Recently in Your money Category
Our Metro Editor Ben Baeder (and my boss) did some video commentary on the most expensive gas station in the country, which is found in West Covina.
I saw the Social Network yesterday. Good film, if not wholly accurate. Aaron Sorkin's writing style - and the dialogue that follows - may not be for everyone, but I always enjoy it. Only a few more films to see before I got all the Oscar nominated films covered.
Anyway, you didn't come here for my film ramblings (oh, how I wish you did), but here are some weekend links you might have missed while watching "The Rite."
A 230-foot tower is getting planted next to some homes in Duarte. Naturally, they had a few concerns.
Glendora became another city trying to keep Gov. Jerry Brown and the state away from their redevelopment dollars.
No new taxes, is the familiar cry of many elected officials. But increased fees? That's totally different.
I fear I am going to hog some of the links today, but my ego has actually grown very little.
You may have seen Sunday's package in the newspaper regarding city car allowances. Two web links for you on that story. The more specific story about El Monte's car allowances and an overall picture of the Valley.
Then there is another story out of Rio Hondo's Police Academy. This one follows up on claims of ammunition abuse at the school while addressing some other issues at the academy.
Here is one to wet your appetite: Food trucks are gathering at SpeedZone in Industry.
Fran Delach, Azusa City Manager, called redevelopment funds "city life blood." Gov. Jerry Brown may pull the plug.
Those concerned about autism should take a look at today's display. A new study links freeways to autism. That story is coupled with the recent news that having children close together may increase the risk of autism. This also follows recent headlines debunking the doctor who is known for promoting a link between autism and vaccines.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Here is a classic case of do the ends justify the means.
Recently, it came to my attention that three Glendora council members decided pay for their CALPERS pension benefit in a decision that made some experts skeptical as to if it violated California open meetings law.
In what the city clerk described as a "display of leadership" in a public records request, three council members recently decided to start paying for their CALPERS benefits this year.
But the voluntary action, which took effect all on the same date, calls into question if the council violated California open meeting laws by secretly meeting and making decisions as a group.
"We were asking all of the employees to pay their PERS benefits and it seemed appropriate for us to do the same thing," Councilman Doug Tessitor said. "When we were having discussions in closed session about the Glendora municipal employees association, there were references made to 'we ought to do the same thing' and that was the only discussion I had with anybody about this."
Mayor Ken Herman, councilwoman Karen Davis and Tessitor had never paid for their CALPERS pension benefit before the change, according to city documents. Councilmen Gene Murabito and Terry Kent both receive the PARS benefit versus PERS, paying the employee share while the city picks up the other half of the benefit.
Davis also denied the decision was made by the group and instead said each person came to the decision on their own accord.
But the fact each council member started to pay the full deduction of the benefit -- $28.25 -- on Sept. 24, 2010, according to documents, lends credence the decision was made as a group.
Tessitor said questions about open meetings law missed the point, which is the council was doing the right thing.
"It seems to me the statement should be the council is doing the appropriate thing by doing what they are asking the rank and file employees to do," he said.
Most people would probably agree. The CALPERS system has been the focus of heavy criticism due to the cost to the state and cities, what some people believe is too good a deal for government employees, and more. The council is merely leading by example and doing something that probably should have be done sooner.
But if that is the case, why not be more transparent in the decision?
Council members in Glendora are paid $700 a month in a stipend for being on the council.
City Clerk Kathleen Sessman said she wasn't part of any discussions with city officials regarding the council members decision and the words regarding leadership were chosen by her.
"I just know when they did it, they did it informally, which is why I didn't have any resolutions," regarding the change, Sessman said. "It wasn't meant as anything other than they voluntarily did this and I thought it was a nice way of saying it."
The California Ralph M. Brown Act stipulates that three or more council members can't meet to make decisions on city policy without public notice.
Two experts on the subject both agreed the potential for infringement by the Glendora council members was in a relative gray area.
First Amendment Coalition attorney Peter Scheer said, assuming the worst case scenario, that because no policy was changed, the council members didn't break the law.
