Facing the pay issue: Ventura leads
Reading the on-line comment section of local stories in the Ventura County Star gives the impression that taxpayers are boiling mad about out-of-control pay and pension costs for city employees. Yet public servants who work for the City feel the public doesn't understand that Ventura city employees are generally paid less than even the average of people doing similar jobs in other cities -- and that every member of our staff took at least a 5% cut in compensation this year.
Unfortunately, the anonymous critics and the unhappy city employees haven't been talking to each other.
It is tempting to personalize the tough times we are all experiencing. It's easy to look for someone to blame, whether auto works, bankers, corporate executives or public employees. It's not surprising that taxpayers are asking questions about where their money goes.
But is public pay really out of control? Or are Ventura city employees being short-changed? In a world of soundbites and short attention spans, it's easy to spout opinions. But what are the facts?
The City Council has appointed a working group to tackle this controversial issue head on -- to sort out the facts and recommend solutions.
The "Compensation Policies Task Force" includes respected citizen leaders, the three members on the City Council Finance Committee (Neal Andrews, Ed Summers and Jim Monahan) as well as union representatives. They are working toward an October deadline to report back to the City Council.
Their first meeting was held today. The group elected retired city manager Ed McCombs as chair. Two business leaders, Randy Hinton and Bart Bluel were named co-deputy chairs.
Ventura's Chief Financial Officer, Jay Panzica, provided an overview of more than 500 pages of reports and data analyzing compensation costs, formulas and data. It's true that pension costs have risen in the past ten years -- but that's because the stock market boom a decade ago had so padded pension reserves that in 1999, the City owed nothing for it's share of employee pension costs. Looking back over thirty years gives a more balanced picture. Pension costs fluctuate as investment portfolios rise or decline -- and are lower today than they have been in the past.
Are pension benefits out of line? Since pensions are public, much has been made of the highest earnings of those who spent thirty or even forty years in public service and retired in senior positions. But keep in mind that career city employees do not participate in Social Security and rely instead on their city pensions. The actual average pension for all of Ventura's police and fire retirees is $38,131 a year. The average civilian pension is $14,391.
Few Ventura residents know that, unlike most California cities, Ventura does not offer any form of retiree medical coverage. In fact, according to a massive study done by a commission set up by Governor Schwarzenegger, these benefits are offered by 86% of the cities they surveyed. It is these kinds of expensive "extras" (and the foreclosure crisis) that drove Vallejo into bankruptcy. Despite the scare talk of some, Ventura has long lagged behind comparable cities in both pay and benefits. Ventura's current firefighter pension formula remains below that of every single other department our size or larger in the entire State of California.
All this and much more information in the task force's handbook is on-line for taxpayers to take a look for themselves here (click on the Compensation Policies Task Force 9/08/09 Meeting Materials in the lower right hand corner.)
Because they are published in the newspaper like ballplayer pay, public employee salaries and benefits will always get noticed and debated. We owe it to citizens to keep employee costs in line to deliver cost-effective services. Living within our means means shared sacrifice -- and Ventura city employees have rallied to that challenge. Effectively managing public resources is a vital part of maintaining a healthy community. The work of the task force is an accountable way for everyone to ensure that Ventura continues to lead in tackling tough issues and finding solutions.
Unfortunately, the anonymous critics and the unhappy city employees haven't been talking to each other.
It is tempting to personalize the tough times we are all experiencing. It's easy to look for someone to blame, whether auto works, bankers, corporate executives or public employees. It's not surprising that taxpayers are asking questions about where their money goes.
But is public pay really out of control? Or are Ventura city employees being short-changed? In a world of soundbites and short attention spans, it's easy to spout opinions. But what are the facts?
The City Council has appointed a working group to tackle this controversial issue head on -- to sort out the facts and recommend solutions.
