posted September 17, 2008 5:14:15 PM

The government is now majority stakeholder of a business that is one of the leading providers of insurance for kidnapping and ransom. How bizarre is that?

Recent Post

Governor rejects budget. Back to square one?

Posted September 16, 2008 4:21:38 PM

: Enlarge

If Legislature overrides veto, will the governor end up looking like a hero or a goat - or something in between?

Recent Post

A budget everyone can hate

Posted September 15, 2008 10:06:47 AM

Here's a frightening thought to start the day: In just 15 weeks, we get to start the state budget process all over.

If that's not enough to spoil a Monday morning, try this: None of the underlying problems with the state's budget are solved with the get-out-town deal cut over the weekend by state legislators.

There's probably an apt metaphor in the big GOP golf fund-raiser this week. They're playing in Nevada. California might be better off if the Republicans invited their Democratic colleagues to the Silver State - and they all stayed.

No one comes out of this deal looking good.

Republicans showed political discipline not often seen in Sacramento. By sticking together, they accomplished their goal of no new taxes. Sort of. A big piece of the plan is to speed up the collection of state income taxes by boosting payroll deductions. You know, pay next year's taxes today. There's a promise to refund the extra money next year. Of course, tax time in the spring is also budget time. So there's likely to be pressure to delay those refunds.

While they showed unusual discipline, it shouldn't be overlooked that the Republicans were unable to produce a budget proposal that balanced the books honestly. They couldn't stomach the necessary cuts, so they proposed a plan that delays the day of reckoning once more by borrowing yet again.

Democrats didn't do much better. They were up front about opposing the spending cuts it would take to balance budget without taxes, but they spent much of the spring and summer complaining about obstinate Republicans and the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget. The two-thirds rule is indeed outdated. But the Democrats' budget plan included a tax hike, which under the state constitution also requires a two-thirds vote. So even if they could pass the budget with a simple majority or 55 percent, they couldn't have funded it without Republican votes. And their strategy for winning those votes came down to, let the governor do it.

But introductions were going to be needed first. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, we learned, hadn't even met some of his fellow Republicans. leaving him with no ability to get their votes for his plan, which like the Democrats' plan, mixed spending cuts with tax hikes and borrowing. In 1992, Gov. Pete Wilson was asked if he would twist arms to get budget votes. Wilson said something to the effect of, "Twist 'em? I'll break 'em." That wasn't an option for the strongman governor who proved to be the political equivalent of a 98-pound weakling.

So we're left with a budget that "borrows" billions from the paychecks of taxpayers and anticipated lottery revenue ("a gift from the future," as Schwarzenegger described it this summer).

The payroll deductions are supposed to be a short-term loan, unlike the 30-year refinancing plan that was sold to voters in 2004 as a long-term solution to California's fiscal woes. We'll see.

It is clear that this governor and these lawmakers aren't up to a long-term fix, making an independent, bipartisan effort all the more critical. A good place to start is California Forward, which already is working on many of these issues.

-- Jim Sweeney