"If they had a discussion if the council should vote and require all of them to do this ... and basically rescind whatever policy it is that now exempts them, that certainly would have been a Brown Act violation," Scheer said. "But if they are doing it in a way that doesn't change any policy and does not need any official action, it is at least arguable that this falls outside the Brown Act."
Even if it isn't a violation, Scheer said elected officials should always try to make decisions public whenever possible.
"The prudent thing to do would be to give full notice to people that they were thinking about it," Scheer said. "And if they are going to get together and talk about it, do so publicly. Let the press know and listen in on that discussion, so at least it would be done in the spirit of the Brown Act."
Terry Francke, an attorney for public information advocacy group Californians Aware, said residents should be worried about elected officials making decisions behind closed doors.
"I think citizens have a right to be skeptical and suspect that a collective discussion occurred, which constituted a serial meeting in violation of the Brown Act," Francke said in an e-mail. "Proof is a different matter."
Scheer added the public shouldn't be too hard on the council members since the decision was in the public's best interest.
"I think anyone would say they should be commended for doing this," he said. "It is kind of incredible they were getting a free ride. But they were and they shouldn't be overly criticized or second guessed for having done the right thing."
I think Scheer kind of nails it here. Was the action the right one? Yes. Should they have been more public about it? Probably.
And the part about the free ride makes me think about why this maybe wasn't more public. How many people knew that a council that gets paid a $700 stipend gets the CALPERS benefit? Probably not many. Either way, people know now. If that is good or bad for the council, you tell me.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
I must apologize for the lack of posting on the blog over the last month. As those avid newspaper readers may well know by now, I have been covering the Manling Williams murder trial and subsequent penalty phase (who am I kidding, no one reads bylines).
But as the Thanksgiving holiday has passed and the jury remains in deliberations, we can get this motor running. We can pick ourselves up off the mat and get in the ring.
And what better to reignite this bonfire of city politics and general news blathering than a review of this weekends most important news items. (OK, no more metaphors)
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has completed its investigation into West Covina Police Chief Frank Wills. Wills asked for the review after it was revealed that officers from the West Covina Police Department investigated allegations of vandalism and rape against the ex-husband of Wills' then-girlfriend.
The San Dimas Brasada residential project is becoming a reality despite years of push back. The environmental impact report is scheduled to be reviewed in December.
That is all for now. Let's take this slow. Don't want to rush it right when we are just getting started again. As for now, I will be waiting on a decision in the Williams' case. And I want to post something on that later today and talk about the death penalty. Controversy is just what we need to get reacquainted.
Is vacation time accrued the same as money earned?
That may be the question of the hour after we learned that Monterey Park's former City Manager and Police Chief each pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars in saved leave time when each left their positions.
Some have argued (via the comments section) that this is a mole hill being made into a mountain (a Scrooge McDuck mountain of coin, am I right?!).
There is merit to the argument that if a person doesn't take their vacation time, they should be allowed to cash it in. They didn't use it, instead worked and are entitled to the value of that benefit.
But those arguing that in this circumstance may be missing a vital point: Are city executives being given an exceeding large amount of leave time? And is that benefit a backhanded way of giving them additional pay when they are given more leave time then they will ever use?
Racking up a day of vacation each week of employment, as Jeffers was doing in his final year at Monterey Park, and having executives able to earn three months of time off a year seems excessive. Should city department directors, working on the public's dime, be allowed to take three months off in a year? If the answer is no (as I assume most citizens would agree) then why give them the opportunity?
Finally, Jeffers' current employer didn't do themselves any favors in the story about their city manager's former job.
Two council members didn't know what Jeffers' pay was when asked. Mayor Ken Herman seemed to be defending Jeffers' actions in Monterey Park.
Councilman Terry Kent, in an e-mail to this newspaper, was upset at the way he was portrayed in the paper. Kent was at a wedding out of state and felt that should have been included in the story when describing why he couldn't recite Jeffers' salary.
The real question for the council is this: With this knowledge, what will they do?
The council, in the past, has stood by their city manager and often follow his suggestions. But will this force them to examine their city executive contracts for leave time? Or will they follow what Herman seemed to imply in the story that these benefits packages are comparable to other cities and Glendora must offer them to remain competitive in hiring top talent?
