Chula Vista Teacher Jobs Are Saved

Another year - another suspenseful time of wondering whether your job is here today and gone tomorrow.  Unfortunately, this is now the norm for teachers everywhere.  


In March, 300 pink slips were issued in the Chula Vista Elementary School District.  We wrote about the budget process leading up the pink slips in this blog.


But last week it was reported that the pink slips would be recalled - and our teachers would live to see another year.   


Beyond the national political rhetoric around education and reform, as Chula Vista residents, maintaining teacher employment is important for a number of reasons.  Most importantly, our children. 

Teachers are superheroes in my mind. They have 20+ kids each day, from various language abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, diverse family dynamics (good and bad) .... and they are tasked with investing time, care, patience and creativity so our children can grow to be the best they can be academically and socially.


Another importance of our local teachers - 
The two school districts (Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District) are the two largest employers in the city, according to a 2008 Comprehensive Financial Report conducted by the City.


Layoffs at the districts would have meant less employment opportunities for CV residents - increased local unemployment - less disposable income for purchasing meaning less sales tax revenue for the city - and possible increase in foreclosed homes due to unemployment.  


What happens at both districts impact the city and the public services that it provides to you and me.  


Pretty good reason to pay attention to our local education system, right?

Decisions in CV

The blog has been quiet lately due to vacations and dental emergencies .... fun and absolutely no fun!  


But I wanted to drop in for a quick look at some decisions that are being considered in Chula Vista.  


Decisions that will impact you!  


So be sure to talk about these things in your circle of friends, families and neighbors.  Then reach out and tell CV leaders your thoughts and opinions.  


Medical Marijuana - Should it be allowed and regulated in the city? Opportunity for much needed tax revenue or gateway to something else?


Next Year's Budget - Much more than dollars and cents, it is the most important policy document for the city.  It will prioritize which public services we citizens get and don't get.  It will show if rhetoric matches reality.  


Executive Pay Study - The council issued a study on executive pay, but it looks like the pay in question is the Mayor & Council.  Which, by the way, was approved by voters here in 2000! So now there are complaints about how much our council is getting paid --- only way to change it is to go back to us the people. 


Merging of Parks & Libraries - Rumor is that the city is looking at merging these two departments to save money.  What does that mean for me and you, our kids, our community???


Districts - Are districts coming to Chula Vista?  What would be the advantages and disadvantages to having districts? Currently our Mayor & Council are elected city-wide. Would you like to have a council member that lived in your neighborhood? Or would that fragment the city more than it already is?


So you see --- LOTS going on!  OH and then of course, campaign season will soon be upon us - one can smell it in the air!


Vacation lag and recovery will need to occur before we write in length about any of these --- but YOU can.  


Let us know if you have thoughts you want to share about any issue in CV -- Guest bloggers are always accepted :)

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up - Chula Vista City Council

Being politically active means trying to stay on top of the various issues, their impact to citizens, and – yes - from time-to-time stomaching the politics. But it’s when politics are prioritized over the good of the city - that's when I get most perturbed.

The May 3^rd’ council meeting was one of those nights. It was like an episode of the ‘twilight zone.’  

At this meeting the City Council voted to save five police officer positions. 

1. Even though the police union had agreed with the layoffs
2. Even though ALL unions had agreed to shared cuts
3. Even though there was no money budgeted for the five positions

But there were a few moments that made this week’s meeting even more interesting – here’s a quick synopsis: 

KEEP YOUR WORD: Representatives from all the other unions spoke one-at-a-time to urge the council to stay true to their promise of shared sacrifice and to remind the council of the concessions each union had made in previous years.

SPEND MONEY: The president of the local taxpayer association (and recent candidate for office) used his personal money on robo-calls (those recorded political phone calls)urging residents to contact the council and support saving the police officer positions AND THEN in public testimony asked the council to spend money the City may not have.  

POLICE ARE MORE EFFICIENT: CV Police Chief addressed how the new reorganization of the department has produced more efficiency - essentially resulting in “the same number of feet-on-the-street today as there was in 2006-07.” 

NA, YOU’RE WRONG: Yet, in a dramatic speech, one council member - with a sheet of police response times -  dismissed the police chief’s report and stated “this is not about unions and negotiated agreements, it’s about public safety.”  

NOT WHAT WE MEANT:  Another council member responded to the various unions by saying the Council was “not breaking the negotiated agreement [to layoff officers]” but only  “waiting” on the layoffs.

MUMS THE WORD:  One council member at the April 26th council meeting publicly stated that he felt no sense of urgency to delay the layoffs unless it became evident public safety was being compromised.  Well, at the May 3rd meeting the council member said absolutely nothing  and cast the swing vote in favor of delaying the layoff of the five officers.  

So to recap -  the City Council’s actions on May 3 did the following:

• Saved five police officer positions in a three/two vote - Yay! Who’s going to argue with having additional officers?

• Added $48,000 to this year’s expenditure budget - The question remains where is this money going to come from? The City Manager says the city will find the money from the police department - but if there was additional savings there why weren’t they included in the negotiated talks?

• Added hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to next year’s budget for five police officer positions that were not included in the City Manager’s proposed balanced budget - Where is the City going to find this income? Will our parks, recreation, libraries, and senior center be on the hook for more?