The "Compensation Policies Task Force" includes respected citizen leaders, the three members on the City Council Finance Committee (Neal Andrews, Ed Summers and Jim Monahan) as well as union representatives. They are working toward an October deadline to report back to the City Council.
Their first meeting was held today. The group elected retired city manager Ed McCombs as chair. Two business leaders, Randy Hinton and Bart Bluel were named co-deputy chairs.
Ventura's Chief Financial Officer, Jay Panzica, provided an overview of more than 500 pages of reports and data analyzing compensation costs, formulas and data. It's true that pension costs have risen in the past ten years -- but that's because the stock market boom a decade ago had so padded pension reserves that in 1999, the City owed nothing for it's share of employee pension costs. Looking back over thirty years gives a more balanced picture. Pension costs fluctuate as investment portfolios rise or decline -- and are lower today than they have been in the past.
Are pension benefits out of line? Since pensions are public, much has been made of the highest earnings of those who spent thirty or even forty years in public service and retired in senior positions. But keep in mind that career city employees do not participate in Social Security and rely instead on their city pensions. The actual average pension for all of Ventura's police and fire retirees is $38,131 a year. The average civilian pension is $14,391.
Few Ventura residents know that, unlike most California cities, Ventura does not offer any form of retiree medical coverage. In fact, according to a massive study done by a commission set up by Governor Schwarzenegger, these benefits are offered by 86% of the cities they surveyed. It is these kinds of expensive "extras" (and the foreclosure crisis) that drove Vallejo into bankruptcy. Despite the scare talk of some, Ventura has long lagged behind comparable cities in both pay and benefits. Ventura's current firefighter pension formula remains below that of every single other department our size or larger in the entire State of California.
All this and much more information in the task force's handbook is on-line for taxpayers to take a look for themselves here (click on the Compensation Policies Task Force 9/08/09 Meeting Materials in the lower right hand corner.)
Because they are published in the newspaper like ballplayer pay, public employee salaries and benefits will always get noticed and debated. We owe it to citizens to keep employee costs in line to deliver cost-effective services. Living within our means means shared sacrifice -- and Ventura city employees have rallied to that challenge. Effectively managing public resources is a vital part of maintaining a healthy community. The work of the task force is an accountable way for everyone to ensure that Ventura continues to lead in tackling tough issues and finding solutions.
posted by Rick Cole at
5:04 PM
6 Comments:
You state that the employees of the city of Ventura are paid less than people doing the same jobs in other cities. It use to be that people wanted to work for a municipality for the job security, even tho the pay was less than the same job in the private sector. That has long ago been reversed. Now the jobs in municipalities are no longer any more secure than a private sector job but the pay is very much better. Especially the pay for the administrative positions and their staff members. The employees that toil in the field are still somewhat underpaid, not in comparison to the private sector but in comparison to the administrators they work for.
As for your question "is public pay really out of control" once again, if you are talking about the pay for administrators, then yes it is radically out of control, if you are talking about the average field worker, then no it is fairly balanced.
Also, the practice of using the compensation of other cities and other employees in other cities is ridiculous, every employee should be compensated according to his or her own expertise and skills in the job they applied for. If they don't care for the compensation they are offered in Ventura then they need to realize the door swings in both directions and they can look for employment elsewhere.
I agree with Rellis. This business of comparing public employees' wages with other public agencies is a never-ending cycle. You're always going to find another agency that pays higher wages than your employees, which is used as justification for pay raises. Then another agency looks at your pay scale and can make the justification that its employees are underpaid.
And so it goes, on and on...
Rellis and "Anonymous" both have a point -- but I think they missed a couple of other points.
Rellis misstates my point. Of course employees of the city of Ventura are paid less than people doing the same jobs in other cities. We have never offered the top salaries in our field and never will. What I said was that our staff feel the public doesn't realize that "Ventura city employees are generally paid less than even the average of people doing similar jobs in other cities." So the complaints that they -- and not the recession -- are the cause of budget shortfalls is certainly exaggerated.