Does "because everybody else is doing it" make it right? Or does that mean there is a widespread problem? Answering that is best left to voters.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
After AEG's Tim Leiweke spoke to L.A. business folk Tuesday about using the L.A. Convention Center to help build an NFL stadium, some people aren't reacting to it as he might hope.
The big hiccup? Ed Roski's Industry stadium is privately financed while Leiweke is asking for, oh, something like $1 billion from taxpayers.
L.A. Observed has a video up. And you can put Ron Kaye on the side of Roski's plan vs. Leiweke's downtown idea.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Here is a quick look at the cost of Azusa's environmental impact report for the recently approved Azusa Rock Quarry project.
A recent survey shows SGV school districts pay superintendents an average of $185,000 annually.
Advocates against police checkpoints say a new video shows an illegal checkpoint run by the Baldwin Park Police Department. A local expert agrees.
And look, someone won $150,000 from a winning lottery ticket sold in Covina. Who's happy for him/her? That's right, nobody because we are all bitter we didn't win that cash (and it was SO close!)
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
The news came this week that Glendora officials are looking to suspend a recently approved merit increase schedule for managers in an effort to broker a deal for a similar schedule with the Glendora municipal employees association.
Within that story, it was also shown that despite previous representations, Glendora gave raises to three managers PRIOR to the salary schedule being approved, but those raises were reflected within the schedule.
Just to elaborate on this issue are a few facts.
Here is Chris Jeffers, in an e-mail, explaining City Clerk Kathleen Sessman's salary increases over the last two years, as well as her concessions:
On 10/06/08 received a 2% merit to $8,377. This covered her performance from 2007-08 time period.
On 12/29/08 received a city-wide COLA adjustment of 3% that GMEA; GMA and Directors granted by the City Council to $8,628.
On 7/01/09 Required to pick up 3% of pension for the year.
On 7/01/10 Required to pick up 4.8% of pension and 1.9% sick leave cash out eliminated.
On 7/12/10 received a merit increase of 5% covering the period of time between Oct 2008 and now to $9,064.
So the incumbent's base salary increase by 10% since 10/08, her total compensation has been permanently reduced by <6.7%> with the action this past July. So the net adjustment is 3.3% increase in compensation in two years.
I will add one thing. That final 5 percent was done in two parts, 2.5 percent the bumped her up to her new step 1 on the approved salary schedule, and then another 2.5 percent, as reflected on the salary schedule, to step 2.
To clear out a few more notes, the big thing about the merit increases was the ability to switch to a more private sector structure of requiring better than satisfactory reviews to get a raise. But within all the department managers' contracts - prior to the new schedule - was a condition they must receive exemplary performance reviews to get merit increases. What this schedule then does is allow for managers to have a more transparent structure and one that rewards people for longevity.
Given that the city appears to have operated under much of those conditions already, it would seem they wanted this to serve as a model more so than the actual impact it may have on manager salaries and merit increases for them.
Whether or not they will be able to broker a deal is something that remains to be seen.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
The League of California Cities (doesn't the name make it seem like a superhero group?) released a survey today of city manager compensation from cities across the state. Of the 468 cities asked to participate, about 90 percent responded, according to a statement from the League of California Cities.
If you want to see the survey, click here.
The survey includes notes on additional benefits, but nothing detailed. The salary totals are the total income for the manager from their 2009 taxes, rather than a base salary.
Some immediate things that jumped out at me was Daryl Parish's income from 2009, which was a whopping $328,830. That sum includes a cash payout of sick and vacation time from a "previous employer" (probably Colton) of about 1400 hours over an 18 month period.
The city manager of Glendale, Jim Starbird, manages a city of more than 200,000 people and made $251,000 in 2009. Duarte's City Manager Darrell George manages a city of about 22,000 people and made $215,440. Glendora's City Manager Chris Jeffers made $234,000 for a city of 52,000 people. Robert Griego, Irwindale's former city manager, oversees a city of 1,717 and made $235,502. Don Hannah, La Habra's city manager made $171,903 with a city population of 62,822. Fran Delach, Azusa's city manager, made $252,000 for a city of more than 48,000. Santa Ana's City Manager David Ream makes $240,000 in a city of 357,000 people.