• Devastated all hopes of future negotiations with collective bargaining groups - Why would they come to the table again? In fact, one of the largest union’s representative stated in their public testimony that they would not go to the table in the future.

Politics = 1

City =0

- Z

A-Must-Read: Just TWO (2) Clicks to Decide How to Spend Almost $660,000

The Council will be taking an important vote tomorrow  that will have an immediate cost of $48,000 and will lay the groundwork for $609,000 next year.  

The Council’s Public Safety subcommittee has recommended staying the layoffs of five (5) officers that are scheduled to take place in May, until June 30 when the budget talks for next year conclude.  The cost was not included in the city manager’s proposed balanced budget, so those costs will have to come from somewhere.  

Just 2-Clicks Away

City Council says: The City has the lowest police officers per capita than any other city in the region. The public's priority is public safety. They're concerned that if the officers are laid off, it will be cost more to hire and train new officers.  They're concerned that public safety will be compromised with less officers.

Police Chief says:  The department is reorganizing to be more efficient with less. The City is the second safest city in the region.  The hiring process for any public safety agency is lengthy and the officers will more than likely be available for re-hire.  If he feels that public safety is compromised, he will be the first to come to the council to request more police officers.

The big question is whether the public wants to save police positions, even at the risk of more cuts to other city services.  This decision is yours to make ---- 

This is the crossroad the council faces.  

      Will the public hold them accountable for laying off five (5) police officers for an    immediate savings of $48,000 and next year savings of $609,000?  OR,

     Will the public hold them accountable for cutting more community services and/or raising community service fees (full-cost recovery) in order to not layoff five (5) police officers?

Well here is your chance to voice your opinion on an issue that will directly affect you, your family, your neighborhood.

Click on either Yes or No (and be sure to copy the entire sentence in the subject line) below to send an email to the Mayor & Council with your opinion. 

YES, I support the decision to not layoff five (5) police officers at an immediate cost of $48,000 and if retained in next year’s budget a cost of $609,000.

NO, I do NOT support the decision to not layoff five (5) police officers at an immediate cost of $48,000 and if retained in next year’s budget a cost of $609,000.

It’s that simple.  If you’ve never communicated with your elected officials before, today is your day!

I’ll update you on the decision after the meeting, or you can watch it live yourself online on Tues. May 3 at 4:00 p.m. 

City Council Does the Impossible --- A Unified Agreement --- But Not Without The Usual Controversy

I kid. I kid.  Well, partly ... that is because it wouldn’t be Chula Vista without some form of controversy.

In a nutshell, the entire council voted unanimously to support collective bargaining rights of employees.  Why? 

It would be safe to say that the action was primarily a symbolic response to movements in other parts of the nation to dismantle these rights and a way of recognizing the sacrifice and compromises that our local labor groups have agreed to for the fiscal health of our city.

Even our Mayor, a Republican, expressed her support for collective bargaining rights “when done fairly without tricks.” 

Personally, I couldn’t have been more thrilled that our council took this - albeit symbolic  action.  The collective bargaining rights of workers has been lauded by Americans from all sides of the spectrum and in between.

They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.

 - Former President Ronald Reagan, 1980 Labor Day Speech

If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

 - President Barack Obama, 2007 Presidential Campaign Speech

And lastly, Chula Vista employees are our hard working friends and neighbors who truly care, and they have proven year after year that they are willing to - and have - sacrifice for Chula Vista and its residents.

So what controversy?

More like an irony, I suppose, but in the very next agenda item (following the support for collective bargaining) was a recommendation to break a negotiated agreement with one of the city’s collective bargaining groups.

If you remember, each collective bargaining group was asked to contribute savings to the city to help close the budget deficit.  Each group was asked to forgo upcoming pay raises and to begin paying the employee share of pension costs. In the end, the city reached agreement with all groups.  One group, the Police Officer Association (POA), agreed  to up to 11 layoffs instead of forgoing their upcoming pay raises.

So here's the irony - the Council’s Public Safety Subcommittee’s recommendation to not layoff five (5) officers and instead address any needed layoffs in budget talks for next year.  The number of officers is reduced from 11 to five due to a variation of retirements and resignations.

It will cost $48,040 in this year’s budget to keep these five (5) officers on the payroll until June 30.  To keep the positions permanently, after June 30, it will cost $609,120 in next year’s budget. These costs were not included in the balanced budget presented to the council since the negotiated agreement with POA assumed the layoffs and would have provided cost savings to the city.

The council subcommittee stated that the council’s priority is what the people want and not a negotiated agreement.  (Personally, I wonder if this rationale would work if the recommendation was to increase the number of layoffs rather than reduce layoffs - I don’t remember this perspective when folks were begging to have libraries and rec centers stay open. Hmmm).

Others on the council did not agree and highlighted the request as trickery, politics and an undermining of all future negotiations with collective bargaining groups.

In the end, three voted to support the halt of the layoffs.  The city will be placing this on the May 3 agenda for official approval.  

The celebration of agreement and unity was short-lived to say the least.  What does this mean for you and me .... stay tuned for my next entry.

Z