Rellis and Anon are certainly right that an industry that only compares to itself can pay itself into insolvency (look at baseball or investment banks to see how salaries can go through the roof.) But if you are in that industry, it is not as if you can simply ignore the going rate for talented people.
Nor is outside competition stiff for the jobs most people complain about -- cops and firefighters. There certainly was a time when lines stretched around the block for firefighter jobs. But even in this recession, that's not the case here. Cost of living is still high here -- and so are the standards, since our firefighters are certified paramedics -- over 70% of their calls for service are for emergency medical response. For all the complaints about "public safety unions," those jobs are still hard to fill (and the public's expectations of cops and firefighters remain incredibly high.)
Rellis makes the point that public administrators are overpaid -- and I'd agree with him if I thought we were as stupid and incompetent as he invariably asserts. But I routinely look for private sector experience in key jobs in this $250 million a year enterprise (both our Chief Financial Officer and our Human Resources Director originally came from the private sector) and I can't come close to their pay and bonuses for jobs of similar responsibility.
There certainly are unique advantages and disadvantages to working in local government. And like all Americans, I think we are going to have to adjust to lower standards of living. We are a rich country that borrowed trillions to spend like a very rich country. It will be a tough adjustment, especially because everyone wants someone else to do the adjusting, not them.
That's why I think the "Compensation Policies Task Force" is a step forward. By taking a hard look at the real facts, we can make the long-term decisions that will ensure that we remain solvent while retaining and attracting quality people to serve our community.
Once again Mr Cole has proven to be a champion spinner. He states that the employees of Ventura are paid less than comparable employees in other cities. He of course compares them to employees of cities much larger than Ventura. Also I don't recall ever stating that the city of Ventura Administrators were stupid or incompetent, they certainly can't be stupid they talked their way into a very high paying job. As far as incompetent goes I would say they are no more incompetent than the Gang in the Ivory Tower, (City Council) that they supposedly work for.
The "Compensation Policies Task Force" is simply another ploy to try to make the citizens think you are trying to improve your methods, like the Blue Ribbon Sales Tax Panel.
I would write a much longer post, but Rellis and Anonymous beat me to the punch.
I have a buddy who works for BMW. Not for long, though -- Amports is taking over their vehicle processing. Everybody who works for BMW has to apply to keep their job.
Many of them will lose pension benefits. And now they'll all have to pay 100% of their family health care plan, so some will likely see their take home pay decrease by as much as $10,000 per year. All thanks to Amports -- a tiny subsidiary of bailout queen AIG.
In this economy, Ventura not providing health benefits to retirees isn't going to change many minds.
Mr. Cole, whenever I've had direct contact with city employees, it has almost always been disappointing or frustrating. I know there are plenty of good people working tirelessly behind the scenes, people that aren't in the forefront.
But by the same token, perhaps because of my role in my neighborhood, I know there are plenty of residents griping behind the scenes about city employees.
And now, a union representing a fraction of city employees has been lying to voters in an attempt to influence the council election. They want to take out an elected official who won't vote to give them what they demand, and they're flat out lying about him to damage his reputation. It's a despicable tactic.
Before you blame ignorant or short-sighted voters for the controversy over city paychecks, you might want to consider city employees too. Some of them feel so entitled to an even bigger piece of the pie that they don't care what damage they may do the city -- all they care about is getting a better contract. They should be shown the door, not given a raise.
Drop the 3% at 50 and return to the days of 2% at 55. 2% at 55 is still a very good pension, it is what teachers get. I think this is a more the fair pension.
So, until the city returns to 2% at 55 which is a good pension, I will continue to believe the city is not in need of more taxes. I love to the city put together a future forcast budget with both 3% at 50 and 2% at 55.
If pensions were at 2% at 55 and not 3% at 50 I would take these 5% paycut as proof the city needs more taxes.
Post a Comment
<< Home