I don't see West Covina or Whittier on the list. CORRECTION: Whittier is on the list. A gap on the list fooled me into thinking it was the end. I feel like I finished a school test before everyone else, turned it in, only to later realize there was a back side I never knew about. Anyway, Whittier is $283,346 for Stephen Helvey.
Are any other local cities missing?
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
In the continuing series by Slate.com regarding the inequality of wealth (which is a must read, IMHO) today's story deals with labor unions affect.
I thought this was a pertinent story because whenever we write stories about public salaries, the state budget, and other money related stories, labor unions is a recurring theme from reader comments.
(Yes, we reporters read your comments. A shocking admission, I'm sure.)
In addition, I have raised questions regarding public (which is often unionized) and private (declining unions) pay in this blog (here and here
So, I thought I would tack on this story as an addendum to the conversation, as well as an interesting read.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
The letter that Adams wrote to the Supreme Court, which was the basis for today's story taking a further look at the legal challenges surrounding Glendora's attempt to get redevelopment dollars for an area along Arrow Highway, hasn't been posted with the story online (yet?) but I wanted to make it available here for review.
It isn't a long read, so if you got two minutes to check it out and then reread the story, I would recommend it.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Did you enjoy those three long days off? So did I. Although, the catch-22 is that it always makes that first day back that much more difficult.
Anyway, if you are struggling to get into that work mode, here are a few stories from the weekend to pass the time (oh, and make you a better, informed citizen of the republic and all that).
Reporter Thomas Himes did a long researched piece on city attorney fees that showed cities with their own police departments often pay more in legal fees, according to city documents and records for the last fiscal year.
Covina's police chief made his position known on the a proposition to legalize marijuana. (SPOILER: He is not a fan)
Well, despite a huge push this year for the Census - including hundreds of millions of dollars spent - it looks like national participation is down. The good news? San Gabriel Valley participation is better than the national average. The bad news? It also dipped below 2000 Census totals.
Finally, as a recent post alluded too, Glendora goes for the trifecta in asking the Supreme Court to hear its case after the county won two court cases regarding a redevelopment area designation.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
A few months back we reported on Glendora's failed attempt to appeal a previous trial court decision (initiated and won by the county) that wouldn't allow Glendora to claim portions of the city as blighted, and thus be in line for millions in redevelopment funds.
Well, Glendora is now asking for the California Supreme Court to hear the case and should hear back within weeks. More in tomorrow's paper.
One of the questions regarding this issue was how much the city has spent on pursuing, what has been thus far, a losing battle.
Some speakers at recent city council meetings claimed the city spent more than $800,000 in legal fees. That doesn't appear to be the case.
According to city records, the city has spent $459,714 in legal fees since the complaint against the city was filed by Los Angeles County in Sept. 2006. Those funds are taken from the city's redevelopment agency fund and not the general city fund.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
In today's paper, reporter Maritza Velazquez has a story about how the Walnut Valley Unified Board of Education's decision to fire its recently rehired superintendent is going to cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars.
From the story:
"The district in February renewed the contract for former Superintendent Cyndy Simms and will pay her $295,500 over the next 18 months. Then the board ousted her Aug. 11."
In addition, "The board recently approved a $14,842-a-month contract agreement to employ interim Superintendent Charles McCully, who will serve in a temporary position for three to five months. They will also pay him $1,000 a month for automobile and housing expenses."
In a time when schools are hard pressed for funds, districts are laying off teachers and staff, and the future is uncertain, the board must have good reason to make such a fiscally detrimental decision. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to give one.
Instead, following the unanimous vote, the board said the split was "amicable" and amounted to nothing more than a difference in leadership and management style that apparently was worth spending about $16,000 a month for her to be gone. This when the district is facing a $3.3 million budget deficit.
I have never been fired from a job before, but I hope if I ever do, it can work out as well as this one. $16,000 a month to fire her? I have friends who have stayed with girlfriends they didn't like just because they needed a ride to work and didn't want to pay for the bus.
The board has to wonder, will this be easy for taxpayers, and voters, to swallow?
(NOTE: I am not saying their decision to fire her was wrong or right. What do I know? Exactly. Nothing, which, conveniently, is my point. When you fire someone after rehiring them and decide to pay them bags of money a month - granted it will probably be in check form, like one of those giant checks they give for winning a golf tournament - you should have a really good reason. A REALLY good reason. Not a, well, she butted heads with the Spanish teacher and you have a difference of opinion on positive reinforcement versus constructive criticism. I mean, you rehired her, shouldn't you already know her management style? Your reason better be that she was somehow detrimental to the education of the school children or seriously hampered the work environment, otherwise what reason is there?)
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
A quick note going back to the recent impasse between Glendora and the municpal employees association where the council forced a one year contract on the association with several concessions.
In years past, the City Manager or other members of the city's executive team would handle negotiations with the association. This year the city hired Richard Kreisler to handle negotiations for the city with all its employee associations, teamed with Deputy City Manager Brenda Fischer and Finance Director Josh Betta.
The total cost for Kreisler's services (contracted through Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore Legal Fees)
is $42,797 since March 2010.
Kreisler's pay breaks down like this:
He was paid $6,682.05 for work ending March 31, 2010.
- $1,296 for work on the Glendora Manager's Association.
- $1,039.05 for work on the Glendora Municipal Employees Association.
- $2,727 for work with the Police Officer's Association.
- $1,620 for work with the Police Manager's Association
For work completed between April 1 and April 30, he was paid $9,855.
- $5,427 for work with GMA.
- $1,161 for work with GMEA.
- $324 for work with POA.
- $2,943 for work with PMA.
For work between May 1 and May 31 he received $6,804.
- $2,106 for GMA
- $2,889 for GMEA
- $783 for POA
- $1,026 for PMA
For work between June 1 and June 30 he was paid $10,681.32. All of that work was with the GMEA. He was also paid $1,701 for work with the GMA during that time.
For work between July 1 and July 31, he received $6,993 for work with the GMEA.
He finally received $81 for work with the GMA at the end of July.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
I got an interesting letter from a reader last week who wanted to comment on my previous post exploring the merits of public vs. private employee pay and benefits.
She wasn't able to post a comment on the story at the time, so I am taking the liberty to post her letter here. Enjoy.
I work as an accountant in the private sector, but have also worked in public sector. I see all the salary information, pension agreements, I can see personal files, level of education. I built excel sheets where I import salary data against level of education, and guess what, Ted? (Note: My friends from high school call me Ted. I hate it. My name is Daniel. UPDATE: I was not implying Allison is my friend. She isn't. She accidentally called me Ted, which, sadly, isn't uncommon) If you get an education, you make more than those who don't, across the board. The real losers in this game are the people that believe that they suffer from outlier syndrome, and think that showing up for work everyday on time with no education beyond high school is going to make them a millionaire. We have raised, in my opinion, two generations of individuals that live under the entitlement system, they feel underpaid because they are so out of touch with reality.
The reality is that an employee is an expense and a liability to an employer, public and private. The people that get paid well, understand their place on the balance sheet and income statement. They are involved with the business more than just 9 to 5. They seek out new business, bring ideas about cost reduction. They don't use up every hour of their sick allowance or personal days. In short, they minimize their expense to the company and maximize their
ability to contribute to income. Have you ever met a dedicated employee that also takes every single paid day off that they can? Is this in the best interest of the company to have an employee out on personal leave, sick leave, and also vacation 20 to 30 business days a year? It's work, not get paid to feel important while your at home playing with your G4 phone.
If I went to our CEO and started telling that person I was underpaid and deserved a COLA adjustment, there's a high probability that I would be laid off, because that request is not rooted in reality. Human beings are priceless. Employees are expenses that must be managed for a business to remain profitable, or for a public service agency to maintain funds for appropriate
programming.
In the coming decade, we are going to have the crap taxed out of business and individuals, so we are still in a trend where there are going to be fewer and fewer resources. The time for belt tightening is here, and won't have any real upward movement for several years. We will have a better economy and better pay when the indicators start perking up, new home starts, jobless
claims, CPI, etc. Those indicators are very real, and are the reason everyone
can't "make bank" like we did in the 90's.
Peace,
Allison
I don't want to dissect this in depth, but I do want to offer up a couple comments.
First, I think her initial hypothesis is right and wrong. I went to college and I have plenty of friends with degrees who are underpaid and overworked. In fact, much of the empirical data (and here) out now suggests a college degree doesn't exactly mean you are going to be swimming with Scrooge McDuck. That may contribute to people's perception of being under paid, i.e., they believe they should be paid more because their worth - based on education, intelligence, experience, etc. - is more than their value - actual job duties.
As for the paragraph on valuable employees who go beyond what is asked, I think the conundrum a lot of people face today is motivation and priorities. For career driven individuals whose work is their life, this statement makes sense and the ends justify the means.
For the average worker, they believe the basic 9-5 aspects of their job, done well, are credit enough to earn a wage that allows them to provide for their family, live somewhat comfortably (I'm not talking Mariah Carey comfortable) have security, the ability to continue their way of life past retirement, and - the big change in today's world - the opportunity to have a life outside work that provides fulfillment. Is that possible when - in order to get a raise, better pay, have job security - you are actually not asked to do your job, you are asked to do your job and someone else's? Is that fair? Does fair matter?
Last, I want to address this statement: "Human beings are priceless. Employees are expenses that must be managed for a business to remain profitable, or for a public service agency to maintain funds for appropriate programming."
Employees hate to hear they are a dime a dozen. Even more, they hate to be looked at as mules, there to be worked to provide for someone else's riches. But Allison's point can't be overlooked. Businesses have to do what is necessary to survive at times. What is difficult is being able to tell when it is survival and when it is greed. (On both sides of the coin, employees and employers)
In the end, what is the more successful business? One where managers are able to boost production and profit at all costs and keep a select group of executives highly paid and successful or one where the mass of employees are happy and successful and the profit margin is marginalized?
Depends on your definition of success.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
That is a question I have been thinking about lately while covering the ongoing dispute between the city of Glendora and its municipal employees association as well as when looking at the salaries of various city employees.
Is the private sector employee rife against the higher pay and much better benefits public employees receive caused by an objective discontent with the misuse of public funds or is it just because their jealous?
When talking about merit increases, benefits, salaries, concessions, etc., many of the Glendora council members tried to make a case for their argument to impose concessions on the employees association by saying, basically, you still have it better than the private sector.
Getting raises for "satisfactory" performance wouldn't happen in the private sector, Mayor Ken Herman said. And most people agree that government pensions are much better (in terms of compensation) than 401Ks or social security.
And make the argument all you want about the need for pension reform and how CALPERS is a drain on government, that is now what I am talking about here.
The question is this: Do private sector jobs pay for the work employees do? Think about it. How many people out there believe they are paid what they deserve?
No idea? That's OK. Gallup has a poll for you.
In a 2008 Gallup Poll, half of Americans believed they were underpaid and only 3 percent believed they were overpaid. Middle and lower income earners made up a large portion of those feeling they weren't getting their dues.
So, hypothetically speaking, if private sector workers are often underpaid, wouldn't that distort our objectivity or perception when evaluating the pay of someone, who on average, makes more than us for the same job - such as public employees?
That makes me wonder: who has it right? Public pay or private pay?
You have to acknowledge the possibility - especially given the fact that private company CEOs, board members and executives pull in million dollar + salaries - that the public sector may pay its middle and lower wage employees closer to their worth rather than overpaying for the same jobs that pay less in the private sector.
If that is the case, should officials and the public make the comparison to private employee pay as much as they do, when being critical of high pay for public employees - or should it be vice versa? Should we be critical of private pay and look to the public sector as a (gasp!) good example?
I am not claiming to know the answer, but it is within the realm of possibility.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Rosemead City Manager Jeffrey Allred got his raise Tuesday, 2.5 percent.
The bump in pay pushed the city executive's pay from $175,000 to 179,375.
The raise came despite a city projection of a $1 million drop in revenues for this fiscal year.
Councilman Stephen Ly justified the raise because of Allred's "stellar" performance and the fact that city services remain intact.
Read more the online story here.
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Since I had already gone running and screaming out the door for my week long summer vacation by the time my city clerk salary story was published in the newspaper, here are some footnotes on the story that I can now share since I have been restored to the working-class real world.
San Dimas - who is noted in the story as not responding to public records request in time for the story - responded the Monday following the article's publish date. The city clerk's annual salary is $99,600.
In fairness, Debra Black noted the city responded within the 10-day window allowed for records requests by law. Although, I submitted the request to the very person the request pertained to, so I didn't think it would take too long.
Here is a letter from Christian G. Shalby, executive director of the International Institute of Municipal Clerks:
Dear Mr. Tedford,
I just read your August 15 article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on City Clerk Salaries and found it highly interesting, informative and a clear depiction of the Municipal Clerk profession.
As Executive Director of the International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC), I couldn't agree more with your assessment on the value of the Clerk's profession. It is unheralded and often misunderstood, but important to the mix and function of municipalities. Mr. Johnson's comments also ring true, especially when it comes to handling elections and important city filings.
As much as some people may frown at the high salaries, they're comparatively low when you weigh in on the responsibility assigned to this position.
IIMC is a professional nonprofit association with more than 10,000 members throughout North America and 15 other countries, representing municipalities with populations of 1,000 to more than 8 million. The Organization has been in existence since 1947. We prepare our membership to meet the challenge of the diverse role of the Municipal Clerk by providing services and continuing educational development opportunities in 45 permanent college-and university-based learning centers. IIMC offers Municipal Clerks a Certified Municipal Clerk Program (CMC), a Master Municipal Clerk Academy (MMCA) Program and other opportunities to benefit members and the government entities they serve.
I appreciate your time and the well-written article.
Thank you.
Chris
Jane, an eager reader, is a little upset the story didn't focus more on Santa Fe Springs and a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Tedford,
You mention in your article the salaries for the City Clerks in California are sometimes high and in the case of Santa Fe Springs, the City Manager functions as the City Clerk, isn't it a big conflict of interest since the city clerk handles the city elections and is one of the most delicate and sensitive duties that the city clerk has? How is that this is allowed? or the City Manager did not want to provide the salary information for the residents of Santa Fe Springs so your readers be fully informed. Also, it will be convenient to inform your readers of the specific duties that a City Clerk does in a given city.
Please provide an answer to this request. Thank you for providing these kind of information to your reading audience.
Jane (last name redacted)
Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune
Recent Comments
toilets on Bejarano in the clear, according to DA report: I was suggested this blog by way of my cousin. I am no longer positive ...
house maid cleaning san mateo on Applebee's may soon be coming to Azusa's neighborhood. Is that who you want?: Great post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I am in ...
Onlineagentur Leipzig on UPDATED: Rep. Gary Miller celebrates Social Media Day by joining Twitter: This article gives clear idea designed for the new visitors of bloggin ...
airport transfer on La Verne's Johnson steps down from redevelopment agency: I just like the helpful info you supply for your articles. I'll bookma ...
Deferred Annuities on La Puente reinstates employee gift card program: Tremendous issues here. I'm very glad to peer your article. Thank you ...
essay writing service on UPDATED: No Bell type salaries in local San Gabriel Valley cities: You interested me in your professional data. Therefore, I will try to ...
MinnieHunt30 on 12 local cities get with the program, put easy links to salaries on city homepage: A fantastic research will be in society’s memory forever. If you go fo ...
RoweELLA on Walnut school board fires recently rehired superintendent, justifies thousands lost by saying split was 'amicable' (wait...what?): Not many people approach the universities' hight just because a few of ...
LynneHooper on A weekend to remember (and look, you can with this recap! How nice.): Strive to take any chance that life gets you! Thence, writing firms gi ...